Matrix Games Forums

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41War in the East: Lost Battles is here!Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play videoLost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!A sneak peek from Allied Corps!Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!All good Deals always come in threesDistant Worlds: Shadows Approaches!Lost Battles AAR: Moscow 41		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The Infantry

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> RE: The Infantry Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Infantry - 8/18/2012 4:34:43 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		So now you will supply some information to back up your new suppositions?

In any case, the 'Ambush' destroyed a follow-on force of tanks that erroneously had supply trucks interlaced among the tanks themselves. It would hardly have made much of a scenario as the one-sided ambush received no return fire. So I doubt you would get much 'color' from that.

Also, Carius makes it clear he thought little of the light armored halftracks and favored the VW. I don't think VW's really add much t6o a game but to each his own.

You seem to be arguing out of pure ego-ism at this point. But its amusing. Try backing up your brain-storms with facts.

You have no means whatsoever to mention the ricochet since you have no idea where it took place or even what caused it. It could have been a long range sniper shot from the rear. So, whether you quoted accurately or not, you are making leaps of logic that just don't hold water.

(in reply to spellir74)
Post #: 31
RE: The Infantry - 8/18/2012 8:27:00 AM   
Rick

 

Posts: 11598
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline
quote:

You seem to be arguing out of pure ego-ism at this point. But its amusing. Try backing up your brain-storms with facts.



Please try to keep personal comments out of this discusion.

Thanks
rick


< Message edited by Rick -- 8/18/2012 8:28:09 AM >

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 32
RE: The Infantry - 8/19/2012 2:40:18 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8729
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online 		Hesitation in carrying out orders could be added for more realism. Hesitation in movement and hesitation in firing. The better quality troops have less, those closer to or with a NCO unit has less. Pinned and suppressed have much more.
Troops with lots of ammo and grenades have less assaulting an enemy position or tank. Those low on ammo and grenades are less willing to get close to a tank or enemy position. Grenade supply of each squad could just be rated high, medium, low, without an exact count.

(in reply to Rick)
Post #: 33
RE: The Infantry - 8/19/2012 4:19:13 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

As far as grenades...the evidence here does not support the claims above.

http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/topics/casualties/surgeon_general/p_ch3.htm


Interesting article. The problem with those types of studies is that they are so generic.

Those figures are for all types of combat. What we are looking for is when infantry assault a position. There are other factors to a weapons effectiveness other than pure physical results as well. It doesn't take into account the number of participants stunned by grenades that were then shot, and I didn't see a result of multiple wounds unless that would be the "all other" category. That leaves open to interpretation which wounds were counted as the cause of death if the man was wounded by a grenade and shot.

The report does show what's been known for some time about the lethality of mortars.

Small arms is also not broken down between rifles and machineguns.

The study is too generic for any substantial conclusions to be drawn either way.

As an example, bombs and rockets are shown to cause an almost identical percentage of casualties as mortars. That seems unreasonably high. The disparity in numbers of bomb/rocket attacks vs mortar attacks alone would create a much larger difference I would think. Either that, or bomb and rockets were tremendously effective, while mortars would be seemly extremely ineffective. I think, in real life the exact opposite was true.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 8/19/2012 4:21:08 PM >

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 34
RE: The Infantry - 8/19/2012 4:46:55 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8729
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online 		OTOH, if a studyalways confirmed what one would expect, why have a study?

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 35
RE: The Infantry - 8/19/2012 5:52:52 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Those kinds of studies are usually done with the end result well in hand before starting them. The US military is a past master of doing that.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 36
RE: The Infantry - 8/19/2012 5:56:10 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		I basically posted it in regards to the statement 'Grenades are the deadliest weapons infantry have', or words to that effect.

Grenades are only effective under infrequent circumstances. Otherwise, these cheap weapons that can be produced with a minimum of machining and resources would win the war.

In many infantry firefights, mortars and MG's and rifles keep infantry with grenades from even getting close enough to use them. The limited range one can hurl these (I threw a live grenade about 25m), naturally limits them to close-in fighting. Battlefields like the jungle and hedgerows and fighting in urban areas are naturally going to show the grenade to be important. But I hope to never see a Panzer Command jungle or even a Normandy battlefield. So that mostly leaves street fighting.

I like Mobius' idea in regards to a generic level of supply on grenades. I see no point, besides anal retentiveness, as far as tracking grenades individually or by type for that matter.

I just went through the manual and was wondering exactly HOW grenades figure into firepower or assaulting etc. I am not exactly sure.

But another issue is the 'We can see the number of APCR rounds so we need to see the number of grenades' argument. I am actually leaning on NOT seeing the exact number of tank and other units ammunition specifics once the battle starts.

As far as battlefield resupply for armor, I could see a platoon command to 'resupply' and have the platoon withdraw to a board edge and have the individual AFV leave the board and return. Mind you, bombing up a tank takes time. Time to reach the actual source of ammunition, and the slow process of carefully transfer the ammunition, as well as the return trip.

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 8/19/2012 5:58:03 PM >

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 37
RE: The Infantry - 8/19/2012 5:59:49 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

I forgot to add.
Question:
When is an actual event merely anecdotal?
A: When it doesn’t support a game design.
Question:
When is an actual event historical evidence?
A: When it does.


So true.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 38
RE: The Infantry - 8/19/2012 6:13:43 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8729
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
I just went through the manual and was wondering exactly HOW grenades figure into firepower or assaulting etc. I am not exactly sure.
It is seen in the increase in infantry firepower at 30m range from the next longer range band. You notice that the FP of teams, even MG teams does not go up at 30m from the next longer range band.

If the squad were to run out of grenades then the firepower number would have to drop. Drop to what I don't know, maybe that of the next higher range band.

< Message edited by Mobius -- 8/19/2012 7:09:49 PM >

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 39
RE: The Infantry - 8/20/2012 3:11:03 AM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline 		I like the Low, Medium, High ranking for grenades. As stated above, you could use the same for every unit if you wanted. A high rating would allow X nu mber of shots before a ammo check would be made, if the level were to drop then another X number of shots could be fired before susequent checks are made. Infantry squads would never truly run out but would have both their firepower and number of shots limited once it failed an ammo check when it is in Low. Again, you want to keep the immersion going for as long as possible. Ammo counts and assault weapon counts could be worked into the graphic for the unit. It would go far to limit the times that a player has to go to a cut screen or read numbers of ammo ect.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 40
RE: The Infantry - 8/20/2012 6:06:45 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		I would like to see subtleties like panzergrenadier being bumped back up in supply when near a half-track etc. This showing the advantage of mech units to carry ammo. I would like to see similar negative effects to isolated troops.

Also, if a infantry unit is isolated, it's SOP might be downgraded to show it's not capable of such heroics.

(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 41
RE: The Infantry - 8/20/2012 11:47:22 PM   
Andy Brown

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 2/20/2001
Status: offline 		Yoozername,

I think that Mad Russian's fundamental point remains. At the moment we have a game where different aspects of combat are modelled in differing degrees of detail.

Now that's not necessarily bad. In any game, it's always necessary to abstract some things, or even leave them out altogether, and there are numerous aspects of PC: O I'd like to see developed before worrying about grenade inventories.

Nevertheless, that sub-30m firepower bonus exists and it upsets my anally retentive equilibrium to think that a squad can blitz its way from one end of a street to the other using it repetitively. It seems inconsistent with a system that does track smoke grenades which arguably are just as historically applicable to the same activity.

The point you make about the infrequency of close assault casualties is relevant. Added to my limited experience of the PC: O game system, it adds further weight to the argument that grenade inventories are not a high priority. The current system works reasonably well, is of concern apparently to few players and is probably low on the list of features most people want to see improved.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the list.

Cheers,

Andy

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 42
RE: The Infantry - 8/21/2012 12:04:34 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I basically posted it in regards to the statement 'Grenades are the deadliest weapons infantry have', or words to that effect.



I would agree that 'deadliest' could be viewed from many angles. Also, my perspective is from the squad level, the basic building block for the infantry unit equal to a single tank in relationship.

If we want to go up the scale to where you have mortars, artillery, fighter bombers, medium bombers, heavy bombers, or even naval gunfire up to battleship level in support of infantry units....well then, no. I agree they aren't.

Good Hunting.

MR


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 43
RE: The Infantry - 8/21/2012 12:51:00 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 8729
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown
Nevertheless, that sub-30m firepower bonus exists and it upsets my anally retentive equilibrium to think that a squad can blitz its way from one end of a street to the other using it repetitively. It seems inconsistent with a system that does track smoke grenades which arguably are just as historically applicable to the same activity.
That was my objection to bullet/shell counting matter. I would rather an abstraction of out of ammo and weapon stoppage all rolled into one. The player then had an idea that the weapon wasn't usable for a time but in a random amount of time it could be usable again. Maybe ammo resupply or maybe unjam the weapon. It is on the windy side of the Overmind for me.


< Message edited by Mobius -- 8/21/2012 1:02:35 AM >

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 44
RE: The Infantry - 8/23/2012 11:52:48 PM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline 		If you abstract too much then the scale of the game will not match the game's scale as it is now. Maybe the scale that we play at needs to be adjusted.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 45
RE: The Infantry - 8/24/2012 3:45:25 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline 		The issue is where the line gets drawn. How much abstraction or game play vs how much simulation. That's always the dilemma.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 46
RE: The Infantry - 8/26/2012 2:11:10 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		So, this is now a 'game scale' thread because of grenades?

I was looking at some weights of ammo and saw some data regarding US 'pineapple' grenades vs. M1 Garand rifle ammunition. It basically comes down to: Would you rather carry 3 more grenades or 64 more 30 cal rounds?

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 47
RE: The Infantry - 8/26/2012 8:17:21 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline 		There is a weight issue with grenades. No question.

There certainly is with the German grenade bundles.

This discussion is about the infantry combat model as a whole not just grenades.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 48
RE: The Infantry - 8/28/2012 7:21:39 AM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

So, this is now a 'game scale' thread because of grenades?



It all depends at what level we want to give orders at. If we want to give orders all the way down to squad level, maybe the number of grenades needs to be shown as an exact figure. But at platoon level, I don't think so. I mean do we want to issue orders for each squad, where to move, route to follow, who to shoot at, ect., or just order the platoon HQ to move to a certain location, mark out the HQ's route and let the AI move the squads. You could have options in the order menu of the HQ as to how it's squads move, do they stay in heavy cover or light cover, and at what speed do the squads travel at. Targets could be chosen by catagory, attack armor, soft skinned, infantry, MGs ect. The AI would then take care of each squad in the platoon as to it's final location, again modified by your orders through the HQ.
Ehh, just thinking out loud.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 49
RE: The Infantry - 8/28/2012 5:27:54 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		Should the game model rifle grenades individually? Or how about what type of grenade? Both the Germans and the Soviets had a bunch of types. I really don't see the point.

I don't believe grenades are modeled as separate attacks but just fudged into infantry firepower. Similar to ASL actually. I really think that what mobius proposes works good enough for my tastes. To me, PC is really a tank-centric game.

But Ratzki does have some points regarding micromanagement. One of the design goals of PC seems to be a 'platoon-level-game'. Even though smaller elements are depicted.

(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 50
RE: The Infantry - 8/29/2012 4:48:22 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8729
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online 		To me grenades being separated out is not important. I was more interested in the LMG of the squad being separate from the rifles. The rifles fire at their target and the LMG fires at its target. Now in rifle squads the LMG has the same ballistics as the rifle so that is not a problem.
Firepower being all wrapped into one number for both allows only one target being engaged at a time with all the squad's weapons. In that scheme fireteams would rule squads as the laws of small numbers would mathematically favor them.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 51
RE: The Infantry - 8/29/2012 6:45:30 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		Do bow MGs on tanks fire at separate targets than the main gun?

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 8/29/2012 6:47:56 PM >

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 52
RE: The Infantry - 8/29/2012 7:46:10 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8729
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Do bow MGs on tanks fire at separate targets than the main gun?
No. All MGs are combined into one series of factors.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 53
RE: The Infantry - 8/29/2012 10:37:27 PM   
Andy Brown

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 2/20/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

One of the design goals of PC seems to be a 'platoon-level-game'. Even though smaller elements are depicted.


Having played the game for a few weeks now, I'm coming to the conclusion that, unless you are prepared to develop a Panther Games quality AI, designing any kind of wargame above squad level on realistic 3D terrain maps is a pointless exercise.

When playing PC: O, try as I might to think "in platoons", I keep getting dragged back down into the weeds of squad and individual weapon team activities. Unless I am able to give a platoon a task and some geographical constraints (eg, defend THIS village, attack THAT woods from HERE), all I find myself doing is playing Combat Mission with a less capable engine.

The platoon focus may work for AFV combat but, on the Ostfront, AFV combat rarely happened without some sort of reference to other, dismounted activities that PC: O was clearly not developed to recreate in the same detail.

Having said that, I do find that the comparative simplicity of PC: O commands makes playing easier than CM. I find with PC: O that I think mostly about WHAT to do and spend much less time figuring HOW to do it.

But I still end up thinking squads, not platoons.

Cheers,

Andy


< Message edited by Andy Brown -- 8/29/2012 10:39:18 PM >

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 54
RE: The Infantry - 8/29/2012 11:49:28 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8729
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown
When playing PC: O, try as I might to think "in platoons", I keep getting dragged back down into the weeds of squad and individual weapon team activities. Unless I am able to give a platoon a task and some geographical constraints (eg, defend THIS village, attack THAT woods from HERE), all I find myself doing is playing Combat Mission with a less capable engine.

The platoon focus may work for AFV combat but, on the Ostfront, AFV combat rarely happened without some sort of reference to other, dismounted activities that PC: O was clearly not developed to recreate in the same detail.

But I still end up thinking squads, not platoons.

That's not so bad from someone's perspective. Gen. Barry McCaffrey: Learn to see down two levels but command down just one
quote:

... battalion command taught me ... to see down two levels but command down one. When I was a battalion commander I always knew where my platoons were. I knew everything about what platoons were doing -- but I was only about giving orders to company commanders -- period. At every level [of] the chain of command, if you command down one level and see down two levels, it is not very hard to be effective.

link
So if you command at the platoon level, know where your squads are and what they are doing.

_____________________________

All your Tanks are Belong to us!

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 55
RE: The Infantry - 8/30/2012 12:10:47 AM   
Andy Brown

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 2/20/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

So if you command at the platoon level, know where your squads are and what they are doing.


Exactly my point. As a company commander, I need to know what my squads are doing but I shouldn't command them directly, hence the need for a well developed AI.

As a battalion commander (arguably still within the scope of PC: O), I need to be commanding companies but thinking platoons, which probably expands that AI requirement.

Otherwise, like I said, I'm merely playing Combat Mission using a less-developed engine. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that (PC: O does have one or two features that CM lacks) but I'd argue that, overall, it's pretty obvious which is the better SQUAD level game.

Andy


< Message edited by Andy Brown -- 8/30/2012 12:23:49 AM >

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 56
RE: The Infantry - 8/30/2012 12:34:37 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 8729
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online 		Using a lot of resources to come up with a humanistic AI may not be all that useful. Especially, if it does have human tendencies it may not behave like a player wants it to behave.
quote:

The strategies of the Commander, on the other hand, involve not simply making a decision; just giving his troops an objective and then walking away wouldn't be a very effective or efficient way for a commander at the company level to run a battle. Instead, the commander takes what all of his men are telling him (both with their reports (platoons) and with the actions that they take (squads)) and turns that into a successful battle. If, for instance, a platoon has attempted to assault a pair of buildings and the commander notes that two of the squads involved are currently spending their time finding cover rather than attacking, he most likely would decide to support the attacking units with more suppressive fire. If, at the same time an enemy force attacked another of his platoons, however, the commander would likely order the assaulting platoon to withdraw and commit his reserves against the attacking enemy force.

In addition, more often than not, the people under the commander are not contributing to the overall solution unless the commander has resolved exactly what that solution is. The chances of a unit wasting their time are high; they do not know, nor are they required to know, what else is going on. It is the commander's job to make all of these units work together, and to ensure that a solution a) has been found and b) has a high likelihood of success.


(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 57
RE: The Infantry - 8/30/2012 2:11:42 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		CMx1 was not realistic. Not on the level of Armor or Infantry. It was just some fun stuff for those ASL fans to do on a computer. It was made by Civvies. It showed. Combined with the lack of Relative-Spotting, it was just a good intro into what computers could do for the ASL crowd.

I want to directly contradict these assertions that a infantry squad is equivalent to a single tank at some level. In WWII, the basic infantry squad did not have weapons, communications, mobility, teamwork or many other battle aspects that armor has. Some armored infantry units MIGHT approach these 'tank-qualities' but most infantry types WON'T.


(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 58
RE: The Infantry - 8/30/2012 2:29:46 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		Before I forget, again, my pet peeve with Wargames at this level is the lack of 'Command-Posts'. If you read accounts of battles during WWII, the importance of command posts becomes especially important to infantry battles. Some accounts seem to reveal that WWII was just moving command posts forward or backward. Actually, games should 'award' flags based on not just friendlies in the area but who has the closest CP to that flag.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 59
RE: The Infantry - 8/30/2012 4:02:33 AM   
Andy Brown

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 2/20/2001
Status: offline 		Mobius,

Not sure what you're quoting there (more of Gen McCaffrey?) but I think you've made my point. If PC: O is not to be just another squad-based game, and if the 3D terrain model is to be retained, then all the intra-platoon stuff you allude to needs to be automated.

Yoozername,

CMx1 is yesterday. Sure, lots of people still play CMx1 but CMx2 is, IMO, the way things are going and the model from which PC: O needs to differ.

In many combat models, it often makes sense organizationally to equate squads or heavy weapons teams with AFVs. This implies nothing about their relative combat powers.

Good point about command posts, although I would argue that the commander more likely to be successful is one prepared to leave his CP when required and control his battle from a tac HQ closer to the front. At company level, tac HQ and CP may be synonymous. At battalion level, even in WW2, they are more likely to be separate entities. The admin and coord functions required at battalion level are usually performed better by a CP staff removed from the action than by a command group looking for a good place from which to control a fight.

Cheers,

Andy

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> RE: The Infantry Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.258