I very much appreciate both your in-depth answers. I am aware of the fact that the game is in late development stages; still I would like to reply and comment. I appreciate the discussion.
That's correct, currently the battalion level HQs are not simulated.
I guess this is the first thing I hear, that would drive me away from the game. After all, it is called Armored Brigade. How is Brigade-Level leadership simulated, if not even Battalion-Level C2 is present?
One person told me that even the category purchase limits are too restrictive for the player. So, it's pretty much a matter of taste.
The new game will have auto-purchaser "availability" values for every formation a faction has. That helps the AI to pick more realistic forces.
Yes, in the end, it is a matter of taste. You will always find people to disagree with you. So what is left in the end is a sensible decision as a designer that you can live with and that you can defend. I guess that's where your job as designer gets awefully close to military leadership.
It is good to hear about the auto-buyer feature.
Pillboxes represent all kinds of small concrete or steel pillboxes and emplacements, often prefabricated, but also reinforced rock-fill wall bunkers and timber-and-earth structures. Almost every major combatant doctrinally had those for semi-permanent or permanent defensive lines (in AB, they are only available when "dug-in + fortified" is selected), used integrally with field fortifications, especially in key or exposed positions.
Their purpose is to provide supplementary fire protection during initial action against separate, advancing enemy elements. With Soviets, for example, such fortified machine-gun emplacements are built on, or in front of, the forward edge of the strongpoint. Flanking emplacements were provided for converging, flanking, and oblique fire to repulse frontal attacks.
As for manning, it is not really an issue, as a heavy weapon/fire support squads/platoon (depending on nation and doctrine) are generally used as a support group to a number of other platoons in the immediate command area/zone in question. In Armored Brigade, such formations are clearly not represented as large independent units, but as separate sections that can be acquired according to a specific mission. For example, British battalion level Drums Platoon could provide three GPMG SF sections with each consisting of two guns. In addition, up to three sniper pairs and an assault pioneer unit of up to one section could be held in the HQ company or in rifle companies or not exist depending on unit manning and the interests of commander. You cannot buy Drums Platoon as formation, but you can take extra MGs or have them manning those pillboxes.
Thank you nikolas for all your extensive answers.
I am aware of the use of "Pillboxes" and similar structures. I don't quite go d'accord with the idea, that pillboxes are the sum of all non-represented weapon teams and act sort of a "collection basin". So the number of pillboxes should depend on the number of Platoons I bought that potentially have Weapon Teams? If I don't play with fortifications, am I basically "missing" Weapon Teams since they are no longer represented by any unit?
I would maintain the position that Infantry at deployment, given a fortification Scenario, could start in "Pillboxes" and can vacate them once they move. Thanks though for elaborating your thoughts on this.
It makes database creation a far more streamlined process (TO&E and OOB changes were very common), but most importantly it is vital for AI: for example, BTR regiments have antitank platoons (directly supporting rifle companies) within the MRBs, a feature not found in the BMP regiments, however flexible AI cannot really know without scripting that a separate AT Plt should follow a certain company. In that specific case, I decided to give BTR squads an AT-7 specialist (a peculiar exception that is also in freeware database, but it seems nobody ever cared about that). A very crude solution, but it actually works as it was intended in real life, except AT-7 teams are not following in separate vehicles.
I haven't played RED yet, but I think your workaroudn is quite neat.
I fully understand your point, we are too well aware that auto-buyer is, for example, not mindful of higher level doctrinal mixes (too much mixing of unit types: you would typically have only one generation of APC/MBT in each line formation; possibly two if modelling a unit boundary, with different equipment, and occasionally additional types of vehicle in limited numbers within support formations (including recon). Or, that while a unit may be rare - it does tend to be common in those few units equipped with it.
However, work and time involved in fixing such idiosyncracies are likely not cost-effective (particularly at this point of development): you have scenarios and manual selection if you want highly accurate OOBs.
I understand and agree
A Marder Company under Heeresstruktur 4 (i.e. the 1980s org) had three platoons, each with 3x Marders. There was no Platoon Commander's mount, so he and his senior NCO would each ride in one of the platoon's rifle section Marders. There were two Marders in the Company HQ – the 2nd Marder in the HQ was the company's 'Reserve Section', which was a 10th rifle section under the company commander's direct command, with a secondary reconnaissance role.
I see, we agree on the companies OOB. Do you have sources for HStru IV and the role of the independent Squad in particular?
1) Helicopter commander receives orders to plan for deployment on order to the designated battle position. This is a zone with a line of sight to the desired engagement area and some sort of protective terrain to hide behind. These battle positions are usually designated at brigade or higher HQs in coordination with supported units (for example, attack helicopter units in the US Army are never OPCON to an echelon below brigade). In nearly all cases, they are allocated before the battle during the mission planning process. Generally, several mission alternatives are provided, with various trigger points.
I see, this might be a doctrinal difference and a bit of a misunderstanding, which is my fault.
I agree that RW CAS is pre-planned in general. From my experiences, (reading reports about 80s Bn-excercises and contemporary real-life experience) the BPs are not, if deployed in support of a Bn. But that can be FRG doctrine. Your Method of Engagement is most certainly true for Brig-Level deployment. I can get behind the current in-game mechanic.
Veitikka talks about a way of HQs to call in CAS, I will have a look at that, although I am not sure wheather that is in the freeware game already?
Yes, there was a discussion regarding US company headquarters. At least until J-series organization in mid-to-late 1980s, there were 2 x HQ vehicles (one for the commander, and a second for his XO, and/or his supporting troops, RTO, medics, and Forward Observers). There were some instances of MANPAD sections being directly attached to company command, but otherwise, they would operate fairly independently. That is in stark contrast with Soviets, who handled MANPADs way down to platoon and section level. I guess NATO forces were more relaxed over low-level ADA in the peacetime as they usually operated under full air superiority most of the time.
We will see what will be player's feedback on the reworked database.
I was referring to German ArmInfCoy's, not Us. The MANPAD seems to be misplaced there.
Ground Surveillance Radars?
Can the Milan of the Marder dismount with the leg units?
SMArt 155 for FRG artillery?
Best regards, happy new years,