Update on 1.03

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

I have to agree with Deputy.

There are supply vehicles available already, but are designed to act as high point grabs for certain scenario types for a particular campaign format that is played at The Blitz. You could not find them in LCG's, DCG's or typical scenarios.

If you send me your campaign file, Deputy, I can remove all the trucks from your oob. Doing that means you will have no trucks, ever.

Jason Petho

Thanks for the offer Jason...much as I'm tempted, there are rare occasions when I use trucks. What I WOULD like is a button or option (perhaps in the section where we choose the weapon facing/fog of war/etc., options) to remove ALL transport prior to the start of the scenario. Either that, or locate ALL the truck transport at the bottom of the player side of the map at the beginning of each scenario so that they can be easily removed. I don't understand why truck transport is scattered all over the map at the beginning anyway. Truck drivers weren't stoopid back in WW2. They knew they were sitting ducks for air attacks as well as any artillery or armored that spotted them. They normally left the front lines immediately after dropping off any troops or cargo.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Deputy
Thanks for the offer Jason...much as I'm tempted, there are rare occasions when I use trucks. What I WOULD like is a button or option (perhaps in the section where we choose the weapon facing/fog of war/etc., options) to remove ALL transport prior to the start of the scenario. Either that, or locate ALL the truck transport at the bottom of the player side of the map at the beginning of each scenario so that they can be easily removed. I don't understand why truck transport is scattered all over the map at the beginning anyway. Truck drivers weren't stoopid back in WW2. They knew they were sitting ducks for air attacks as well as any artillery or armored that spotted them. They normally left the front lines immediately after dropping off any troops or cargo.

They are scattered because the program that lays them out is stupid. An inherent flaw with DCG's, of course.

One day that will hopefully be remedied, but until then, at least there is the DCG set up mode where you can move your units around prior to starting the scenario.

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

Protecting the trucks better is the idea.  The change in the VP isn't motivated by supply concerns; it's motivated by the use of trucks in unrealistic ways.

Mraah's suggestions would motivate the player to keep the trucks on the map but well-protected.  I sympathize with Deputy's remarks.  Mraah's suggested changes would probably complicate the game without a corresponding increase in fun.  I don't consider CS an overly complicated games.  SPWAW has a lot more minutia.  I think one of CS's strenghts is its relative simplicity, and supply is one of the areas CS is at its simplest.

Are riderless horses, pack horses, and horse-drawn wagons still one VP?  They too could be used to draw off op fire or to scout for minefields.  On the other hand, horses and wagons don't represent nearly the investment or the greater capabilities and range of a truck.

I like the idea of low 1 VP per SP penal platoons for drawing off op fire and scouting for minefields, especially for the Soviets.  I believe I've seen penal platoons in the Soviet OOB, but I think they worked more like militia - low attack and assault values and 2 VP per SP.  That's probably more accurate than my 1 VP per SP suggestion, although I've read of the Soviets sending unarmed men forward for no other purpose than to draw fire so the Soviets could identify the German defensive positions.  I've also read of instances of unarmed villagers being marched through suspected mined areas, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn prisoners were used for the same purpose.  I think both the Germans and the Soviets found means to serve the same function that players have been using trucks for, but I don't think either the Germans or the Soviets used trucks in that way, so I'm not against raising the VP value of the trucks.  There might be a better argument whether the VP should be 2 instead of 3 VP per SP.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
There might be a better argument whether the VP should be 2 instead of 3 VP per SP.

Something else to keep in mind that there is the ability for a 3SP truck to carry a 6SP infantry type platoon. Crew served weapons remain the same; a 4SP MG platoon still requires a 4SP truck to carry it. This means that half the trucks are shown on the map:

TALONSOFT: (Generic Motorized Company)
Rifle Platoon
Rifle Platoon
Rifle Platoon
MG Platoon
Trucks (6SP)
Trucks (6SP)
Trucks (6SP)
Trucks (6SP)

MCS: (Generic Motorized Company)
Rifle Platoon
Rifle Platoon
Rifle Platoon
MG Platoon
Trucks (3SP)
Trucks (3SP)
Trucks (3SP)
Trucks (4SP)

So instead of the 4 truck platoons of 6SP each at 1VP worth a total of 24 Victory Points that you would have found with the Talonsoft version, you now have 13 SP's of trucks worth 39 Vicitory Points in total.

While the trucks are worth more, there are fewer of them. Yes, the point value is worth more, but not as much it could be if the SP level was left at 6SP per truck.

Jason Petho

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


They are scattered because the program that lays them out is stupid. An inherent flaw with DCG's, of course.

One day that will hopefully be remedied, but until then, at least there is the DCG set up mode where you can move your units around prior to starting the scenario.

Jason Petho

LOL...thanks for your honesty Jason!!!!
One of the reasons I never take commands higher than battalion commander is the hassle of removing all those transport vehicles and taking all the combat units out of direct line of sight on each intial setup.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Deputy


LOL...thanks for your honesty Jason!!!!

No problem!

It is what it is.

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

Regarding VP and trucks, under Talonsoft, 1 SP of a large tank could carry 2 SP of infantry, and my recollection was 1 SP of truck could carry only 1 SP of infantry under Talonsoft, which, in retrospect, seems odd. 

The 2 SP of infantry in 1 SP of truck is something new, isn't it?

Regardless, 3 VP per 1 SP of truck makes more sense as Jason sets it out.

When setting up a scenario, the default is always 6 SP of trucks per platoon unless you edit them down.  When playing scenarios, frequently the SP for truck platoons are not edited down for things like artillery, mortars, machine guns, or nonmotorized leaders, which frequently are  less than 6 SP, so you'll have excess trucks.  This excess further encourages the use of trucks as bait for op fire, because you could lose a few trucks and still manage to move the artillery or whatever else you were transporting.

I noticed in the Albanian OOB that a partisan company would have three platoons of infantry and one platoon of pack horses.  The pack horses have nothing to carry, so I wasn't sure why they were included.  I assumed they were there as a type of supply pack horse that contributed nothing to the actual fighting (or supply, for that matter) but whose loss would penalize your side.  I would imagine partisans would work in remote areas and would travel with pack horses. Losing a pack horse would be a serious setback. Meril's Marauders in Burma relied very heavily on pack horses or mules.  Anyone got any other ideas why a partisan infantry platoon would have a pack horse platoon?     

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

Regarding VP and trucks, under Talonsoft, 1 SP of a large tank could carry 2 SP of infantry, and my recollection was 1 SP of truck could carry only 1 SP of infantry under Talonsoft, which, in retrospect, seems odd. 

The 2 SP of infantry in 1 SP of truck is something new, isn't it?

Yes, it was implemented with 1.02. I have gone through the new order of battles and the SP change is reflected in the trucks of most organizations.

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
Regardless, 3 VP per 1 SP of truck makes more sense as Jason sets it out.

Thanks for the support!

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
When setting up a scenario, the default is always 6 SP of trucks per platoon unless you edit them down.  When playing scenarios, frequently the SP for truck platoons are not edited down for things like artillery, mortars, machine guns, or nonmotorized leaders, which frequently are  less than 6 SP, so you'll have excess trucks.  This excess further encourages the use of trucks as bait for op fire, because you could lose a few trucks and still manage to move the artillery or whatever else you were transporting.

That is the first thing I look for when assessing a scenario, if the designer has taken the time to match the transport with the units.

With the coming oob revisions, you shouldn't have to do this for the Germans (EF), Americans (WF) and Russian/Soviets(EF&WF) as the appropriate trucks strengths should be assigned.

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
I noticed in the Albanian OOB that a partisan company would have three platoons of infantry and one platoon of pack horses.  The pack horses have nothing to carry, so I wasn't sure why they were included.  I assumed they were there as a type of supply pack horse that contributed nothing to the actual fighting but whose loss would penalize your side.  I would imagine partisans would work in remote areas and would travel with pack horses.  Anyone got any other ideas why a partisan infantry platoon would have a pack horse platoon?     

Whomever created the order of battle for the Albanians either forgot to include the machinegun platoon, or added the pack horses by accident.

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

Regarding the Albanian parisan companies, I also thought the pack horses would come in handy if there were motars or machine guns, as they would otherwise have trouble keeping up with the infantry.  I would think in mountainous terrain, where moving artillery pieces would be difficult, motars would be invaluable.  You're probably right though.  Whoever designed the OOB probably intended to add a machinegun platoon and forgot.  That's what I ended up doing -- adding a machingun or motar platoon.

[timshin42]

Not trying to be confrontational, but if you are not doing logistics, you are not doing anything that even remotely resembles combat . From an artillery perspective, managing ASR and RSR of ammunition is as important as fire planning and fire support coordination.

The original proposal for sophisticated supply truck rules is very interesting, but also very tedious [>:]and complicated for the player who thrives on pure maneuver with maybe a bit of indirect and air fire support. And there is nothing wrong with that as a personal preference.[:)]

I would welcome any features that add OPTIONAL features to enhance fire support and logistic dimensions to the combat simulations that we all obviously love!

[Tim41]

Most Soviet Rifle Divisions past 1941 have Penal Battalions (see Russia At War 1941-1945, A. Werth). It would be more realistic to use these troops for purposes aleady stated, but they do not appear in the old game oob as far as I know-awaiting 1.03 before playing the new again. As a substitute, I use a low value unit like a truck (sometimes imagination is a wargamer's only resource). Had I had Penal units-I would have used them instead. There never seemed to be any lack of troops available for these formations and they were used for a lot of nasty jobs, and this is certainly within the norms for Soviet tactics. Conservation of forces compared with pissing off higher command by not acheiving the objective? In order to stack their battle reports, the casualties from these units were not often reported to higher command (and thus rations to the division were not cut either-providing surplus). The result is that they were never included in the casualties officially acknowledged to this day by Russia. Life was cheap.
Using replacement points for transport is not the way to win campaigns in the long run.
Overcomplication of the supply system was not my suggestion at all. GOD-please no! Playability rules!
Deputy, I was trying to find some answers for your particular problem but removing all your trucks from the game? That was an 'interesting' yet accomodating suggestion from the game moderator. You're better off (for now), using them as cannon fodder. Sounds like we're screwed in future by the point value.

[Jason Petho]

My understanding was that Penal Battalions were Front and/or Army level assets.

Jason Petho

[Jason Petho]

Further, they came into play during the summer of 1942.

An interesting read on the order:

http://www.mishalov.com/Stalin_28July42.html

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

I don't think Talonsoft had penal battalions either.  I'm fairly sure the Matrix version has them and a lot of other new units as well.  I don't think the Matrix penal units are as cheep as the 1 VP per SP trucks though.  Trucks are still better cannon fodder, at least until the 1.03 patch.  On the other hand, the new units may require the use of less imagination.  You may find other units that function better as cannon fodder and who were effectively designed to be used as cannon fodder.
 
A prior bug was engineers that took losses when clearing mine fields.  Penal units could function like those defective engineers units -- they could clear mine fields but at the price of taking some losses.  What was a bug for the engineers could be a deliberate design feature for penal units.
 
 

[1925frank]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho



Further, they came into play during the summer of 1942.

An interesting read on the order:

http://www.mishalov.com/Stalin_28July42.html

Jason Petho

Yes, that's an interesting read. Thank you for the link.

[Tim41]

Pravda editorial of the 28th is covered in depth-PAGES 417-42-, after the fall of Rostov.

[1925frank]

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

A prior bug was engineers that took losses when clearing mine fields.  Penal units could function like those defective engineers units -- they could clear mine fields but at the price of taking some losses.  What was a bug for the engineers could be a deliberate design feature for penal units.

On second thought, it'd probably be simpler just to use penal units to locate mine fields and leave the clearing to engineers.

[Tim41]

Sorry-my typing is lacking today, but the article in Pravda is covered in depth in Werth's book.

[Tim41]

I said 'past 1941'.

[Tim41]

Their use began before Stalingrad after the fall of Rostov-as you say: at the Army or Front level. I mistated, "most Rifle Divisions". Still, the use of Special Brigades and the NKVD is also discussed in Anthony Beevor's, Stalingrad-The Fateful Siege 1942-1943 and he points out that the Red Army itself killed some 13,500 men for various reasons during the battle of Stalingrad alone. At average divisional strengths during the battle-that's at almost three Soviet Divisions, or at best one.
So wasting a couple of trucks does not seem out of place to me...