In Deadly Combat--How'd the Germans do what they did?

[Pete Wenman]

designers simply aren't choosing enough green and conscript troops (with leadership minuses) in their force choices.

Those pesky designers eh !

designers simply aren't choosing enough green and conscript troops (with leadership minuses) in their force choices for the game to play the way I would like it to play.

That's much better.

Keep in mind a few phrases that "sometimes" appear on these forums.

This scenario is too hard,

my men won't move under fire,

my men ignore my commands,

my men all blindly run to their death

I can't win as blue side

I can't win (the same scenario as above) as red side

I can't win (the same scenario as above) as either side

It's too easy to win as ....

It's like herding cats.

It wouldn't be like that in real life.

The scenario does not provide enough time to ...

It's not balanced

The map's too big

The map's too small

There are too many units in play

There are not enough units in play

My uber (choose force of own choosing) aren't veteran and they should be.

My opponents force are veteran and they shouldn't be.

etc

etc

etc

So when it comes to scenario design there are other factors at play. Some enjoy playing with low quality troops, others hate it with a passion.

So what is a scenario designer to do ?

P

[Combatintman]

Pete, if there was a like button, your post above would get one.

[PanzerMike]

And right you are Pete!

+1

[sburke]

Friggin hysterical Pete. One you left out is the designer created a puzzle and you have to figure out the answer.

[76mm]

Those pesky designers eh !

So what is a scenario designer to do ?

Well I think that his point was that designers should use more low quality troops if they are tryng to accurately reflect combat in this period on this front, which I think is rather different from most of the issues raised in your post, which are purely game-design issues (victory conditions, size of map, etc.).

[Pete Wenman]

Well I think that his point was that designers should use more low quality troops if they are tryng to accurately reflect combat in this period on this front, which I think is rather different from most of the issues raised in your post, which are purely game-design issues (victory conditions, size of map, etc.).

And you don't think the two are directly linked ??

P

[A Canadian Cat]

As for ranges/maps mentioned earlier - try Hunting for the Bug. Just got my first 2000m RT kill (Ian again, sorry) and felt oh so very smug.

Damn that hurt too. Not to mention now I know you can see through that tree line in places my trucks are not safe. Every one is scrambling into the woods.

I think I gave the hell back to your AT guns - or at least the ones I knew about. Nice surprises waiting for me...

[76mm]

And you don't think the two are directly linked ??

I think that they are distinct issues, although related to the extent that different players will have different preferences. But I think the point is that if designers are trying to recreate actual historical conditions/situations during Bagration, they should consider generally using more low-quality troops. The question of whether some people wouldn't like playing with low quality troops has nothing to do with whether that would be more historically accurate.

The other issues you raise, re victory conditions, map size, etc. are game design decisions which are purely a matter of player preference, not historical accuracy.

[JasonC]

I'd love more scenarios with low quality troops. But above all I want scenarios with fewer troops - a lot fewer. Designers seem to think putting in as much variety and weight of metal is the route to popularity, and that "challenge" is the next most important thing. So they make hard monstrosities that are painful to play and cannot be finished in a sitting, then they congratulate themselves on how big, involved, and complex they are. Then they complain when we don't shower them with praise for their efforts.

Smaller, guys. Biggest single thing. CMx2 has gone more detailed than CMx1, scenario scale needs to move to match. Take whatever you were planning on doing and drop everything a full unit size (or two, for the giantists among you), and build that instead.

[sburke]

I don't disagree, but in another thread we have folks asking for horse drawn wagons because they want maps big enough to support rear service area troops. Pete's response highlights that no matter what he does it will only please some folks. So what is a designer left to do? If they want historical they strive for that with units that are more representative (and scenarios that are probably more difficult) or they go for something with more interesting game play. Either way their only real guide is to design what they like as they aren't going to please everybody regardless.

The only real answer is more folks have to get into scenario design. You want something different, you may have to contribute and there is the real rub. Folks who keep insisting what is wrong with "most" existing scenarios and then a refusal to contribute. Either the reasoning is "it is too hard and I don't like doing that" or just a slam of the community and a refusal to subject one's work to community review. Either answer is complete BS after critiquing work of those who do give to the community.

[MikeyD]

Lets remember what is meant by 'conscript'. It means the local grammar school teacher pulled out of class, handed a uniform and a gun and told to do his duty. If the unit is competent enough to at least clean and assemble his rifle that would kick him up to 'green' status. I'd imagine by Bagration (which Russia heavily prepared for) the incidents of Russian units at conscript level would be small and shrinking. Once we approach Berlin the incidents of German units at this state would be growing. Fourteen year olds and grandpas handed a Faust and told to go do his duty.

[sburke]

Lets remember what is meant by 'conscript'. It means the local grammar school teacher pulled out of class, handed a uniform and a gun and told to do his duty. If the unit is competent enough to at least clean and assemble his rifle that would kick him up to 'green' status. I'd imagine by Bagration (which Russia heavily prepared for) the incidents of Russian units at conscript level would be small and shrinking. Once we approach Berlin the incidents of German units at this state would be growing. Fourteen year olds and grandpas handed a Faust and told to go do his duty.

Fanatic conscripts. Damn that could be weird.

[JasonC]

Please me, because I am right about what CM is good at simulating.

Simple really...

[YankeeDog]

Lets remember what is meant by 'conscript'. It means the local grammar school teacher pulled out of class, handed a uniform and a gun and told to do his duty. If the unit is competent enough to at least clean and assemble his rifle that would kick him up to 'green' status. I'd imagine by Bagration (which Russia heavily prepared for) the incidents of Russian units at conscript level would be small and shrinking. Once we approach Berlin the incidents of German units at this state would be growing. Fourteen year olds and grandpas handed a Faust and told to go do his duty.

Eh... Not sure this description is completely accurate. Conscripts in CM behave as if they had had at least some basic training on their primary weapon, those assigned to weapons teams know the basics of how to operate an MMG, fire a mortar, etc. They also have at least a rudimentary idea of military drill -- how to move together as a squad etc.

This suggests troops Conscripts in CM have had a bare minimum of military training; perhaps 6 weeks' basic or so, or are untrained levies who have been in uniform long enough to pick up a bare minimum of competence from emulating the more experienced men around them.

I think they could also be used to represent adequately trained but inexperienced (i.e., "Green") troops for whom infantry combat is not the primary trained role -- artillerymen, truck drives, cooks etc. pressed into service as line infantry.

True raw conscripts would be very difficult to model in a game like CM, as they'd be as likely to break a weapon as use it successfully, and would probably frequently misunderstand orders and fail to execute them properly, even when not under the pressure of enemy fire.

[sburke]

Please me, because I am right about what CM is good at simulating.

Simple really...

LOL so simple even a cave man . . .

[JasonC]

YankeeDog wrote "they'd be as likely to break a weapon as use it successfully"

I think you vastly overestimate the complexity of a Mosin Nagant and need to pick one up at the first opportunity. A trained man can certainly fire one more accurately. But a cocker spaniel couldn't break one.

[76mm]

Lets remember what is meant by 'conscript'. It means the local grammar school teacher pulled out of class, handed a uniform and a gun and told to do his duty...I'd imagine by Bagration (which Russia heavily prepared for) the incidents of Russian units at conscript level would be small and shrinking.

There were plenty of this type of conscript in the Soviet army in late 1943 and 1944 which were picked up by the Red Army as they swept through liberated areas, except often they didn't get a uniform either. If I recall correctly, such men were supposed to be sent to the rear for training before being used in combat, but in practice whatever army/front found them would keep them for use in their formations, with virtually no training. Partisans in such areas were treated in a simlar manner, but at least they had more military (or pseudo-military) experience.

You are right that there could be few conscripts in Bagration itself, because the front had been static for a few months and any such conscripts inducted earlier in 1944 would presumably have had time for more training, and plus the Sovs had more opportunity to send trained replacements in the first place. But in the months following Bagration I would think you'd see more rather than less conscripts for the reasons explained above.

Of course they didn't create whole units with such conscripts at this point in the war, but rather they were used as replacements in existing units, so I'm not sure how to best reflect this in CM--I would think you'd water down the overall quality so that squads with a couple of veteran/regular soldiers and the rest conscripts might be "green", etc.

[JonS]

Really? Huh. I didn't realise that the only weapon the Russians used throughout the entire war was the Mosin Nagant rifle. No LMGs, no SMGs, no crew-served weapons. Nothing. Just the ole unbreakable Mosin.

The things you learn when you listen to someone so far up himself, he's almost inside out!

[Combatintman]

Or what the manual says ...

Conscript: draftees with little training and no combat experience whatsoever.

Green: draftees with little training and some combat experience or reservists with

some training and no combat experience. Green can also represent professional

soldiers whose training is substandard in comparison to another force.

Regular: professional soldiers who went through extensive, quality training

programs, but lack combat experience. Or, Regular can represent troops that

received mediocre training that have a fair amount of combat experience.

Veteran: professional soldiers with standard military training and first hand combat

experience. Alternatively, it can be professional soldiers who have trained to a

slightly higher standard than Regulars, yet lack combat experience.

Crack: exceptional soldiers with more than the average training and plenty of

combat experience.

Elite: the best of the best. Superb training, frequent combat experience, and

generally all around tough guys.

[LukeFF]

Given that people reckon there should be plenty of Green troops in the Allied forces in Normandy, and accepting that the Soviets weren't as well trained as them, where should the bar be set other than Conscript?

It's more a problem of people taking descriptions of troop quality far too literally. What I mean by that is that people read in literature that "American troops in the Normandy invasion were green," and so people incorrectly assume that means most American troops in the game should also be of Green quality. It's the same sort of error people make with SS formations - they read about them being the "crack" or "elite" troops of Germany, and so they think that automatically means they should be set to Crack or Elite in the game. In both cases, deeper research is needed to understand what authors exactly mean when using such terms.

[LukeFF]

I think they could also be used to represent adequately trained but inexperienced (i.e., "Green") troops for whom infantry combat is not the primary trained role -- artillerymen, truck drivers, cooks etc. pressed into service as line infantry.

Very much so, yes.

[Sgt Joch]

What 76mm is referring to are "Booty troops", but according to Dunn, "Hitler's Nemesis: The red Army, 1930-45", they probably did not represent more than 10-20% of replacements on a macro level in 44.

Most replacements in 44 were 18 year old draftees who would have had up to 6 months training before being sent to their units and would then receive a few weeks more training with the unit before going into action. Their training level was basically the same as 18 year old draftees in the German or Western Allied army in 44. Whether they should be considered "regulars" or "green" in CM terms is of course debatable.

Regarding "Booty troops", again according to Dunn, they probably broke down into two groups.

The first group would be men in their late 20s or 30s who had previous military training pre-war and some of which had served with Partisans. They were the ones who were sent directly to front line units. The Soviets classified them as "untrained", but they were really re-called reservists. Again whether they should be classified as low motivation regulars or green is debatable.

The second group of "Booty Troops" were young men in their teens or early 20s who had no prior military training. Again according to Dunn, evidence suggests most were probably sent to basic training like the regular replacements.

A "typical" Russian infantry unit in june 44 was probably composed of about one-third freshly arrived 18 year olds, a second group less than one-third composed of veterans, some of which could be in their 40s who would have been with the unit since 41 or 42 and the rest in their late teens, early 20s who would have been with the unit a few months up to 2 years.

[Londoner]

I think that they are distinct issues, although related to the extent that different players will have different preferences. But I think the point is that if designers are trying to recreate actual historical conditions/situations during Bagration, they should consider generally using more low-quality troops. The question of whether some people wouldn't like playing with low quality troops has nothing to do with whether that would be more historically accurate.

The other issues you raise, re victory conditions, map size, etc. are game design decisions which are purely a matter of player preference, not historical accuracy.

Exactly.

We all surely appreciate that having half your force made out of conscripts will not be to some tastes however we're discussing what constitutes a typical Soviet force makeup no? Going by the quoted CM definitions, a mix of conscript and green seems historically appropriate. A mix of low leadership and possibly high motivation could indeed be very interesting and more apt.

Sburke - wasn't meant as a criticism - was only recently praising your amazing Touch of Frost scenario, and totally get it's a tough job - creating both an entertaining and historical scenario, in fact one could argue that the two are almost mutually exclusive, at least in lots of minds.

[PanzerMike]

And were these Booty troops distributed among the Companies/Platoons as replacements, or thrown together in separate Companies/Platoons with more experienced officers to lead them?

[YankeeDog]

YankeeDog wrote "they'd be as likely to break a weapon as use it successfully"

I think you vastly overestimate the complexity of a Mosin Nagant and need to pick one up at the first opportunity. A trained man can certainly fire one more accurately. But a cocker spaniel couldn't break one.

I have fired a Moisin Nagant, and a Springfield. Haven't fired a Mauser 98k but I've fired several of its modern descendants. I'd love to fire an SMLE someday but the opportunity hasn't presented itself yet. I'm no firearms expert but I grew up in a rural hunting community and I was taught my bolt-action rifle basics at a pretty young age.

As already noted, the Moisin-Nagant is hardly the only weapon in the Soviet infantry arsenal, and at least when not pressed by enemy fire, Conscripts in CM do a passable job of handling a broad range of weapons, including some relatively complex ones such as the Maxim MG and 82mm Mortar. If you handed a Maxim to a group of freshly recruited schoolteachers and clerks and just told them to have at it, I expect they'd be lucky to get a dozen rounds out of it before it would jam, and then they'd have no clue as to how to clear it.

Further, while any yutz could probably get a round into the chamber and fire a bolt action rifle in the right general direction, I think the performance of conscripts in CM with bolt-action rifles evidences at least a basic level of competence. Yes, fire by conscripts in CM is fairly inaccurate, but they do usually get the bullets in the general vicinity of the target point, and they manage to keep up a passable rate of fire as long as they're not suppressed. This suggests to me that they know their rifle basics.

And as I'm sure you know, any firearm, even bolt-actions, will fail in the field after a pretty short time if not properly cared for. If you don't do your field maintenance, clean and lubricate the weapon properly, etc., sooner or later the action will freeze, or you'll get something like a failed extraction with a casing stuck in the chamber. In the case of a bolt action, things like this usually don't cause any permanent damage and can be fixed fairly easily, but again, knowing how to e.g., extract a stuck casing this takes some basic knowledge of the firearm and how to maintain it.