buddy Posted September 13, 1999 Share Posted September 13, 1999 Have you considered incorporating trucks and trains into the scenario? Troops were often hauled to and fro via trucking battalions - the "Red Ball Express" is one historic example (US Army), and the Germans even had armored trains I believe with heavy artillery on them. I was just wondering how you guys will take into effect supply lines and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 13, 1999 Share Posted September 13, 1999 I believe the answer here is twofold buddy. 1. The Red Ball Express etc etc were NOT things that occured in small-scale tactical battles. They were organised by the logistics trains of divisions, corps and armies. Hence, not applicable to the scale of CM. 2. CM does have trucks and jeeps etc. The Germans had the Horsch truck and the Kubelwagen. (I've played around with them) and the AMericans have the jeep and some sort of truck. I haven't played a scenario with a US truck in though so I can't remember what version is in. Basically they are in but the kind of large-scale movements you're thinking of aren't suitable for this level of battle. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted September 13, 1999 Share Posted September 13, 1999 One aspect of supply I don't think I have heard being represented here is any source of ammo resupply. I recall seeing where tankers had to pull back for resupply before rejoining battle. The question for the game is whether this is appropriate to the time and space scale. Space seems enough for something of the sort depending on terrain. I can concieve of a Kublewaggon running up some more rounds to Fionne's troopers in the present action. Or on defense having a small local stock pile in a location with an established defense where further distribution could be made. I have not heard in the present action any concern with ammo depletion except with the larger stuff. Question: What does crew reduction do to ammo capacity? I do dislike seeing a reduced crew moving and still having a full ammo load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddy Posted September 13, 1999 Author Share Posted September 13, 1999 Fionn, I think it would apply as you have been using your halftracks to haul infantry around in - face it, nothing is better than a truck for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted September 13, 1999 Share Posted September 13, 1999 I am not sure the truck drivers are too happy about being used so far up front, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 14, 1999 Share Posted September 14, 1999 Bobb, I'll give some info away free seeing as it won't affect the game. One of my 6 man MG 42 teams suffered three casualties in one of Martin's airstrikes. It started with 90 rounds.. After suffering 50% losses it has 45 rounds only. As for the other units you are reading it wrong. Forty rounds is not the total number of rounds for the unit it is the number of rounds (bursts) each unit has SO... if I lose 11 men from a US squad the last guy still might have 40 rounds left if he hasn#'t fired a single shot BUT he won't have 480 rounds available like he might in some games. So basically what you are talking about (proper tracking of ammo) is already in. Buddy: LOL.. Ok then.. I'll give you a platoon of truck-borne infantry and I'll have a platoon of SPW 251/1s. No arty support and no air. Just a straight platoon vs platoon fight. If you accept I'll hand you your brain in a helmet. Trucks can be ripped apart easily by MG fire. They are insanely vulnerable to artillery fire and they don't carry any crew-manned weapons.They are worse going cross-country than a HT also. Overall you will come to love half-tracks. They are wonderful vehicles. FAR better in TACTICAL combat than trucks.. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 14, 1999 Share Posted September 14, 1999 Everybody should keep in mind that HTs were an uncommon thing on the battlefield for the most part. Trucks were not supposed to be a part of the battlefield at all. However, war is imperfect and trucks often found themselves caught in some sort of situation they really weren't designed to handle (uh, like someone shooting at them!). Fionn is correct about the ammoloads. One "round" equals one instance of firing. It is assumed that all men fire at the same rate averaged over the course of the unit's combat time. The one exception to this is the LMG, which can fire on its own at targets greater than 300m. However, there is a problem with LMG ammo and when the head count is low. We are going to fix that. Ammo resupply is something that is outside the scope of a single battle, but is done for campaigns. Ammo and exhaustion were twocommon reasons an attack would have to be put on hold. CM simulates this very well. Both Martin and Fionn will tell you that they would like some free ammo right about now Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddy Posted September 14, 1999 Author Share Posted September 14, 1999 OK, (sigh) - just trying to make the point that, although halftracks are far better for transporting troops than trucks, historically it's the trucks that were used more often...at the battle of the bulge infantry troops were moved up to the battlefield by trucks, not halftracks. That was my only point - and, even though a truck would be a nice juicy target, wouldn't it be a cool scenario to move a column forward to a jump off point and then move tactically to the objective? I dunno, nuff said... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 14, 1999 Share Posted September 14, 1999 It might be a bit more accurate to model offloading but if there are no enemy nearby all you are going to do is piss off gamers who have to spend ten minutes moving along roads and off-loading troops before they can even begin to march to battle. Don't get me wrong, trucks have their place but unless they're going to be shot at I'd say its better to simply start the infantry off as though they just debarked at the organisation zone. It cuts down the number of turns with no action. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 14, 1999 Share Posted September 14, 1999 Fionn is correct here. Any realistic (i.e. safe) deployment of truck borne troops and equipment is outside of the scope of CM. Reason being is that a CM battle simulates the battle itself, not forming up and deployment time. That sort of stuff is interesting for sure, but the time scale doesn't fit. Trucks didn't drive right up the front lines, drop of their loads, then withdraw, and have combat spark up in a couple of minutes. They drove up to a position safely before the front line, dropped off their stuff, withdrew, and left the force to either wait or move out (generally wait). So there should be no contact between friendly and enemy forces for perhaps 20 turns or hundreds of turns. Nobdoy wants to hit "Go!" that many times Obviously the above is not a hard and fast rule, but it was pretty close to it. But nothing prevents you from making the scenario you picture, so go for it Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted September 15, 1999 Share Posted September 15, 1999 Good call Steve, once again BTS has correctly modeled actual battlefield conditions. Also, FWIW I really dislike moving load after load of infantry in trucks. It just feels like busy work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts