Different Squad Types by Nationaility

[Jeff Heidman]

Wehrmacht: Rifle 44, Rifle 45, Volksgrenadier SMG, Volksgrenadier Heavy SMG, Volksgrenadier, Fusilier SMG, Fusilier, Volksgrenadier Pioneer, Pioneer, Security, Sturmgruppe, Motorized Infantry, PanzerGrenadier Infantry, Motorized Pioneer, PanzerGrenadier Pioneer

Waffen SS: SS Rifle 44, SS Rifle 45, SS Motorized Infantry, SS PanzerGrenadier Infantry

Fallscirmjager: FJ Infantry, FJ Pioneer

Gebirgsjager: GB infantry, GB Pioneer

Volkstuurm: Volkstuurm Militia

Total number of unique German Squads: 24

American: Rifle 44, Rifle 45, Engineer

American Airborne: Parachute, Glider

British:Rifle, Engineer

British Airborne: Parachute, Glider

Canadian, Polish, Polish Airborne, French: No unique squad types.

Total Allied unique Squad Types: 9

And no American Rangers!

Jeff Heidman

[Kevin Peltz]

If you could be the game designer, and put in Rangers, how would you feature them that would make them radically different from the American units already in the game?

[Teufel Hunden]

Jeff

I think it's a matter of the units experience level.

Rifle 44 + Elite = Ranger

Maybe give them better than the normal number of support units and ammo. But I think a Ranger squad had pretty much the same equipment as the rest of the squads in the US Army.

------------------

Jason

"Casualties many; Percentage of dead not known; Combat efficiency; we are winning."

(Colonel David M. Shoup, USMC, Tarawa, 21 November 1943.)

[RMC]

Make em access different voice cues. "move your ass, ranger!"

Ranger companies were organized differently, smaller companies around 60 men. Not sure about squad size. If that was different, then it would be justification enough to model them.

BTW, modeling an elite like this would be rather difficult dontcha think? How do you treat "green" rangers? Somehow I don't think treating them like green regular infantry is the solution.

Another issue is where the were rangers employed. Everyone knows about Pointe du Hoc, but where else did they fight? The only thing I can think of is the assault on the hill in the Huertgen.

[Guest Simon]

Those arguments apply just as well to many of the German squads that are equipped similarly.

British and Canadian Commandos and US Rangers are certainly distinct enough compared to some of the GE infantry, one could also make an argument for light and recon infantry squads and teams, armed with SMG's and carbines. US mech infantry with Zooks or more BAR's. Ranger squads were smaller IIRC (and one presumes quicker because of that) Commandos commonly had their Stens and Gammon Bombs, so at least there's some diferentiation.

IMO this observation carries over to German armor as well, there are like 7 or 8 different Jerry halftracks, a couple tanks that are nearly prototypes in terms of their rarity (what were there a couple hundred Brumbar/Sturmtiger's made?)... Whereas some pretty common allied vehicles didn't make it (M16, M15, Sherman flame variations, flail and dozer tanks (which IMHO are conspicuous in their absense in a game that includes June 1944).

IMHO this is the pitfall of keeping certain things about the game non-modifiable (compiling models and OOB's into the executable) BTS can only do so much with the time they have, but we creative types could certainly add Ranger squads, and a few of us could probably even manage to put a Maxson Quad .50 caliber turret into an M3A1 But that's certainly their perogative.

------------------

Simon

http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kevin Peltz:

If you could be the game designer, and put in Rangers, how would you feature them that would make them radically different from the American units already in the game? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same way a German SS Motorozed Squad is "radically" different from an SS PanzerGrenadier squad.

Jeff Heidman

[Holdit]

I imagine some of the shortfall could be explained by the German tendency towards complexity, whereas the allies were more inclined to standardise; that and the fact that German ground units could be Wehrmacht, SS or even Luftwaffe, so there's a much greater mix.

The allies had no elite "other army". British Guards and US Rangers were, as far as I know, equipped in the same way as line squads, but were just of better quality. In the same way, there's no Grossdeutschland infantry type for the Germans; just use veteran or elite panzergrenadiers (or riflemen if earlier in the war, but that's still to come ).

In any case, given the attention detail of this game's designers, and the work required to produce a unit, I'm confident that there's a valid reason for the discrepancy. Anyway, it's not like those US and British squads can't get the job done for you.

[Guest Germanboy]

I think there is a complex reasoning behind it, IMO a mix of mass-market appeal, future of CM, and differentiation, allied standardisation (not necessarily in that order):

a) market appeal - German units are generally perceived to be 'cooler', so if you do a WW2 wargame you better have lots of those, no matter that there were only 168 of those Pumas/48 of those Jagdtigers. The same goes for infantry, I believe. Waffen-SS has just cooler uniforms etc.pp. There are people on this board who clamour for the Maus to be included in the game, and they seem to be at least even numbers to those who want allied armoured SP AAA. They also are on a different planet, but that's another story. In the last two days, I have read two posts from people who only play the Germans, I have yet to read one from somebody who only plays the Allies.

future of CM - a lot (all?) of these German units can be used in CM2, none of the allied ones can. So the work going into them will pay dividends later, by reducing the modelling work for CM2. The work on allied units would be wasted until CM3.

c) differentiation - as allies you can play different countries, as German you can play different troops

d) allied standardisation - as was said before, only a few of the allied units actually had different TO&E from the standard unit.

Anyway, that's just my interpretation on it. I would like to see some more allied units, but I am weird... And it is not a high-priority issue.

------------------

Andreas

[Aacooper]

I would also like a greater number of Allied units available for selection. I know they can be made the old-fashioned way (i.e. platoon by platoon), but where are Allied Engineer companies/battalions, armored infantry companies/battalions, and so forth? I suppose a greater variety of formations could be added in a patch, since there are no additional units to create.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The same way a German SS Motorozed Squad is "radically" different from an SS PanzerGrenadier squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference between 8 and 10 men.

I normally ignore threads like this, but since I peeked in, here's my 2 cents.

The German Wehrmacht was in a constant state of disorganization in 44-45... hence 24 different squad types. The Allies had very standardised organisations... 9 squad types. No commandos? No Rangers? So what, use airborne squads... make them elite (veteran if you want to be realistic), and there you have you Rangers.

[Henri]

One useful addition to the scenario creation would be a copy command; I found an interesting scenario in a wargaming magazine, but the companies as described in that scenario did not correspond at all to the companies in the CM game. So I had to put the units in one by one, THREE times; it would have been convenient to do it only once, then to copy the OOB into the two other companies, since the 3 companies had the same composition.

Henri

[Degrees of Frost]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

The same way a German SS Motorozed Squad is "radically" different from an SS PanzerGrenadier squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference between 8 and 10 men.

I normally ignore threads like this, but since I peeked in, here's my 2 cents.

The German Wehrmacht was in a constant state of disorganization in 44-45... hence 24 different squad types. The Allies had very standardised organisations... 9 squad types. No commandos? No Rangers? So what, use airborne squads... make them elite (veteran if you want to be realistic), and there you have you Rangers.

Respectfully B - I think you have it back to front.

The degree of disorganisation experienced by the German armed forces in the period covered in "Combat Mission" should not (and I hope - is not) modelled by the great number of unit types represented in the Axis order of battle.

The squads modelled represent the "ideal" Axis order of battle - that is discrete squads have been modelled that represent "ideal" units representing the various outfits (Fall-scirmjager, Gebirgsjager etc. etc.) making up the German land forces in the West. I suspect these "ideal" squad formations were NOT stably maintained during the disorganisation experienced by the Axis forces in the West during the period modelled by "Combat Mission".

But enough of that ....

The result of providing this plethora of unit types to the Axis side does give any CM player playing as the germans far greater flexibility in the choice of their infantry arm that is DENIED to the player representing the Allies.

While this difference in unit choice and flexibility is very probably realistic on the whole - at the level of play in CM it would be nice to imbue the Allied infantry arm with increased flexibility, such as providing Allied recon/light infantry as Simon suggests above.

[RMC]

Interesting points.

Re: German disorganization. I think this could be applied to any combatant since more often than not squads entered combat at less than full complement. CM doesn't allow any fudging to show reduced strength squads except as part of an operation in progress. The strict adherence to TO&E is probably necessary but I don't think it accurately captures the way units in the field were really organized. TO&E strength is often referred to as paper strength because that's just what it was, a number on paper. Real units accumulated unauthorized extra weapons. Speaking of this I am interested to see how the German squads are reorganized for CM2 given that many German soldiers equipped themselves with captured SMGs.

I still think there could be a difference in the organization of the ranger squads. The companies had on 67 folks. I still don't know how many platoons and squads they fielded.

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC:

Interesting points.

Re: German disorganization. I think this could be applied to any combatant since more often than not squads entered combat at less than full complement. CM doesn't allow any fudging to show reduced strength squads except as part of an operation in progress. The strict adherence to TO&E is probably necessary but I don't think it accurately captures the way units in the field were really organized.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Especially so for airborne operations. How many squads were intact or close to intact following their drops? Wouldn't mind seeing a 'reduced' squad for the AB in the editor. (using 1/2 squads is OK, but they can be recombined to full effectiveness)

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[DanE]

Come on guys, let's take a second look at this before getting all worked up.

Is the claim here that the German player has an unfair advantage because he has a choice of 15 more different squads to complete his force? If this is the case, I do not see how this can be unfair. Would somebody like to explain.

Or

Is it a matter of wanting to see additional squads added to the game? I have an idea. Everybody should send in a list of all the squads/troop formations/AFVs that they want to be included in CM1.

This way, Steve and Charles can spend the next 2,3,4,??? years adding all of these items that we listed. Of course, they will probably get a little heat from some people because they added so-and-so's list first, but in the end we will all be happier. Won't we?

Look. It is a game. Steve and Charles can not put every little thing into the game. They have to make choices and decisions. As long as the game feels and plays right (which it does) I have no complaints.

I have not played a single game and thought to myself that I wished I had a Ranger squad instead of this Rifle 44 squad. I also could live with fewer German squads as it is, but I guarantee that if they left out some of the German squads some people on this board would be demanding that these very squads be included.

Damned if you. Damned if you don't.

------------------

Dan

[DanW]

I was wondering if it didn't stem from the fact that the German squads could be used as is in CM2, while all of the western front Allied stuff will not be part of CM2.

Of course that would imply that CM2 is indeed set on the eastern front, and that BTS knew that CM1 would be such a big hit that they'd be doing a CM2.

Still I wonder.

Dan W.

[Guest Simon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

a) market appeal - German units are generally perceived to be 'cooler', so if you do a WW2 wargame you better have lots of those, no matter that there were only 168 of those Pumas/48 of those Jagdtigers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO (and a guess at that) the mix of armor has got more to do with what the modeler felt like doing or was most interested in doing... Being a creative type myself I know that same feeling, and don't blame CM's modeler(s) one bit. OTOH if the games mod community could add in the excellent M16 or Ranger squads we wouldn't be discussing this

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The same goes for infantry, I believe. Waffen-SS has just cooler uniforms etc.pp. There are people on this board who clamour for the Maus to be included in the game, and they seem to be at least even numbers to those who want allied armoured SP AAA. They also are on a different planet, but that's another story. In the last two days, I have read two posts from people who only play the Germans, I have yet to read one from somebody who only plays the Allies.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You realize how specious and anecdotal "two posts from people who only play Germans" is? Perhaps people who prefer to play the winners and tend to avoid playing the losers; don't feel the need to remark about the choice? For the record I'm a big huge "Homer" With rare exception I ONLY play the good guys, US, Brit, Canadian etc. In fact I even consider playing the Russian's in CM2 to be uninteresting (to me, and probably only me).

future of CM - a lot (all?) of these German units can be used in CM2, none of the allied ones can. So the work going into them will pay dividends later, by reducing the modelling work for CM2. The work on allied units would be wasted until CM3.

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon:

Again this argument would be mute if we could mod the OOB's or someone would come up with an editor to hack the OOB's in the tradition of most good Wargames that couldn't do every unit

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, I've read several posts from BTS as to why they didn't allow this kind of modification, and they made good sense to me. I really don't think you're going to accomplish much with these little 'nudge' posts.

------------------

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon:

Again this argument would be mute if we could mod the OOB's or someone would come up with an editor to hack the OOB's in the tradition of most good Wargames that couldn't do every unit

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good Wargame + Hacked OOBs = ungodly number of incompatible copes of Good Wargame thus nearly eliminating PBEM or (dare I say it? Yes, I dare! ) TCP/IP games. I do understand the yearning behind it; I, too, would like to see a little more variety than what there is now (especially for the Allies). But the cost of doing it this way is just too high.

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Guest Simon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seanachai:

You know, I've read several posts from BTS as to why they didn't allow this kind of modification, and they made good sense to me. I really don't think you're going to accomplish much with these little 'nudge' posts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And as I've said that's their perogative. AFAIK BTS's statement's don't mean it's not worth bringing up. They have changed their minds about some things, therefore arguing the merits of some issues is worthwhile.

As for the "nudge" guilty as charged, but you'll noticed there's also a nudge (FWIW) about third party editing.

------------------

Simon

http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/

[Guest Simon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie:

Good Wargame + Hacked OOBs = ungodly number of incompatible copes of Good Wargame thus nearly eliminating PBEM or (dare I say it? Yes, I dare! ) TCP/IP games. I do understand the yearning behind it; I, too, would like to see a little more variety than what there is now (especially for the Allies). But the cost of doing it this way is just too high.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't disagree more with that argument. There are by far more (popular) multiplayer games these days that allow mods than there are ones that don't. I've never heard of a game dying because people destroyed it's PBEM or TCP/IP with mods... in fact mods more often than not increase the longevity of games, and the variety of multiplayer. It's is just as easy to say "need someone to play realred CC3" or "Counter Strike HL" multiplayer as it is to say "PBEM game wanted no mods".

------------------

Simon

http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/

[Guest Germanboy]

Simon,

just a quick reply:

a) Modelling: I could not agree more, and my point was not a criticism, but an assessment, and one that can be miles off the real thing. If the modellers are not interested in doing the Weasel, I don't have a problem with that.

Lend-lease: I was talking about squad types and not vehicles there. My mistake for not making that clear. I agree about the models, but a Ranger squad would obviously be wasted in CM2, while a FJ-Squad would not.

c) anecdotal evidence: completely agree, and to me that is so obvious that it does not need mentioning. The problem is that very few people seem to mention that they are 'homers' (I have made it perfectly clear all the time), while a lot of people go on about playing Germans only. So a wrong impression is created very easily.

As for your mods argument - I don't trust the people who did CC1-X to do their job properly, so for me there is a huge argument in support of 3rd party mods. I trust Steve and Charles, so that argument does not exist. Whether the fact that Germans have more squads means the Allies should have more as well, I don't know, and what I have read so far, I am not sure it washes. YMMV.

------------------

Andreas

[Zebulon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC:

BTW, modeling an elite like this would be rather difficult dontcha think? How do you treat "green" rangers? Somehow I don't think treating them like green regular infantry is the solution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, the D-Day Rangers had never seen combat, thus would be "green" as far as experience.

Also, they were a volunteer force, which by definition is an "elite" force.

I'm not sure if CM is set up to model a unit that is both "green" and "elite". How does one model "a volunteer (highly motivated/trained) force that has never seen combat"?

Maybe it does not matter that much and averages out to Regular US Infantry 44.

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zebulon:

I'm not sure if CM is set up to model a unit that is both "green" and "elite". How does one model "a volunteer (highly motivated/trained) force that has never seen combat"?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regular

[Guest Simon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regular