Combined Arms QB--Historical OOB?

[Philistine]

I've recently been involved in a couple of QB PBEM's (btw, if anyone is interested, I wouldn't mind 2 or 3 more--E-mail me at bunchout@aol.com )

I would like to at least make a nod toward historicality in my force selection--the trouble I'm having is that in a 1000 point battle, you are pretty limited in your point totals for force composition wrt armor & vehicles, so that I'm generally picking two or three tanks or TD's (usually not all the same type) and a couple of armored cars and maybe an SP gun. Generally, I combine this with roughly a company level infantry force (either taking the company OOB or adding in 2-3 platoons seperately).

In selecting these forces, my purchases have more to do with trying to "finesse" the various point totals (Generally in the order of armor, then vehicle, then support and fill in with however much infantry I can afford). I just have the nagging suspicion that this type of force composition completely leaves the realm of the possible. While I don't need to be absolutely historically accurate in my force, I'm not interested in playing a completely fanciful force just to try to maximize my chances at winning. (Not that I don't like winning....)

Anyway, with that long-winded setup, my questions are:

1) Is this an appropriate historical force--i.e. sub-platoon level armor assets attached to a company of infantry, along with some armored cars/scout cars? Also, what about mixing armor types (both different tanks and/or TD's with tanks).

2) If not, what should I do to try and remain historically accurate within the context of the 1000 point total (I note that the increased total in 1.03 should help as I would think that the point total could be increased to allow greater flexibility in attaching full platoons of armor).

3) What are other people's general feelings about force composition in PBEM games--e.g. devotion to historical reality or increasing win chance?

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

--Philistine

[IntelWeenie]

I have found the QB editor nearly impossible to create a historically accurate OB for anything larger than company size, given the point limits. Can't wait for 1.03 to overcome this! Until then, stick with smaller QB games if you want them to be historically accurate.

I haven't done much PBEM, but I would prefer historical accuracy or "eveness" of play depending on what you want to get out of the game.

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

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

[Sten]

AFAIK, the QB generator does not take historical exactness into the equation at all. It just purchases whatever is available at the date you chose, with an attempt of maximixing the utilization of points.

I'm not 100% sure about this. Someone will surely correct me if I am wrong.

Sten

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

Keep your whisky on the rocks and your tanks on the roll.

[Kevin Peltz]

Philistine:

I have been building my forces in the exact opposite way you have: I choose infantry first, and then go from there. It seems more realistic (to me) to keep the infantry structure as intact as possible, and then add-in the other bits.

"Your job today is to take Coy B over that hill and clear that village. I managed to scrounge two M-10s from the TD Battalion, and a 105 FO from the Cannon Coy to back you up."

That's the way I tend to see the game, I guess. It seems more plausible to keep the basic infantry structure as intact as possible, and then put in some assets to round it out.

[Guest mch]

From looking at what resources I have,

I'd say that the Inf.co. seems to be

the backbone of any Task force/KG etc...

The German T/OE puts a small task force

at:

1x R Co.

1x HyWpns Co.(or elms)

1x AT Co. (or elms)

So,to awnser your questions,I'd say

1)Yes.(about mixing armour:depends on nationality..Germans:I'd say no.don't mix..

Americans:Mixable..British:Mixable?)

2)well,you could create a smaller hist.accurate force.....(until 1.03!)

3)For me:Historical!!!!!I really wouldn't

want to play a QB that wasn't.I'm just that kind of fellow.I'd be pissed if an opponent

created a "gamey" force.I like WWII games because I LOVE history!

Also:I create my teams in the same manner

as Mr.Peltz.Inf first,then add-ons.

[This message has been edited by mch (edited 07-19-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

My £0.02:

For UK forces, they were atrocious at combined arms until about August 1944 at least (although problems persisted well into Market Garden). They got a lot better during the autumn, FWIK. Some of the infantry divisions would by then have armoured brigades attached to them and constant exposure created much better cooperation. If those brigades were broken down and evenly distributed within the infantry division, you would get about a troop (platoon) of tanks per rifle coy. Add to that the occasional 'Funny' (flail tanks, AVREs, Crocodiles, APC).

Where does that leave you with buying a 'historical' force in QBs. As was stated before, start from the infantry. Buy a rifle coy, add a rifle platoon and/or an engineer platoon (note, only one of these organic per infantryb batallion). Buy some MMG carriers, there were a dozen organic at BN level (although sources are not coherent here). So not hundreds, but three or four for a reinforced coy attack should be okay. Give them a Wasp maybe.

Tanks - organic TD batallions in every UK infantry division, with at least one squadron (company) SP guns (Wolverine or Archer). Add one or two of these if you think there may be tanks in the area. Get some 3in mortars (organic at BN level). Maybe get a 25pdr FOO (organic at division level), or 4.2in mortar FOO (dirt-cheap and organic at div level). At most one Crocodile, but think hard about that. AVRE - only if you know that you will run into major fortifications. Vickers MMGs. Just throw some in - they were in the MG Batallion organic at divison level, not organic at BN level. (Note: we are far beyond 1000pts now). This is for an attack force.

For a quick battle against Berli as attacker I chose the following (1,360 pts):

1 Rifle Coy

1 Rifle Platoon

3 MMG Carriers

1 Wasp

1 Cromwell VIII Infantry Support Tank

1 Sherman II

1 Wolverine

1 3in mortar

2 4.2in mortar FOOs

2 Vickers MMGs

I knew from what Berli told me that I would face an infantry force. I still chose a Wolverine for two reasons:

1. FOW, I would not mind Berli telling me that and him suddenly having some German SP gun propping up. Tough luck, bad recon.

2. These were the only tanks that were readily accessible at divisional level, and I think it adds to the game to have them. In the event, with 8HE and one .50 HMG, it was pretty much useless, but I still like the feel of the force with it.

I think that this was a well balanced, historically reasonably accurate force. The 2nd 4.2in FOO was probably too much, but he was busy dropping rounds into my troops, so that did not affect the outcome a lot. It went to show what you can do with the allied assets and some thinking ahead. Any comments? What do others think?

I'll comment about what I think is a historically accurate defensive mix once I have won, err, played the revanche match against Berli where I am the defender.

Please note: the above is based on reading a number of P.Delaforce's UK divisional histories, on John D. Salt's Britorg reference document, and on reading various other books. It should be taken with a grain of salt, and it reflects what I feel is accurate. YMMV.

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

Andreas

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 07-19-2000).]

[kb9sog]

I'm really enjoying this thread. I have recently begun to wonder about somewhat historically accurate OOB's myself.

Lots of good discussion here.

If anyone has anything more to add, please do so.

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

BJ Simpson

Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio.

IN HOC SIGNO VINCES

[Kevin Peltz]

I am currently playing a small QB PBEM with the following (Canadian troops, Veteran, armour is Regular):

2 x Rifle Platoons (ea with 1 x PIAT and 1 x 2" Mortar)

1 x Engineer Platoon (2 squads, 1 FT)

1 x Vickers MMG

1 X 5.5" FO

1 x Badger

1 x Churchill VIII (95mm howitzer)

This is typical of the kind of structure I like to use, both in scale and in size. The above could be considered a composite force formed to perform a specific task- getting control of a small village in this case. It can be argued that it might not be a prototypical arrangement, but it seems like a reasonable one. I have yet to do anything on other than a small map- the really large stuff doesn't really grip me, at least not yet.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi all,

One has to keep in mind that forces in the field rarely looked like they do on paper, even for the more "organized" Allies. It would not be unusual to have a total mixmash of units defending or attacking. However, people can certainly select forces that would rarely have come about in combat. But the choice is up to the player.

I think IntelWeenie and Keven have it right. Smaller forces offer better possibilities for realist OBs at the moment. As Sten said, the 1.03 patch should help out larger forces by giving some more elbow room. However, I agree with Kevin that the best thing to do is purchase the infantry first, then the supporting arms, and finally vehicles. You would most likely find a basically intact, and organic, infantry formation as the core of any force on the attack or defense. Supporting units would be more chaotic.

Steve

[Guest Michael emrys]

I basically agree with Steve and most of the others about beginning with roughly a company of infantry and building on that. Where I would disagree is about mixing and matching different kinds of AFVs and other support units. Granted, it did happen sometimes, especially in the German army after the hard fighting in Normandy when they were often scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with anything at all and it was a matter of grab anything in sight regardless of its parent unit and hurl it into the battle.

But if you are seeking to model a much more typical historical situation, you need to consider a couple things. Firstly, after the hard lessons of the early war years, armies were loath to commit valuable assets, such as AFVs, in "penny packets", and certainly not on an individual basis. On the scale we are considering, you might find a platoon of tanks or a battery of AT guns assigned to your company of infantry. It would be okay for this platoon/battery to be somewhat attrited, but beyond a certain point it would simply be withdrawn from combat and rebuilt. So don't attrite it more than say 50%.

Secondly, try to keep in mind just what the assets were within an average division and how they were utilized. A U.S. infantry division usually had either a tank or a TD battalion attached, but not both. So take your pick and stick to it. Also, armored cars and light tanks in the U.S. Army tended not to be found in infantry divisions but were confined to either armored divisions or cavalry regiments.

In terms of filling out your OOB with leftover points, it makes great sense to take an extra MG or two as this was a common practice. Same for bazooka teams.

I have confined my comments to the U.S. army, but similar considerations apply (with differences) to all the armies represented in the game.

One thing I would warn people of if they are trying to make up a historical OOB is to be *very* sparing of exotic weapons that were rarely seen by your average dogface. These include flamethrower tanks, large artillery pieces of any sort and that kind of thing. Of course exceptions did exist and if you are trying to duplicate a specific operation where they were in fact used, blow your mind! Just be aware that they didn't just pop up casually here and there on the battlefield. They were rare and when they were needed they were really needed. Therefore, commanders tended to hoard them until they could get some real use from them.

Michael

[Törni]

Well considering the scale of the game... a battalion I guess it is the scenario designer who has to take responsibility if historical accury is wanted.