The cost of infantry

[John Kelly]

A search of this topic revealed early threads regarding overall point/resource concepts. I want to know why German infantry is cheaper than American infantry in November 1944. I am always outnumbered in combined arms quick battles when I play as the American. Thanks, John

[John Kelly]

A search of this topic revealed early threads regarding overall point/resource concepts. I want to know why German infantry is cheaper than American infantry in November 1944. I am always outnumbered in combined arms quick battles when I play as the American. Thanks, John

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

All these cost values are not really worth arguing about since you cannot prove some cost is "righter" than the other.

Regarding the infantry cost, western allies men were a lot more costly, because using too many men at the front would have cost the democratic leadership the support of the people at home.

Also, the western allies had more equipment to man (both piloting and maintaining) and spent a higher percentage of men in supply (both small-scale in units and overall for shipping supplies over the oceans).

Martin

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

All these cost values are not really worth arguing about since you cannot prove some cost is "righter" than the other.

Regarding the infantry cost, western allies men were a lot more costly, because using too many men at the front would have cost the democratic leadership the support of the people at home.

Also, the western allies had more equipment to man (both piloting and maintaining) and spent a higher percentage of men in supply (both small-scale in units and overall for shipping supplies over the oceans).

Martin

[L.Tankersley]

Rarity, political factors, and training/shipping costs were not used in determining point values for units in CM. Generally speaking the cost of a unit is supposed to reflect its combat value ONLY (although there are some general and some specific exceptions to this). One of the things that determines combat value is manpower. US rifle squads have 12 men, while typical German squads have 9. This makes the US troops more resilient to taking a few casualties and hence ups their value. If you buy an equal point value of infantry, the US player will probably have fewer maneuver units (squads) but the actual manpower will be much closer to parity. (Whether this is really sufficient to balance the forces is another topic altogether.)

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[L.Tankersley]

Rarity, political factors, and training/shipping costs were not used in determining point values for units in CM. Generally speaking the cost of a unit is supposed to reflect its combat value ONLY (although there are some general and some specific exceptions to this). One of the things that determines combat value is manpower. US rifle squads have 12 men, while typical German squads have 9. This makes the US troops more resilient to taking a few casualties and hence ups their value. If you buy an equal point value of infantry, the US player will probably have fewer maneuver units (squads) but the actual manpower will be much closer to parity. (Whether this is really sufficient to balance the forces is another topic altogether.)

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Basically, the CM cost numbers weight numbers rather heavily. The U.S. squads are 12 men. That standard German squad is 9 men, and the VG squads are only 8. Motorized Panzer Grenadiers cost about the same as U.S. infantry, and get 10 man squads.

More men means a greater ability to take hits and still continue the mission. It also helps significantly in close combat, inside of grenade range and especially hand to hand (<10 meters). Another minor factor is the U.S. rifles are significantly better than German rifles, especially at close range.

In return, the Germans get a better squad automatic weapon in the LMG-42, compared to the BAR. If they buy the more expensive types, they pay as much per squad as the U.S. but get 2 LMGs. If they use the VGs, they get only 2 LMGs per platoon but 23 SMGs. There really isn't any question that the SMG is a better personal weapon in CM terms. The Germans also get panzerfausts rather than rifle grenades, a much more useful weapon.

So, the real answer to your question is that number of men is fully priced, while better weapons are bargains. The paratroop infantry on both sides is underpriced for the same reason. Buying smaller squads with better weapons therefore winds uo giving more bang for the same buck.

Number of men per squad *does* matter, and just comparing the number of units, or platoons, is not sensible. A 28 or 31 man platoon is not the same item as a 40 man platoon.

Personally, I would like to see the following changes made to the small arms ratings, weapons mixes, and costs. They are all definitely "tweaks".

#1 Add a 2nd SMG to the standard U.S. and British squads. Sten guns, grease guns (M3), and thompsons had a way of surviving battles and appearing in a new owner's hands.

This single realistic measure would raise the close FP of the Allied squads around 15%, for a trivial reduction in their FP at 250 yards or more. Since the Allied squads are already overpaying for numbers, while the Germans get bargains on better weapons, this would increase balance.

#2 Currently, only the VG Hvy SMG squads sacrifice some per-weapon firepower to reflect the fact that the MG-42 is really a 2-man weapon. Adjust the other German squads, to reflect the lowest FP weapon present. E.g. with 2 LMGs present and at least 2 rifles in the squad, the FP of the MG-42s would be 87-80-54-34.

Right now, the firepower from the second member of the team is effectively being counted twice, in the other German squad types. This slightly overstates the firepower of squads with 2 LMG.

#3 Perhaps raise the price of the VG SMG platoon a smidgen. If SMGs cost about .25-.33 more points each throughout the infantry types, it would give about the right effect.

#4 Squad types with access to demo charges should cost +1 point for every demo charge they can be expected to have. Rifle grenades should give an expected cost around .25 higher per. Faust-30s should be 1/3rd, faust-60s 2/3rds, and faust-100 should add +1 to the price for each item expected. Let the randomness of number available work the same as now. But raise the unit prices by the appropriate amounts.

Arguably, those are still underpriced. But some payment for good special weapons is in order. This change would make German infantry marginally more expensive as the war goes on and the fausts improve, and also slightly raise the price of everyone's engineers, U.S. paratroops, etc at all times.

My suggestions on infantry "balance" tweaks...

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Basically, the CM cost numbers weight numbers rather heavily. The U.S. squads are 12 men. That standard German squad is 9 men, and the VG squads are only 8. Motorized Panzer Grenadiers cost about the same as U.S. infantry, and get 10 man squads.

More men means a greater ability to take hits and still continue the mission. It also helps significantly in close combat, inside of grenade range and especially hand to hand (<10 meters). Another minor factor is the U.S. rifles are significantly better than German rifles, especially at close range.

In return, the Germans get a better squad automatic weapon in the LMG-42, compared to the BAR. If they buy the more expensive types, they pay as much per squad as the U.S. but get 2 LMGs. If they use the VGs, they get only 2 LMGs per platoon but 23 SMGs. There really isn't any question that the SMG is a better personal weapon in CM terms. The Germans also get panzerfausts rather than rifle grenades, a much more useful weapon.

So, the real answer to your question is that number of men is fully priced, while better weapons are bargains. The paratroop infantry on both sides is underpriced for the same reason. Buying smaller squads with better weapons therefore winds uo giving more bang for the same buck.

Number of men per squad *does* matter, and just comparing the number of units, or platoons, is not sensible. A 28 or 31 man platoon is not the same item as a 40 man platoon.

Personally, I would like to see the following changes made to the small arms ratings, weapons mixes, and costs. They are all definitely "tweaks".

#1 Add a 2nd SMG to the standard U.S. and British squads. Sten guns, grease guns (M3), and thompsons had a way of surviving battles and appearing in a new owner's hands.

This single realistic measure would raise the close FP of the Allied squads around 15%, for a trivial reduction in their FP at 250 yards or more. Since the Allied squads are already overpaying for numbers, while the Germans get bargains on better weapons, this would increase balance.

#2 Currently, only the VG Hvy SMG squads sacrifice some per-weapon firepower to reflect the fact that the MG-42 is really a 2-man weapon. Adjust the other German squads, to reflect the lowest FP weapon present. E.g. with 2 LMGs present and at least 2 rifles in the squad, the FP of the MG-42s would be 87-80-54-34.

Right now, the firepower from the second member of the team is effectively being counted twice, in the other German squad types. This slightly overstates the firepower of squads with 2 LMG.

#3 Perhaps raise the price of the VG SMG platoon a smidgen. If SMGs cost about .25-.33 more points each throughout the infantry types, it would give about the right effect.

#4 Squad types with access to demo charges should cost +1 point for every demo charge they can be expected to have. Rifle grenades should give an expected cost around .25 higher per. Faust-30s should be 1/3rd, faust-60s 2/3rds, and faust-100 should add +1 to the price for each item expected. Let the randomness of number available work the same as now. But raise the unit prices by the appropriate amounts.

Arguably, those are still underpriced. But some payment for good special weapons is in order. This change would make German infantry marginally more expensive as the war goes on and the fausts improve, and also slightly raise the price of everyone's engineers, U.S. paratroops, etc at all times.

My suggestions on infantry "balance" tweaks...

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Number of men per squad *does* matter, and just comparing the number of units, or platoons, is not sensible. A 28 or 31 man platoon is not the same item as a 40 man platoon.

Definitely. But having more discrete units (squads/teams) of whatever size can also be beneficial because of the increased tactical flexibility it offers. You can shoot at more targets, while your opponent can't target all of your units at once. This means some of your men will be unengaged and can maneuver against the enemy.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Number of men per squad *does* matter, and just comparing the number of units, or platoons, is not sensible. A 28 or 31 man platoon is not the same item as a 40 man platoon.

Definitely. But having more discrete units (squads/teams) of whatever size can also be beneficial because of the increased tactical flexibility it offers. You can shoot at more targets, while your opponent can't target all of your units at once. This means some of your men will be unengaged and can maneuver against the enemy.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Everybody can split squads. I see no real benefit to having 4 man 1/2 squads instead of 6 man ones. The advantage is simply from better weapons, not from smaller units.

It is for instance noticable, than any squad with only 1 LMG or BAR is pretty ineffective when split. The largest such will basically need to close to 50-60 yards to hurt anything, and probably to more like grenade range.

The problem is that most things it closes with will outshoot it. It may help to eliminate AT teams, LMGs, or snipers, but those aren't too hard to eliminate from farther away really. If he is already pinned, fine, but often the whole squad can do the thing just as well in that case.

Squads with 2 LMG or BAR can benefit more from splitting, in the appropriate situations for it. And sometimes it makes sense to use a special weapon, or cover an area with one (fausts, demo charges, etc).

But the main reason to split squads is just deception about strength. Normally, the fire and movement aspects of the situation, would be better exploited by a maneuvering *platoon*, not a half-squad. With each platoon obviously meant to be good at sending one squad on some mission while the others overwatch, or what have you.

My experience is that half-squads to "avoid suppression" has this minor niggling drawback, especially pronouced in covered terrain like woods. Full squads run right over the half squads and kill them to the last man at point blank range for trivial loss. Not much point in "splitting his targets" if that is the result to each.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Everybody can split squads. I see no real benefit to having 4 man 1/2 squads instead of 6 man ones. The advantage is simply from better weapons, not from smaller units.

It is for instance noticable, than any squad with only 1 LMG or BAR is pretty ineffective when split. The largest such will basically need to close to 50-60 yards to hurt anything, and probably to more like grenade range.

The problem is that most things it closes with will outshoot it. It may help to eliminate AT teams, LMGs, or snipers, but those aren't too hard to eliminate from farther away really. If he is already pinned, fine, but often the whole squad can do the thing just as well in that case.

Squads with 2 LMG or BAR can benefit more from splitting, in the appropriate situations for it. And sometimes it makes sense to use a special weapon, or cover an area with one (fausts, demo charges, etc).

But the main reason to split squads is just deception about strength. Normally, the fire and movement aspects of the situation, would be better exploited by a maneuvering *platoon*, not a half-squad. With each platoon obviously meant to be good at sending one squad on some mission while the others overwatch, or what have you.

My experience is that half-squads to "avoid suppression" has this minor niggling drawback, especially pronouced in covered terrain like woods. Full squads run right over the half squads and kill them to the last man at point blank range for trivial loss. Not much point in "splitting his targets" if that is the result to each.

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Everybody can split squads. I see no real benefit to having 4 man 1/2 squads instead of 6 man ones. The advantage is simply from better weapons, not from smaller units.

I'm not saying that smaller units are inherently better; rather, the fact that the German squads (and platoons) tend to be smaller and cheaper means you tend to have more of them. 3 US rifle platoons comes to 120 men. You can get 4 German rifle platoons and that comes to 124 men. The Germans don't HAVE to split their squads to have more maneuver units, despite the rough equivalence in manpower. And I think this gives a benefit in combat, although I can't quantify it.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Everybody can split squads. I see no real benefit to having 4 man 1/2 squads instead of 6 man ones. The advantage is simply from better weapons, not from smaller units.

I'm not saying that smaller units are inherently better; rather, the fact that the German squads (and platoons) tend to be smaller and cheaper means you tend to have more of them. 3 US rifle platoons comes to 120 men. You can get 4 German rifle platoons and that comes to 124 men. The Germans don't HAVE to split their squads to have more maneuver units, despite the rough equivalence in manpower. And I think this gives a benefit in combat, although I can't quantify it.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[Mlapanzer]

Interesting post by all! I think this is where different national training and organization comes into play. Each way of organizing a squad has it's advantages and disadvantages. One needs to take these factors into consideration when using different infantry formations just as with armor abilities.Personally I'll take the bigger squad with more fire and staying power,than the smaller ones.

Plus for the Americans there's always the great equalizer of Artillery. A well placed barrage will really reek havoc on the smaller squads of the Germans.

[Mlapanzer]

Interesting post by all! I think this is where different national training and organization comes into play. Each way of organizing a squad has it's advantages and disadvantages. One needs to take these factors into consideration when using different infantry formations just as with armor abilities.Personally I'll take the bigger squad with more fire and staying power,than the smaller ones.

Plus for the Americans there's always the great equalizer of Artillery. A well placed barrage will really reek havoc on the smaller squads of the Germans.

[Guest wwb_99]

Also, you must remeber that there are alot more organic heavy weapons in Allied (especially US) companies. Those 2in/60mm mortars are a great advantage when used properly. Now you have the ability to pop smoke and suppress without exposing yourself to return fire.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Guest wwb_99]

Also, you must remeber that there are alot more organic heavy weapons in Allied (especially US) companies. Those 2in/60mm mortars are a great advantage when used properly. Now you have the ability to pop smoke and suppress without exposing yourself to return fire.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

To wwb_99 :

Horsefeathers. The light mortars do not have enough ammo to be more than annoyance weapons. And if the Germans want mortars, they can take 81mm ones, with the same ammo load and 3 times the hitting power for only 1/3rd more cost than the 60mm.

The U.S. support weapons are quite fully priced. Compared to buying 3 platoons, 2 MMG, 3 bazooka, here is what the U.S. gets for the company purchase -

1 company HQ

1 platoon HQ

1 50 cal w/ 40 ammo

3 60mm with

cost - 94 points, as much as an SMG platoon or 4 HMG-42, or 2 HMG-42 and 2 81mm mortar, for the Germans. "But you get extra HQs". Um, compared to what? You can buy a German VG company, 4th platoon, and the above support weapons for the cost of a U.S. company, and still have 47 points left over, enough to buy 2 schrecks.

Does anyone think 2 HMG-42 @ 95 ammo, have less firepower than 1 50 cal w/ 40 ammo and 2 MMG with 65 apiece? The firepower rating is 2x the MMG and 50% more than the .50 cal.

Does anyone think ~50 rounds on-map 81mm is less blast than ~100 rounds on-map 60mm? Each shell is rated 3x the blast.

How about 2 schreck and 15-20 faust-60 vs. 3 zooks and ~10-15 rifle grenades?

1 company and 4 platoon HQs either way.

Here are the personal arms purchased with the two rival mixes, 1944 squads -

U.S. - 9 BAR, 14 Thmpsn, 101 M-1, 6 Pstl

German - 9 MG42, 82 MP40, 21 K98, 6 Pstl

The only thing the U.S. has is 21 more men (167 vs. 146), half of them in weapons teams without personal arms. In the case of the 1945 match up, the U.S. trades 9 M-1s for BARs, while the German's get 15-20 faust-100 instead of faust-60.

Notice, 1 MG42 has twice the FP of a BAR at long range. At closer ranges, the MP40s take over. So it is basically MP40s against M-1s, about even numbers, with heavier mortars, better AT weapons, and more HMG firepowerxammo - for the same price.

And the German mix is optional and thus flexible, while the U.S. mix is more or less required, since the support weapons are included in the company for one, but not for the other. Of course, the U.S. can forgo a company HQ to pick his own weapons mix. The Brits can't ditch the 2" mortars regardless.

Riddle me this. Anyone who thinks the prices of infantry are correct now, would you think it no matter to allow 2 extra SMGs per Allied squad at the same price, and allow the U.S. and Brits to pick companies and platoons without light mortars and 50 cals, if they prefered those? If the Allies shouldn't get SMGs instead of rifles for free, then why do the Germans get exactly that?

The real reason is simple. The designers thought that rifles would be about as useful as SMGs, just better at different things, so they charged the same price for them. But this is simply not the case. The SMGs are more valuable for the fighting infantry actually does, and under the ammo constraints actually present. The designers charged full prices for men but not enough (if anything) for better weapons.

The adjustments needed are small, tweaks not wholesale changes. 2 extra Thompson in the 1944 U.S. squad, and 1 extra in the 1945. 2 extra Sten in the UK squads. Brit 2" mortars either optional added weapons, or cost more like 5 points. 2 60mm per U.S. company but with maxed ammo loads, same price as now per team. Let the U.S. pick his HMG type, .50 or M1917 or Jeep MG or none.

+2 points to the cost of pure SMG squads, +1 to squads with many SMG, on an overall basis of ~1/4 - 1/3 of a point per SMG. +1 per squad for faust-60, +2 per squad for faust-100,in those time windows. With demo charges like they are now they can be free, but if they had real blast ~100+, then those would be +1 per charge too. Flamethrowers ~1/2 the cost of today and halftracks ~2/3rds (the M3A1 maybe 3/4ths = 35).

My suggestions, for what they are worth.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

To wwb_99 :

Horsefeathers. The light mortars do not have enough ammo to be more than annoyance weapons. And if the Germans want mortars, they can take 81mm ones, with the same ammo load and 3 times the hitting power for only 1/3rd more cost than the 60mm.

The U.S. support weapons are quite fully priced. Compared to buying 3 platoons, 2 MMG, 3 bazooka, here is what the U.S. gets for the company purchase -

1 company HQ

1 platoon HQ

1 50 cal w/ 40 ammo

3 60mm with

cost - 94 points, as much as an SMG platoon or 4 HMG-42, or 2 HMG-42 and 2 81mm mortar, for the Germans. "But you get extra HQs". Um, compared to what? You can buy a German VG company, 4th platoon, and the above support weapons for the cost of a U.S. company, and still have 47 points left over, enough to buy 2 schrecks.

Does anyone think 2 HMG-42 @ 95 ammo, have less firepower than 1 50 cal w/ 40 ammo and 2 MMG with 65 apiece? The firepower rating is 2x the MMG and 50% more than the .50 cal.

Does anyone think ~50 rounds on-map 81mm is less blast than ~100 rounds on-map 60mm? Each shell is rated 3x the blast.

How about 2 schreck and 15-20 faust-60 vs. 3 zooks and ~10-15 rifle grenades?

1 company and 4 platoon HQs either way.

Here are the personal arms purchased with the two rival mixes, 1944 squads -

U.S. - 9 BAR, 14 Thmpsn, 101 M-1, 6 Pstl

German - 9 MG42, 82 MP40, 21 K98, 6 Pstl

The only thing the U.S. has is 21 more men (167 vs. 146), half of them in weapons teams without personal arms. In the case of the 1945 match up, the U.S. trades 9 M-1s for BARs, while the German's get 15-20 faust-100 instead of faust-60.

Notice, 1 MG42 has twice the FP of a BAR at long range. At closer ranges, the MP40s take over. So it is basically MP40s against M-1s, about even numbers, with heavier mortars, better AT weapons, and more HMG firepowerxammo - for the same price.

And the German mix is optional and thus flexible, while the U.S. mix is more or less required, since the support weapons are included in the company for one, but not for the other. Of course, the U.S. can forgo a company HQ to pick his own weapons mix. The Brits can't ditch the 2" mortars regardless.

Riddle me this. Anyone who thinks the prices of infantry are correct now, would you think it no matter to allow 2 extra SMGs per Allied squad at the same price, and allow the U.S. and Brits to pick companies and platoons without light mortars and 50 cals, if they prefered those? If the Allies shouldn't get SMGs instead of rifles for free, then why do the Germans get exactly that?

The real reason is simple. The designers thought that rifles would be about as useful as SMGs, just better at different things, so they charged the same price for them. But this is simply not the case. The SMGs are more valuable for the fighting infantry actually does, and under the ammo constraints actually present. The designers charged full prices for men but not enough (if anything) for better weapons.

The adjustments needed are small, tweaks not wholesale changes. 2 extra Thompson in the 1944 U.S. squad, and 1 extra in the 1945. 2 extra Sten in the UK squads. Brit 2" mortars either optional added weapons, or cost more like 5 points. 2 60mm per U.S. company but with maxed ammo loads, same price as now per team. Let the U.S. pick his HMG type, .50 or M1917 or Jeep MG or none.

+2 points to the cost of pure SMG squads, +1 to squads with many SMG, on an overall basis of ~1/4 - 1/3 of a point per SMG. +1 per squad for faust-60, +2 per squad for faust-100,in those time windows. With demo charges like they are now they can be free, but if they had real blast ~100+, then those would be +1 per charge too. Flamethrowers ~1/2 the cost of today and halftracks ~2/3rds (the M3A1 maybe 3/4ths = 35).

My suggestions, for what they are worth.

[Guest wwb_99]

Horsefeathers---That is a good one.

True, your numbers are hard to argue with. But I shall try.

When an HMG 42 Faces off against a 60mm mortar team, usually the result is one MG rendered innefective. Either because he died, ot supressed, or pulled back. This is without a spotter. With a spotter, it can do nothing but good. Now you can move up your infantry and really deal with the MG.

Playing with allied infantry just involves playing a much different style. Rather than trying to fight 'em in close, you have to abuse the axis opponent with heavy weapons, which you have lots of, before closing in on his battered remains. Note that these are the same tactics that were used successfully in 1944-5.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Guest wwb_99]

Horsefeathers---That is a good one.

True, your numbers are hard to argue with. But I shall try.

When an HMG 42 Faces off against a 60mm mortar team, usually the result is one MG rendered innefective. Either because he died, ot supressed, or pulled back. This is without a spotter. With a spotter, it can do nothing but good. Now you can move up your infantry and really deal with the MG.

Playing with allied infantry just involves playing a much different style. Rather than trying to fight 'em in close, you have to abuse the axis opponent with heavy weapons, which you have lots of, before closing in on his battered remains. Note that these are the same tactics that were used successfully in 1944-5.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Of course, the U.S. can forgo a company HQ to pick his own weapons mix.

Of course, if the US player does this, they lose the 5% (?? - maybe it was 10%) discount on buying larger formations. [This is one of those exceptions to the general "points are based only on combat value" rule.]

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Of course, the U.S. can forgo a company HQ to pick his own weapons mix.

Of course, if the US player does this, they lose the 5% (?? - maybe it was 10%) discount on buying larger formations. [This is one of those exceptions to the general "points are based only on combat value" rule.]

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[John Kelly]

Gentlemen: I appreciate the dialogue my question has generated. From what I've read, Germany had lost over a million men at the point our beloved game begins with most of those occurring on the Russian front. If that is true, then it stands to reason men and machines were precious, and should; therefore, cost more than similar Allied formations. Yes, No? Cheers, John