"SMG Gap" A Proposal

[dalem]

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

>So you'd go for some across-the-board

>penalty for US troops in some form or

>another. OK. In what way? And at what

>quantified level?

Suppression thresholds and spotting abilities of the US troops.

>Based on how many references, and properly

>cross-referenced to account for counter-

>arguments?

So far two. No counter arguments have been made. None that have come with actual, factual counterclaims anyway.

>Fixated, or adjusting through the months of

>1942-45?

Adjusting through the months. That would seem to be the indicated progress according to my source, which puts the doctrine chance around December 1944 (latter half of the war).

>So, okay, you've staked out that you want

>nationality modifiers.

To TacAI automated responces to stimuli to account for diffences in tactics and doctrine. Just to make sure we are on the level with that.

>BTS has staked out that you're not going to

>get them, using far more compelling reasons

>than you have offered.

I do not believe that ALL armies responded EXACTLY the same way in ALL situations to the same battlefield stimuli, the ONLY determining factor being their experience level.

>I'm glad that BTS (Steve) has been willing

>to articulate the standards it strives for

>here, arguing against stock nationality

>shifts as applied down to squad or single-

>man level in wargames.

The operative phrase being "as applied down to squad or single-man level in wargames". I agree with him in that. These two corraborative statements I use are representative of both the German and the US tactics and doctrine and how they predisposed their troops to respond to battlefield stimuli differently, regarless of their experience level.

>If you want uber-Finns & uber-Germans, roll

>up your sleeves and work with the scenario

>design parameters, and make them yourself

>in your own scenarios.

I an NOT advocating any über-Anybody to be modelled in the game. I am challenging the premise that all things are equal in the terms of training and lessons learned.

>The "fitness" factor for CM2 is another new

>variable you'll get to play around with.

Yes. Interesting prospects

>You can keep whipping out Dupuy (or even

>Weigley or Creveld) to make your case that

>US troops should get across-the-board

>negative modifiers.

I hope you do not call it a negative modifier only because it happens to be the US troops that are the subject of this debate.

And the modification would not necessarily be across the board. It could be applied the indicated factors only.

>Others here could whip out Ambrose or

>Doubler to counter such assertions.

Yes. But so far there has been only hyperventilation with no counterfacts to overthrow the two statements I use as my base.

I do know how flimsy that base is...

>My added point here is that I don't trust

>for any one author to make all of my case---

>-not Dupuy nor Doubler (and certainly not

>Ambrose!).

What about the relevant US Army records, training manuals and AAR's ?

>Keep on arguing for "nationality" for CM if

>you want, but BTS has laid it out ad

>nauseum that it's an argument you'll still

>lose.

Well, they DID write the code so they are the keepers of the keys. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Crap. Read the counterarguments.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Kallimakhos,

I'll at least take one pass at answering your questions. But then I really must depart this rather exhausted "debate"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One might argue that the line between system and trait or whatever the word is for acceptaple/nonaccepaple is at least not allways very clear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you were making a WWII military simulation you would soon find that very little of what you deal with on a daily basis is "clear" What do we think is the line between a "bais" and a "system"? Qunatifiable, generally non-contested, well researched, non-contradictory elements of combat are generally within reason to model (not to say they should be!). Something like how long it takes for artillery to be called in is more or less a scientific function of the various aspects of the artillery system. It is similar to rate of fire, which is part system and part human ability.

Where we draw the line is when someone concludes "Soviet troops were known to be able to load shells into guns faster and for longer periods of time than German artillery men". Now rate of fire has gone from a defensible function of how a gun operates to rather shakey ground about how one nation's men did the job vs. another nation's. If Experience and Fitness are equal, then so too should the ability to cram a shell into a gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Even the system might fail on numerous occasions, and as Steve says later about japanese, there should allways be room for some randomness and failure in even the best systems. I don't know if this is now modelled in american artillery, or german or CW, for that matter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is, actually. There is a random modifier that can make artillery responses faster or slower, partly influenced by Experience partly by pure randomization. Since the US has generally faster response times, they can be more adversely affected by this random factor.

Oh, and response time is also dependent on Experience. A Green US artillery battery is not going to have the same edge against a German Veteran battery vs. a Regular one. I don't have numbers at my finger tips, so I don't know at which levels they even out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not expert and far from a grog, but to my understanding Finns excelled especially in cartografy (=TRP's), and during the attack face in Eastern Karelia the situation was much worse than on homeground.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Honestly, I am not sure how we are going to model artillery differences between the various Eastern Front nations. We have not arrived at that point yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And if I understood right, another set back compared to US, was that Finns relied on phone lines but US used radios for calling artillery. Phone lines were cut of easily.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There will be two types of artillery FOs -> radio and phone. The cost of each will be dependent on the particular nation and month/year. For example, German troops will be (making something up for now) 20/80 radios/phones in 1941 while the Soviets might be 2/98. This will be a function of how many of each were generally available during the given time period for a given nationality. If the Finns used mostly phones, then that is what they will have to use most of the time. And yes, we are going to simulate problems with communications (both radio and phone), so each will have its problems to deal with.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will soviet artillery be modelled after similar "system" as other nations, and how is that realized in game terms?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There will be differences. For example, the Soviets used their guns (not mortars) for more or less preplaned targeting it will be harder for the Soviet player to use artillery as flexibly as others might.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There's another thread whear it is claimed, that assaulting tanks withs infantry, with or without AT assets, is unrealistically difficult in the current CMBO (it was supposedly easier in earlier versions). Do you aggree and if so, will this be corrected in CMBB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is something we have looked into in the past. Honestly, I don't remember what was concluded. A Search will turn up something I am sure. But we will look at it again for sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I recall to have heard something about common units with speciall AT-training? This sound good plausible solution, but how is this modelled in gameterms and in OB's?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not a real work around if there is in fact a problem with close assualting in general. The two are seperate.

The Finns and Germans, in particular, were forced to come up with additional means for destroying enemy armor. They did in fact form dedicated AT teams more and more as the war went on. The Germans (don't know about the Finns or others) even had a school to train such men, although I am sure most learned in the field through trial and error.

I don't think we are going to do anything special for these troops other than arm them with whatever was the most likely AT weapon for that force at the given time. If someone wants to simulate a team which received special training, then the experience level can be increased.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Reason I ask, in all the war games so far Finns have had no AT-capabilities or they have been modelled as ûber-tankkillers with molotov cocktails. I don't like either choise and I hope CMBB will give infantry VS armor battles reasonable chanses for Finns (and others) which would concurr with historical results. This is of course easier said than done, but I have faith in you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks This is what we will attempt to do. We have already received some good research data on Finnish AT teams, so we have something to start with (when we start!). We of course have a Finn on our Beta Testing team

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finall note even more off topic: the only people from whom I accept bashing SP, the game I grew up with, are the makers of CM, they have earned that right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, but I don't like to think of my feelings about SP as "bashing". Well, so long as the SP fan I am discussing issues with is not blind to the limitations of SP. Unfortunately, this has happened (as with all games, like PITS, CC, etc).

SP was originally programmed what... 5 years ago for an OS which was already on its way out. It has stood the test of time far better than most games have, but all games eventually will be surpassed by another. Thanks to the sad sate of wargaming it looks like CMBO will be surpassed only by CMBB

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The many keepers of SP tradition are dedicated people, as is the community with many grogs also there (for good or bad...) SPWAW has had some kind of relative spotting for long time, but I believe BTS will make it better in some future version... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... well, I for one never noticed relative spotting in SP. I did notice people using empty trucks to spot everything though Hell, I even was guilty of using that trick on more than one occasion...

Steve

[Kallimakhos]

Thanks Steve, CMBB looks better with every answer...

With Steve around (maybe) it is OK to keep straying from to subject. To say SP has had relative spotting for "long" time was a slight exaggeration, SPWAW by Matrix games has had it since v. 4.x or somefink. (V. 5. came out just few weeks ago). Take a look just to see how to make it better (but only after finishing CMBB ). A modest suggestion, which would be at least better than SP version: only the spotting unit(s) see the enemy, others with line of sight (when selected) see only generic marker (maybe with some system of either national symbol or hearing marker to add sofistication dependning on the situation) and they have to resort to area fire.

[PzKpfw 1]

An repost from an old thread.

Concerning Soviet artillery it was in an developing state from 41 - 44 initialy it was largely inferior in practice as in C&C to the US & UK as their was a lack of cordination as well as the lack of trained specialist's & the lack of radios, Ie, in June 1941 the only establishment in the artillery that had the communication, & survey personell required for inderect fire was the howitzer Regt, within a Rifle Division, and this was changed in the July Shtat as the Soviets shifted the trained personell to Front HQ's.

So in 1941 the Soviet artillery was for the most part only able to provide direct fire support and the effectiveness of their artillery was directly related to the competance or lack of, of the Artillery HQ staff. Rifle Divisions well into 1944 never had the inherent ability to provide inderect fire support and were dependant on higher level formations to provide IDFS.

A classic example of early Soviet problems cordinating Artillery was during the 1942 Kharkov offensive where the Southwestren Front tried to cordinate & control 35 Seprate Artillery Regt's and failed miserably as it was simply beyond the abilities of the single augumented HQ staff to control that large a grouping.

The lessons learned were applied and to solve the earlier problems the Soviets developed the Artillery Division which was largest, & most powerful regular artillery organization formed in WW2 even the presence of 1 Artillery Division was often eneough to ensure Soviet success.

During Stalingrad the Soviets formed the first of this new type of Division, which essentialy was an HQ with 8 attached Seprate Artillery Regts, that supported the 62nd Army, and proved the worth of the new organization, as well as in 1943 during the Kharkov offensive ,when Rifle Divions, attacking a German Division near Kharkov with the supt of 2 Artillery Divison's ahnialated the defending German Division then sent a Tank Army through the breach toward Kharkov. .

After Stalingrad the Soviets continued to evolve their Artillery with the forming of Artillery Brigades, these consisted initialy of 7 - 8 Seprate Artillery Regts attached to an HQ wherever needed, then scaled down to 3 Regt's later in 1943 for better C&C.

This was followed in 1943 by the formation of Artillery Breakthrough Divisions which were basicly an upgraded Artillery Divisions with the addition of 152mm & 203mm howitzer Brigades formed for as the name implies to facilitate breakthroughs.

They also formed the first Artillery Corps HQ's in 1943 which were designed to take over artilley cordination responsibilies from the Army & Front HQ's

So by mid 1944 The Soviets feilded 26 Artillery Divisions, with 11 Breakthrough Divisions, and 6 Artillery Corpse HQ's, and 7 Guards Mortar Divisions, with another 11 Artillery Divs added by Sept 1944 and 2 more Polish Artilery Divisions formed in 1945.

By 1944 the state of C&C as well as communication had increased to the point, that IDFS ability was now aproaching Westren standards in that, begining in 1944 an Artillery Reconnaissance Battalion (spotter Bn) was added to each Artillery Division, and one more was added to each Front HQ & Artillery Corpse HQ, by late 1944 over 90 Artillery Reconnaissance Battalion's had been formed, along with the formation of Artillery Aviation Regt's so that by the end of 1944 each Front & Artillery Corpse HQ had one Regt of spotting aircraft as well.

It is arguable that Soviet Artillery efectiveness ever reached Westren standards, but one thing is evident by late 1943 Soviet Artilley capability had surpassed German abilities, even at the height of Blitzkrieg in effectivness & responsivness. The success of any Soviet offensive could be directly gauged by the artillery commitment. It will be interesting to see how this evolution is modeled in CM2

Regards, John Waters

[Mr. Johnson--]

Wow BTS, now you guys are going to try and model land lines and wireless FOs!!!!

You guys are crazy, you guys never stop trying to improve your products! Do you think you guys might be biting off more then you can chew with long list of improvements to CMBB? Is BTS gonna release CMBB this time next year, after you've finally got all the improvements just the way you want them?

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

No counter arguments have been made. None that have come with actual, factual counterclaims anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a load.

Look, this has gone beyond pointless to absurd. People post stuff left and right countering your arguements and you pretend they don't exist. Then one person posts some opinions that mesh with yours and you lap it up as if God himself had just come down and appointed you his spokesperson.

This reminds me of another arguement I had with some guy last year on another forum about a new graphics engine coming out. He was going off on how it couldn't be any good as it still supported Glide. I posted a quote from the lead programmer where he flat out stated "we are dropping Glide and going with DX and OpenGL only. Glide is dead." The guy's response was to say "I don't see anything in there about Glide support being dropped". He simply refused to admit he had been proven wrong even though the proof was right there for everyone to see. It reminded me of argueing with a small child who plugs his ears and goes "LALALALALALAL-I can't hear you!-LALALALALALA".

So when I see you refusing to admit that Depuy thought the M1 had anything to do with US suppression problems, even though I provided 2 quotes where he clearly does, I begin to hear LALALALAL and know it's time to agree to disagree and move on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Kallimakhos:

Vanir & co, I object to your implications that Finns are nationalist or even racist if we think, based on historical comparison and evidence, and say aloud, that Finnish army did very well and and other armys could even learn something from us. When you make this kind of accusations, every Finn can be offended.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can only speak for myself, but at no time did I ever accuse Tero of being racist, nationalist, sexist or any other ist. I did say his arguements were based upon stereotypes, which they are.

I never said anything about Finland, the Finnish army or Finnish people in general.

[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Slapdragon]

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

This is getting a bit tedious now, can't help that. You seemed to lose my point, which I admit was a bit subbtle, but none the less important. When you throw that kind of accusations against any person, you should also bring the evidence even with good deal of benefit of doubt. I can't help feeling that these very grievous accusations are based mostly or solely on the claim 1 mentioned in the previous post, and if I happen to more or less agree with that claim, I feel I too am targeted, as well as many others. Can you see the logic here?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it was unintended. As I said, the Finnish people where not targeted, only mindless spouting of party lines with no desire to present or read others facts.

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

I believe I have read all these gone to ûberfinn-threads quite closely, and all racial issues have come up only in postings by other than finns, and nothing Tero has said is very difficult to see as nationalist or racist, whatever one means by these words. In this context I think comparison to aryan brotherhood even by analogy is totally uncalled for. As You said, one would expect especially americans as a multinational (and litigative) nation to be very sensitive and carefull about any accusations concerning racism. More over, I fail to see the need for any ad hominem attacks...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are very correct that ad hominem attacks are not appropriate, however I was more pointing out that there was no point in discussing these issues on this basis. The closest real world experience that was similar was the ayran brotherhood debates I was in bearly a decade ago. I cannot possibly accuse Tero of membership in this group because I was not even aware they existed Finland, only that his argument style (failure to read other posts, pulling single facts to support predisposed positions, basing all arguments on national lines) was exactly the style taken by unltra nationalist, black hilicopter, and racists organizations in the US.

The second issue is the difference between racism and nationalism. One thing that can seriously confuse an American in such a way that they do not know they are confused is referance to people as "Finns, Germans, etc." because in the US that means your descent, not your country of allegiance. Thus I said that this was a nationalistic debate and added, if you read the paragraph, that it is only racist depending on how you define the term. I myself am Scottish and Swedish descent of American Nationality married to a wife with a black ghanan grandparent, portuguese grand parent, italian grand parent, and a Brazillian indian grandparent, and our children will be all that mashed together.

But if I moved to Finnland, could I be Finnish? I am assuming I can, and that as soon as my children spoke Finnish perfectly they too would be Finns, so I feel that the argument had taken a turn into nationalistic realms. I also base this thought on previous discussions, and as soon as nationalism rases its head, then all intellectual discourse dies. Might as well debate which nation is the best football nation and be done with it, as can be observed with this discussion.

There are of course other possible problems. When I talk with argie on this list, I try to use his own language since I know it, but I learned it in a different country and speak it with a completely different slang, and he speaks english with some grammar problems, so sometimes we both run into difficultiies of connecting meanings (more often my fault than his). Perhaps what seems to be a failure to read others arguments is merely a misreading of them because of the language barrier and the native english speakers do not realize it because he writes well (or as well as anyone writes on the internet -- fast typing is a sin that we all indulge in).

[Jeff Duquette]

Numerous references have been made to work by Depuy and SLA Marshall. Of interest regarding these two soldiers is that their writing has probable been the most influential and far reaching bits of work relative to US ARMY Infantry training and doctrine of the last 50 years. Debunking of SLA Marshall is a rather recent phenomenon and is to a large extent based on the work of John McManus. McManus has never served in the military, not even the Reserves. On the other hand Lt. Col. David Grossman in his recent work “On Killing” liberally employs Marshall and in no way attempts to gain notoriety by slandering past authors ala McManus.

Regarding National modifiers this is not a new idea to wargaming, even at the squad level. SQUAD LEADER made no bones about the distinguishing “national traits” between various Armies. I’m not suggesting that this is an argument for its incorporation in another wargame; I’m simply suggesting that this is not something new or something that warrants us calling each other bigots or skinheads. That is pretty far-fetched to this debate and only acts to muddy the waters and detract from the topic really being discussed here.

Within the world of Combat Mission, the player simultaneously wears the hats of platoon, company, and battalion commanders. The player however is not in control of inter-squad level functions. He orders squads about, but squad drill itself is really a function of the programming. If there is reason to believe that squad level drill – that is beyond the direct control of “mouse wielding generals” – is different between various nations than why would there not be programming to account for these differing attributes?

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Regarding National modifiers this is not a new idea to wargaming, even at the squad level. SQUAD LEADER made no bones about the distinguishing “national traits” between various Armies. I’m not suggesting that this is an argument for its incorporation in another wargame; I’m simply suggesting that this is not something new or something that warrants us calling each other bigots or skinheads. That is pretty far-fetched to this debate and only acts to muddy the waters and detract from the topic really being discussed here.If there is reason to believe that squad level drill – that is beyond the direct control of “mouse wielding generals” – is different between various nations than why would there not be programming to account for these differing attributes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are certain national characteristics - mostly outside of CMs scope - that can be modelled, and SL had some of them right.

The best example I can think of is motorcycle training. In SL, all British leaders were considered to be experienced with motorcycles. After Dunkirk, when large amounts of staff cars were abandoned (the jeep was not yet commonly issued), the British and Canadians required all officers to complete motorcycle training.

That has little to do with Combat Mission, but you can argue that it is an example of actual training practices causing the troops of one nationality to perform differently. Since SL had motorcycle rules, its inclusion was a natural.

I certainly am not going to wade through 10 pages of posts since the most recent ones seem to indicate that they are not worth reading - but it seems to that with me the kinds of things simulated in CM, solid evidence that one nation did things demonstrably different from the other would be hard to find - or that the differences that are apparent would make any difference in the end product.

British Battle Drill Training required men, under certain instructors, to run through slaughterhouses and be drenched in animal blood. Did this make them more immune to shock induced by the sight of blood?

Probably not. But I suspect Tero would have us use that to justify a special modifier for British troops in CM - which would be just a bit silly.

And finally - the SL designers admitted up front that national modifiers were patently unfair,and were included solely for fun. BTS comes down firmly on the other side of the realism/gameyness fence, so their stance is hardly surprising.

[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Michael Said: I certainly am not going to wade through 10 pages of posts since the most recent ones seem to indicate that they are not worth reading<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. Same people arguing the same thing. Zealot CM2 play-testers defending trees they have urinated on and fanatical Finnish ASL players wielding Depuy like its some sort of sword.

What I am suggesting is that Armies are not generic blocks of units that are interchangeable between differing nations. Different Nations apply different training techniques and operate under differing doctrines. This has nothing to do with uber-mensch. And I am not talking about trivial aspects of motorcycle training.

Example: The Red Army employed 3 tank armored platoons. US Army employed 5 tank armored platoons. US tank platoon functions in two cohesive groups…a heavy section and light section. One section overwatches for the other during movement. Within the Soviet system two separate platoons are employed for overwatch. I would suggest that the US system is better as overwatch is conducted within the platoon…no coordination with another platoon is required. Subjective?…sure it is.

I guess my question to you is do you believe that squad level drill has no impact on the out come of fire-fights? Be as subjective as you like, as personally I am less interested in what someone thinks about the implications to a wargame as I am in the real world mechanics of what is implied. Feel free to employ unrealistic CFL examples if you think they are appropriate.

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

A Green US artillery battery is not going to have the same edge against a German Veteran battery vs. a Regular one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reading that I've done suggests the performance of green and experienced artillery units was comparable as the men were performing the same tasks as they had in training. That is reflected in CM..?

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

the SL designers admitted up front that national modifiers were patently unfair,and were included solely for fun. BTS comes down firmly on the other side of the realism/gameyness fence, so their stance is hardly surprising.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you discount national modifiers, you're essentially stating that the only difference between men is the weapons they use, and in terms of operational doctrine. Between the two is the man, and he is shaped by many other factors, in peacetime, and in training for battle.

[Slapdragon]

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

When you discount national modifiers, you're essentially stating that the only difference between men is the weapons they use, and in terms of operational doctrine. Between the two is the man, and he is shaped by many other factors, in peacetime, and in training for battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, what you are saying is that you reject urban legend as a method of applying modifyers to small unit combat, and that you are embracing the use of universal models that do not require "just for the hell of it" tweeking. The big difference here is between people who embrace urban legend as a means of modelling real world events, and people who embrace cause and effect evidence to create models.

Most people who argue for national modifiers are failing to rigorously apply a set of basic question in tactical modelling. First, does this modifier really exist or is it urban legend? Second, does this difference in behavior result in an effect that can be quantified. Third, does this quantified variable result in a difference that can be applied to a game at the level of CM.

Lets take these variables, grab some national modifiers, and try this out. First one, the US Army, and to a an extent the commonwealth forces, had a medical system that was far different from the Italian, German, and Russian systems. This system had a higher number of personnel per soldier in the field, placed surgical operations wards closer to the front (battalion level in fact), and used antibiotics and whole blood right up at the front, something unheard of in other armies.

Test One: Rapid casualty evacuation and treatment was a noted part of Allied Armies 1944-1945, whole blood and antibiotics where virtually unknown at the battalion level in other armies. For the purpose of getting the beta testers, Steve, and Charles to listen I am on firm ground here.

Test Two: Can this be quantified? Yes it can. Allied soldiers had a time to treatment compared to severity of wound half that of the Germans with a quarter better survival rate for severe wounds over the 12 months of Overlord. So here is some data I can extract.

Test Three: How does this affect the CM game. Err, well, not at all. I could at this point start in that the Germans knew they were less well cared for than the allies, or that the allies were more prone to takle risks because of this or that medical advantage, but it would all be crap. My numbers speak to the survival and quality of treatment of a soldier over a period of months.

Much of the data breaks down in number one, some gets to two and breaks down, and much of the rest breaks down at three. Witness the original SMG thread, where a number of spare SMGs actually broke down at all three levels. Sure, more SMGs were made than were issued to front line troops (other things happened to those weapons). Sure it is possible that divisions carted around a bunch of spare SMGs which could have been issued, and sure it is possible that a random squad could have picked them up and discarded their old weapons, but the only hard data came at one and never left that step, from then on it was "suppose".

Finally, to change BTS mind about anything, you need something more than a single quote from a comic book, even if it was written by Harry Hopkins himself. The data must work through these three rules, be able to be modelled, make enough of a difference to matter (US soldiers recieved much more vitamin A than others, causing the US Army to assume that their soldiers could see better at night. In fact, compared to captured prisioners, they could. In practice though, it had no effect on combat -- why do all the work to creat a +0 modifier).

[Mr. Johnson--]

Back to Submachine gun topics,

"The Germans produced the widest range of special and modified items for their Airborne troops. The most famous item was the FG-42, a gas operated semi-automatic rifle made only for the Airborne. Only about 10,000 were made. It was an advanced design that fired full automatic from an open bolt - for cooling - and semi-automatic from a closed bolt - for accuracy. The weapon had a small bipod and fed from a 20 round magazine on the left side. It weighted nearly ten pounds fully loaded. It fired the full size 7.92 MM military round which was really too powerful for the weapon. Even with a bipod it was difficult to control when fired on full automatic."

Interesting, found it at Feldgreu.com

[Sirocco]

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

Finally, to change BTS mind about anything, you need something more than a single quote from a comic book, even if it was written by Harry Hopkins himself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The most glaring example would be how Russian soldiers could stand up to the extreme Russian winter better than the Germans, as they were more used to the conditions. Didn't that have an effect at some point..?

[Mr. Johnson--]

That was the only thing I might think would qualify as a realistic national modifier. But with the new fitness ratings, I will be making the Russians have good fitness but poor training. While I'll give the Germans regualar everything, at least in most cases.

[Slapdragon]

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

The most glaring example would be how Russian soldiers could stand up to the extreme Russian winter better than the Germans, as they were more used to the conditions. Didn't that have an effect at some point..? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Russians lost thousands of men during the 1941 Winter campaign to frost casualties. The biggest difference here would be the availability of quilted clothing, which I would think may be quantifiable, provable, and may have an effect on game play (I have never looked at it). At least, you could assume in scenario design that lack of winter clothing lowers "fitness", and in future versions of the game US soldiers in Bulge would be at a similar disadvantage if it could be proven that their clothing was an order of magnitude inferior.

[Dr. Brian]

I know I'm coming into this topic late, and forgive me if this has already been said, but I just can't go through all 241 messages. :eek:

Anyway, Gyrene's propsal is not always desirable. Why on EARTH would I want to have short ranged SMGs taken from my longer ranged M1s?????

The scenario may be open, and require greater long range FP.

Just my 0.02 zlotey.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

The most glaring example would be how Russian soldiers could stand up to the extreme Russian winter better than the Germans, as they were more used to the conditions. Didn't that have an effect at some point..? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt. But during a CM game? I don't think enough Germans would have froze to death during a 30 minute battle to model them dropping from frostbite in the middle of a firefight.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff Duquette:

What I am suggesting is that Armies are not generic blocks of units that are interchangeable between differing nations<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Example: The Red Army employed 3 tank armored platoons. US Army employed 5 tank armored platoons. US tank platoon functions in two cohesive groups…a heavy section and light section. One section overwatches for the other during movement. Within the Soviet system two separate platoons are employed for overwatch. I would suggest that the US system is better as overwatch is conducted within the platoon…no coordination with another platoon is required. Subjective?…sure it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question becomes to what extent you force the player to use those tactics and prohibit him from using others. What if someone wants to use 2 of his T-34's to overwatch the other advancing. How do you stop this? Did the Russians never deviate from offical SOP? How do you force the player to only use marching fire on the attack as the US in summer '44? Depuy states they did not discover squad overwatch suppression tactics until later. How do you stop the US player from even targeting defending German units with stationary US squads? Tero wants the TacAI to have German units automaticaly area fire at unseen enemy units. The net effect would be that German squads would run out of ammo much faster, blowing it firing at sound contacts, while doing little more damage. It would become SOP for every German player to begin his orders phase canceling all the area fires the TacAI had ordered during the turn. This would be a mess. People would hate it. Tero would hate it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Be as subjective as you like, as personally I am less interested in what someone thinks about the implications to a wargame as I am in the real world mechanics of what is implied. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This whole thread is pretty much about how RL stuff translates into CM terms

[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Username]

I think certain traits like the US airbornes running ability (I was in Fort Bragg, you run dammit) should come out. The new physical rating should handle this. Likewise, cig smoking senior citizen volksgrenadiers and crappy pants hitler youth might not run well. Diaper rash and all.

This tero is looking for 'folklore' stories. He wants superhuman efforts against the robotic russians. He wants ASL atributes and such. What was that sissu crap about?

Cmon. The finns defended a forrest. gedreal. They were like 6foot6inch vietcong i guess. Cant tero just hang posters of these superheroes on his wall and leave it alone?

Lewis

[PzKpfw 1]

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

The most glaring example would be how Russian soldiers could stand up to the extreme Russian winter better than the Germans, as they were more used to the conditions. Didn't that have an effect at some point..? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya thats an old myth based on the Soviet troops haveing winter clothing compared to the majority of German formations. The Germans BTW had winter clothing, & more then enough of it to supply all their divisions, problem was it was sitting at rail supply depots in Germany, & was never issued until later. The Soviets themselves suffered 90,881 frostbite casualties in WW2.

Some other Myths from the Russian front:

1).Soviet Union was to big for a successful invasion . German over caution & haphazard planning, & indecsion threw away their chance for victory in 1941.

2).The Red Army was to large to be defeated. The Soviet Union had one choice fight, or die.

3).Hitler's Stand fast order was the correct choice . Had the Germans retreated their supply lines would have shortened while the Soviet's would have increased which would have put the Soviets in the same situation the Germans were dealing with.

4).Soviet Railway systemsThe Soviet Railway system has been blamed repeatedly for slowing German advances in 1941, for years, because 'Soviet rail used an wider track', forcing the Germans to retrack the entire rail system to the points of their gains.

In reality The Soviets never had time to destroy even a small portion of the railway track, during the retreats of 1941. All the Germans had to do in reality in 98% of the cases was pull up the spikes, move the rails in a bit & respike.

The real problem was Soviet Locomotives were bigger & heavier & carried more fuel & water then German locomotives, which meant Soviet locomotives could travel longer distances between supply stops.

The Germans ended up haveing to build sheds, repair stations, turntables, water towers etc, which all needed huge ammounts of heavy machinery & skilled labor & took time. The Germans literly ended up building 2 service centers for every Russian one.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

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

When you discount national modifiers, you're essentially stating that the only difference between men is the weapons they use, and in terms of operational doctrine. Between the two is the man, and he is shaped by many other factors, in peacetime, and in training for battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tactics were greatly influenced by weapons. The British squad (section) maneuvered around the Bren. The Germans maneuvered around the MG 42. The Americans were hampered by the BAR.

They all shat their pants the same when they got shot at - or went berserk, or some reaction in between. Men are men.

Jeff - I admitted the motorcycle example was trivial, but it is a clear illustration of a very obvious example. I am quite familiar with British battle drill, but am not as familiar with the German.

I think the disadvantage to Battle Drill training (and Monty knew this from the start, incidentally - he was quite brilliant when it came to training troops) was that it was a crutch. Where the German was taught that to do anything was better than to do nothing, the British relied on set routines and a checklist to things to do in certain circumstances.

Ok.

So how do you reflect that in CM?

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I think certain traits like the US airbornes running ability (I was in Fort Bragg, you run dammit) should come out. The new physical rating should handle this. Likewise, cig smoking senior citizen volksgrenadiers and crappy pants hitler youth might not run well. Diaper rash and all.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did World War Two airborne troopers really run as much as is done today?

And do you suppose they smoked any less? EVERYONE smoked in the 1940s, with very few exceptions. I don't understand your logic here.

[Gyrene]

Michael, Username's post has some merit, look at the example of US Soldiers early in the Korean war: They were notoriously out of shape and "soft" from years of cushy occupation duty in Japan and it really showed when they were up against the far fitter and organized North Koreans.

While I won't go as far as to say that VS troops were all fat and out of shape, but there was a reason why those guys weren't picked for frontline duty in the regular German army.

The new fitness rating might fix some of these problems, but in the end the game might still came down to X # of guys with Y type of gun without any sort of training differentiation between them which might be a sticking point when it comes to partisans.

Gyrene

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Ya thats an old myth based on the Soviet troops haveing winter clothing compared to the majority of German formations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You cannot tell me that a man who has lived all his life with those conditions isn't more used to them than someone who is coming into it for the first time.

This whole idea of a "universal soldier" makes about as much sense as the idea that there's a "universal man", at home in all conditions.