Reduced squads?

[Barticus]

One (little) thing that gets me about Combat Mission is that when you buy platoons, companies etc., everything is at 100% 'book' strength. Now, it seems to me that, short of preparation for a major campaign, any unit would seldom be at full strength, even after a break to be refitted. Could this be something that BTS could include in their next installment?. I have been on the Forums for awhile now, but haven't read anything on this topic.

Bart

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

"I have slipped the

surly bonds of earth...."

[Forever Babra]

It has been raised before, but not for nearly a year I think. We're hoping.

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

Mein Vater, mein Vater, und hörest du nicht,

Was Erlenkönig mir leise verspricht? -

Sei ruhig, bleibe ruhig, mein Kind;

In dürren Blättern säuselt der Wind.

Stereotypes

The Un-Rant

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Forever Babra:

It has been raised before, but not for nearly a year I think. We're hoping.

Now, now, I mentioned it as well not long ago. In the Commonwealth armies for sure, possibly the others as well, infantry units also designated men LOB (Left Out of Battle) before major engagements. This was done to have a cadre to reform on if the unit was wiped out - ie if a platoon commander went into an attack, his platoon sergeant stayed in the rear, or vice versa. So it wasn't just casualties that resulted in smaller squads, etc.; sometimes this was done deliberately as well.

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

CANUCK: Clothing, Equipping and Employing the Canadian Soldier in Combat Mission

[Dirtweasle]

In the editor place your squads on the map, split 'em and then delete what you don't want. You now have an atritted platoon. If you just want to delete a squad from the platoon it's even easier. Just delete it directly from the unit selection window. I realize you can't make 7 man squads this way, but it is a fairly decent work around. If you're careful you can make sure you keep the part of the split squad that retains the MG, or BAR. This is also they way you can overload your split squads with demo charges, gammon bombs and the like.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Except, when you try to delete a rifle team, the whole squad goes with it. In my experience anyway.

Use platoons with only 2 squads in them, or 1 squad and an MG team or two, to represent depleted formations. You can set them up in split up teams, too, as long as you use 2 or 4 of them. You can also represent low levels of "depletion" by removing harder-to-move weapons teams, which is realistic. E.g. many U.S. companies didn't bring their .50 cal into combat, or brought only 2 mortars. You can represent fewer officers by buying teams rather than units for weapons, etc.

2 mortars but with extra ammo (~60 rounds apiece) was even a smart "field mod" for them, incidentally. The remaining men in the mortar units were put on ammo details, to carry the extras and to run and get more. Since they ran out so fast, this was a smart idea. Units started doing it in the Italian campaign, though not all.

Thus, a real world U.S. rifle company might have -

CO HQ

3 PLT HQ

3, 2, 2 Squads

2 MMG

3 Zook

2 60mm mortar w/ extra ammo.

That is 128 men rather than the TOE of 163, or ~80%. If you want them even more depleted, you can take just 2 rifle platoon, 2 MMGs, 2 Zooks, 2 mortars, and then delete 1 squad from each platoon. Then you are only 80 men, ~50% of TOE.

This is more realistic than deleting 35 riflemen or team ammo-handlers, 1-3 per team, while leaving every officer and heavy weapon and BAR in the company operational, and fully supplied with ammo. Which is what tweaking the men-per-team would do.

[Michael Dorosh]

Zook? Ugh, Jason, that's one of my pet peeves. It sounds like a term the twitch crowd would use, not a learned gentleman like yourself (could I BE any more nitpicky?). Here's a truly stupid question - was this actually 40's slang? Doesn't matter at all, just curious - the first I've seen this term used is on this board.

No offence intended to anyone; I'm not a big fan of using jargon when a simple word will do, but some reason this one just sticks out.

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

CANUCK: Clothing, Equipping and Employing the Canadian Soldier in Combat Mission

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Except, when you try to delete a rifle team, the whole squad goes with it. In my experience anyway.

I'll be damned, it does. ..though you still can keep one intact regular squad and 1 split into two...

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Zook? Ugh, Jason, that's one of my pet peeves. It sounds like a term the twitch crowd would use, not a learned gentleman like yourself (could I BE any more nitpicky?).

I've never said anything because I suppose it is nitpicky, but now that you've taken a brave stand I can't let you stand alone, Michael. I must admit that the terms 'zook' and 'shreck' bug me too. But since it takes longer to write out the full names (especially if you have to do it several times in a post), I've let it slide. Heck, I've even done it a few times myself...but I always feel guilty afterward.

Here's a truly stupid question - was this actually 40's slang?

I really and truly doubt it. I've never come across either slang in contemporary writings. Besides, they have too much of a '90s feel to them.

Doesn't matter at all, just curious - the first I've seen this term used is on this board.

Are you serious? I began noticing it about 16 months ago after a long absence from the board while my computer was broken. So it must have been in use for longer than that. I guess you could do a search for it...

Michael