Purchasing early war Russian tank platoons

[SteveP]

This may be old news to some, but I don't recall it being discussed on these boards. It's something that struck me for the first time while messing around with a QB recently.

Radio-less Russian AFVs, when purchased as a platoon have a particular disadvantage. For all practical purposes, once the shooting starts and the hatches go down, the tanks are essentially "out-of-command" for the duration of the battle (except for the HQ tank, of course). The most important effect of this is that they suffer a significant command delay penalty. Since Russian units have a command delay penalty already, this is something of a double whammy. On the other hand, a Russian tank purchased by itself does not suffer this additional penalty. In fact, the only tanks or vehicles that get this additional penalty are those that are purchased in platoons and have no radios.

This raises a number of interesting questions, like:

1. From the pure standpoint of optimizing your forces, does it ever make sense to purchase these units as a platoon?

2. From a purely realism standpoint, does purchasing these units individually make it gamey.

3. Is this a mistake in the design of CM, or is there a reasonable rationale for this (I can think of arguments both ways).

I could go on with some more questions and observations about this situation, but maybe this is a good time to see if anyone is still paying any attention to CM1 boards.

[costard]

SteveP

I bought a platoon of '41 T34's, regular, in a tcp/ip quick battle last night. The first (the command vehicle) went in the first round, knocked out by a PIIIH at 600m - I'd foolishly gambled on the opposition not having anything significant in that fire-lane.

The second scored a PII flame and a 20mm armored car, then was knocked out by the PIIIH. The delay on movement meant that it hung around just behind a crest for thirty seconds too long, giving the German time to make the flank.

The third won the game for me - even though he unbuttoned forty seconds after being fired upon by a sniper. The delay on firing through being shocked was less than the delay for getting moving. I had held on in desperation and was rewarded with a dose of good luck.

The whole of the battle, set in August 1941, was a wake-up call as to just how brittle the Soviets are at this time. Regulars all, incompetent for the most part.

So, in answer to your questions, from a very junior point of view,

1. The homogeneity of the force means a requirement for less mental ju-jitsu; in positioning for advantage, replacing knocked out elements. I haven't noticed a real difference provided by command (morale, recovering from panic) but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

2. Gamey is - the game is a game, and ever will be. Any model of the universe suffers from being a model, as opposed to the real thing. At the very least this model is highly enjoyable, in my humble opinion, and well worth the money spent on it. Hopefully worth the time and effort put into creating it (you'd have to ask Battlefront).

3. The product seems too highly polished to have this feature as unintended, a mistake. The frustration engendered by this coding has been a part of all the Combat games I've enjoyed - CC2-5, now CM. It enhances the immersion and "real-life" feeling of the game, only a shallow and unforgiving person could possibly take exception to it's being included. (An interesting marketing ploy, that.) As a possible real-world circumstance describing the mechanics of the game, How about (in Russian, over the noise of some fearsomely large, unmuffled diesel engines):

"Straight ahead, 180m, half left, behind that clump of woods."

"What?"

"Go! There!" (points). Gets taken out by a MkIII.

"What? Where?" pause. etc.

[SteveP]

For anyone who may be reading this thread, I've finally figured out why this penalty for the Russian tanks caught my attention (finally). The penalty is actually a double penalty. Ordinarily when a platooned unit (inf or armor) is out of command, it loses one step in command delay -- that is, a regular unit has the same command delay as a green. In the case of early war Russian tanks, however, the penalty is two steps: a regular platooned Russian tank that is out of command has the same command delay as a conscript. Which, incidentally is the same command delay as a platooned German conscript unit that is out of command.

I have to think that's pretty extreme if not absurd from a real world perspective. After all, how long should it take a regular tank commander (fully trained and combat experienced) to shout an order, curse a couple of times and kick the tank driver in the back of the head to get moving, even when buttoned up and out of contact with the platoon leader??

On the other hand, perhaps the command and control training of Russian tank commanders at that time left them befuddled about what to do when they could not receive orders.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

There are a number of accounts that early war Soviet tank formations fell completely apart as soon as they came under fire because closed hatches, smoke and confusion made their peacetime, flag-given command structure worthless.

[SteveP]

I've also for the first time figured out that AFVs equipped with radios (any nationality) get their command delay cut in half. So the radio-less Russian tanks also lose out on this bonus even when they are in command.

Perhaps to put it into perspective: an early war platooned T-34 that's buttoned up takes 45 sec to make a move. A non-platooned T-34 (no radio) that's buttoned up takes 21 sec to make a move. A PZIII that's buttoned up takes 7 sec to move (assuming it's not out of radio range). I'm assuming no command bonuses. My thinking is that the difference between 7 sec and 21 sec may be reasonable given different doctrines and training, but not so sure that a difference of 7 sec and 45 sec is quite so reasonable. Also, not sure that the difference between 21 sec and 45 sec is reasonable, given that in both cases the tanks are solely at the command of their respective tank commanders.

[costard]

SteveP - I see your point. Was there a class of tank platoon commanders that used to jump on their subordinates for not absolutely making sure that they weren't in sight/command? More time taken to check?

[JasonC]

The Germans with 3 man turrets, better optics, veteran crews, and above all radios, do deserve better reaction times in tank fights. Their actual edge was in such soft systems and in better orders given by "the player". Not in tech specs, where the modern Russian types had a huge edge in 1941, and a modest but still real one in 1942.

In game terms, though, the question is really should one take independent tanks to avoid the platoon'd part of the movement delay? The answer is usually "sure". With the prewar lights it can be academic, though - they are going to die when looked at cross eyed, and their 1941 era 45mm is so undermodeled they will be outgunned by a Panzer II. (I've seen them bounce shots repeatedly from a 15+20 Pz II front, while getting hit endlessly and holed by the 20mm replies).

The Russians should take platoons once they have radios, for the price break. Before then, they certainly don't have to. You won't find the Germans taking short barrel StuGs, or the III F model with 50mm front, once 80mm fronts with long 75s are available, now will you? For competitive QBs, knock yourself out and don't pay any attention to "realism" concerns, which German side players only ever ask you to honor.

Designers, on the other hand, can use independent tanks and smaller than full sized platoons to create the level of command ability they want in the specific battle. I often use pairs of T-70s, or mini-platoons of 3, instead of full sized 5 tank platoons, for example. And I show company command tanks as singles to give them faster reaction time.

[dieseltaylor]

Good thread.

[SteveP]

I think Jason's response to the specific question I asked is probably the right one: buy them individually, not as a platoon.

I do think it's interesting that BFC must have made a specific decision to give platooned radio-less AFVs a double penalty when they are out of command, since that required a customized change to the coding. As with the other handicaps that the Russians have in this game (as Jason has described so many times), it does tend to put a little damper on one's enthusiasm for the game. However, at least in this case there is something you can do about it.

Side note: I hadn't realized before that infantry weapon teams also do not get a command delay penalty for being out-of-command, nor do they get a bonus for being in-command (unless the HQ has a command bonus, of course). I guess the presumption is that a squad will be hamstrung for a few seconds trying to get orders from someone, while a weapons team won't be bothering. Just like they seem to ignore my orders from time to time.

[J.R.]

I'm not sure I understand why the double step down is considered unrealistic. Tank Platoons that don't have radio communication will have to get their instructions from the PLT Leader by way of hand-and-arm signals, flag signals, smoke or some other method that depends on vision. If the TC is buttoned up, he is going to have a much harder time responding to the PL's direction.

Being buttoned up cuts down on a tanker's situational awareness much more than one might think, also. Even if the vehicle has vision blocks, they are often dirty or cracked and even when clean and new are inadequate IMO. IIRC, that's why the German tanks had a 'half closed' position on the TC's hatch-- so he could have his hatch cracked and keep his head partially up while getting some cover benefit.

I doubt the early Soviet tanks had this feature, though I don't know. Perhaps the estimable JasonC could enlighten us?

[SteveP]

Originally posted by J.R.:

I'm not sure I understand why the double step down is considered unrealistic.

I'm mostly raising a point about consistency in the model. A squad that is out-of-command is just as disadvantaged as a radio-less tank that is out-of-command, but the squad doesn't get a double penalty.

A nonplatooned radio-less T-34 suffers no penalty at all, even if buttoned, or even if shocked. Yet, to my mind I can't see how that tank is able to make command decisions so much faster than a similar tank that is platooned but out of command. They are both on their own. At most I could see a one-step penalty for the platooned tank due to some disorientation about suddenly being on it's own.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by SteveP:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J.R.:

I'm not sure I understand why the double step down is considered unrealistic.

I'm mostly raising a point about consistency in the model. A squad that is out-of-command is just as disadvantaged as a radio-less tank that is out-of-command, but the squad doesn't get a double penalty.

A nonplatooned radio-less T-34 suffers no penalty at all, even if buttoned, or even if shocked. Yet, to my mind I can't see how that tank is able to make command decisions so much faster than a similar tank that is platooned but out of command. They are both on their own. At most I could see a one-step penalty for the platooned tank due to some disorientation about suddenly being on it's own. </font>

[JasonC]

Except, the reality is the whole reason there are command structures is that a platoon of AFVs is far better at coordinating its actions in mutually supporting ways, than the same number of tanks running around willy nilly, each tank driver following his own nose.

In the *game*, any order the player gives is going to be borg-like maximally coordinated with the others - up to command delay. Only the delay models difficulty coordinating across multiple vehicles, not all of which know what the others know. In *reality*, a commanded platoon is always going to do this better than independent tanks.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Except, the reality is the whole reason there are command structures is that a platoon of AFVs is far better at coordinating its actions in mutually supporting ways, than the same number of tanks running around willy nilly, each tank driver following his own nose.

In the *game*, any order the player gives is going to be borg-like maximally coordinated with the others - up to command delay. Only the delay models difficulty coordinating across multiple vehicles, not all of which know what the others know. In *reality*, a commanded platoon is always going to do this better than independent tanks.

True, in the case of radio equipped AFV's. It's the non-radio, flag-waving, get-out-of-the-tank-and-pass-a-note style of command I was refering to. With no viable communication among vehicles, a tank platoon is still just five individual AFV's wondering what to do next.

[SteveP]

At this point, I'm not sure who is agreeing with whom, about what.

However, just to keep up some activity on this board, let me offer the following thought problem for comment:

Two Russian early war T34 tank platoons, each with only two tanks, heads for the battlefield. Just before getting there, the HQ tank in one platoon breaks down. So at the start of the battle (setup phase in CM) there is one platoon and one "independent" tank -- namely a subordinate tank that just lost its HQ. Now in the first minute of the battle, the other HQ tank is knocked out. Now you have two subordinate tanks running around the battlefield, both of whom just lost their HQs. My assumption is that these two tanks would have the same handicaps in the battle. However, in CM the tank that lost its HQ the minute before arriving on the battlefield has no command delay. The other tank that lost its HQ in the next minute has a double command delay penalty. I don't think there is any way to rationalize that.

I'm willing to accept a single command delay penalty difference on the grounds that the "independent" tank might have been the HQ in that other platoon, or for some other reason might have been better prepared to operate independently in the battle. So, you average out the possibilities and allow that much difference. It's worth noting, however, that with the other command delay penalties the Russians get, even that one step addition can be pretty steep.

I think that BFC got a little overboard with the idea that historical realism dictated giving the Russians a number of handicaps, particularly in command and artillery, and nobody (including the beta testers) ever considered whether the results were always coherent.

[Silvio Manuel]

I think these kinds of features to make the game-play more challenging for sure, but then just look at the Soviets' performance from 22-JUN-41 until the end of '41 - they lost something like 2 or 3 million men and (guessing) probably 3000 (and maybe many more) tanks?

Their indirect arty was too rigid (and the arty corps too uneducated) to get anything like the performance that the Germans (let alone the Brits and Americans) got out of their arty system. They needed to pray that they could (1) get indirect arty and (2) that the pre-planned missions actually hit anything. Beyond that, their weaknesses in command, troop training, equipment (mostly, i.e. T-26, BT's, 45mm, 50mm mortar etc), and supply (due to German disruptions in the rear) gave them a tremendous disadvantage.