Armoured Infantry in Quick Battles

[Cpl Steiner]

One thing that really cheeses me off about Quick Battles in CMAK is that if you want to choose your forces you have to take loads of half-tracks with your infantry. The game doesn't seem to allow you to take infantry as "dismounted" or "motorised" - especially for American forces.

I tried to play a QB in Italy in July '44 recently, and all the force selection screen offered me was dismounted engineers or infantry in half-tracks. As many have mentioned in this forum, half-tracks should not be taken in most games because they are expensive in points, not very effective, and easily destroyed.

What is even worse is that historically, they don't appear to have had much of a front line role either, being used primarily to taxi men to the front rather than fight along side them. Why then should the game force you to take them?

This is really something that needs to be fixed in my opinion. Does anyone else agree?

[Michael Emrys]

Is there some reason you won't take just regular (i.e., not armored) infantry?

Michael

[Sirocco]

You couldn't choose an infantry force, rather than armoured in the setup?

[Redwolf]

This poster is confused.

Needs this:

http://www.salsastore.com/inc/pdetail?v=1&pid=10034

[GoofyStance]

I think I understand Cpl's comments. I've played quite a few QB's where armored infantry was my only choice, and I wanted the company HQ unit to control the heavy weapons units, but I didn't want all the halftracks, trucks, or jeeps that come bundled with the company organization of such outfits. Seems like there should be an option to exclude these expensive bull's-eyes and use the points for more effective units.

[Redwolf]

Month/Side/Force/Division?

[Cpl Steiner]

July-1944/American/Combined Arms/Mechanised.

GoofyStance understands what I'm getting at. A platoon of mechanized infantry can only be purchased with the half-tracks. You can't even delete them after you purchase the unit as a whole. Yet how accurate is this historically? I think in most battles the infantry would have dismounted and advanced to contact on foot.

[WWB]

So use July-1944/American/Combined Arms/Infantry. Problem solved. And you can still buy tanks.

Mechanized means forces from an Armored Division, which was very short on infantry in any case, and had a single armored infantry regiment, and no leg or plain motorized infantry IIRC.

This is far different from the german force layout where an armored division would have 2 infantry regiments, most of which would be simply motorized.

Then again, in terms of equipment and TO&E, a standard US infantry division had about the same amount of mechanization and heavy weapons as a German PanzerGrenadier division.

WWB

[ April 03, 2004, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: WWB ]

[Cpl Steiner]

WWB

If you choose an Infantry Division you get a different unit organisation entirely - i.e. no organic MMGs/mortars and squad size of 12 men instead of 10. The HQ is 5 men instead of 2. This is all very well and good because the TOE is for an entirely different unit - but my point was that you should be able to play a QB using dismounted Armoured infantry.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

but my point was that you should be able to play a QB using dismounted Armoured infantry.

Why?

[Redwolf]

You could argue that you should have the choice to leave the halftracks out of the hot part of the battle and still play with the squad types in armored infantry. This would be entirely realistic for many situations, in particular for non-German forces.

Obviously, since in CM halftracks cost more than the squad in it and you get a morale hit from moving stuff off the map this only works if you can buy your force without the halftracks.

Offering this would be a realism win, IMHO, however I don't think it is much of a problem. You can still ask a third party to set up your Quickbattle with your forces. As things currently are you have to do that anyway to get realistic artillery for both sides.

[Cpl Steiner]

Redwolf,

I agree that it isn't much of a problem, although I'm not sure I follow you on the "third party" bit.

However, as a programmer myself (admittedly only business software), I don't see that the option to remove unwanted parts of a unit's TO&E would pose much of a problem. I'd even go as far as to say that you should be able to remove the organic MMGs/mortars if you want to. After all, there must have been occasions when the heavier equipment was left behind.

Don't get me wrong, I love this game. It's just that this restriction on what you can purchase in a QB seems unrealistic and unnecessary. In fact, fixing it might only involve removing the code that prevents you from deleting the parts of the TO&E you don't want. I admit that you'd still have to spend some time making sure that such a change hadn't broken anything, but I doubt that this would take very long. In my experience, removing code usually involves a lot less work than adding it!

[Redwolf]

The option to remove single items from larger units has been in early CMBO.

It was removed because it allowed too much tinkering, like getting 10 battalion HQs with nothing but 90 discounted bazookas and similar gags.

It is only a problem now that CMAK has some kinks in its OOB like mandatory halftracks for U.S. and mandatory flamethrowers for a major part of late British battalions.

[Michael Emrys]

Steiner, how about this as a workaround within the existing system:

First of all, give a points bonus to the side you want to have armored infantry. That way, you will be able to afford them.

Then when you get your map and forces, just stash the HTs behind some convenient terrain feature like a hill or forest.

Not a perfect solution, but it will at least get your game going.

Michael

[Cpl Steiner]

Michael Emrys,

Thanks for the suggestion. I think this is the only way to realistically deploy Armoured Infantry in a QB.

I worked out that an Armoured Infantry '44 company has about half its points used up by the half-tracks. Therefore, if you decide in advance that about half the total force will be infantry, then you should give yourself a +25% bonus (handicap) so you essentially get the HTs for free.

The only difficulty is picking the right force size (taking into account the normal % increase given to the attacker) so that the figures work out. For instance, if you want 2/3 infantry in the force, you really need a +33% bonus, but the game only allows +25% and +50%.

I hadn't realized that CMBO used to allow you to remove parts of the TO&E. I understand now why this feature was taken out of the game. Ideally the best solution would be if the force selection screen allowed you to take a varient of the normal Armoured Infantry unit that was dismounted. However, I'm prepared to wait for the next version of the game in the hope that this option will be included.

[Michael Emrys]

There's one more way to do this that makes the calculations easier, but it only works if you are playing either by yourself or against a partner that you trust absolutely (i.e., no one from around here). And that is to just double the points total for both sides but with the firm understanding about what can be bought. thus, the defender doesn't invest in a company of Tigers, for instance.

The other way is to give the Allied player a 100% bonus but again put him on his honor concerning what it is okay for him to buy.

It might be argued that all this pre-game negotiation takes the surprise out of the game, but I don't find it to be the case. I only play against the AI, and nowadays I usually purchase the units for the other side. But by the time I get started on the first turn, I have only the vaguest recollection of what I bought for them. Heavy drug use in my younger years is probably a benefit here.

Michael

[Lord Harmes]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I only play against the AI

Michael

Why don't you play against people? Don't you trust them? Or do you lose a lot??? lol

I regard myself as 100% trustworthy, and I'd love to see what you're made of!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Lord Harmes:

Why don't you play against people?

[sigh]

I should have this printed on cards so I don't have to keep explaining it.

1) I am not interesting in game playing per se with regard to CM. I am not interested in competition. I use CM to illustrate to myself certain kinds of historical events, though not specific events themselves.

2) For various reasons, sometimes my interest in a particular battle will wane at some point and I will choose not to continue. I don't think this would be fun for an opposing live player or very courteous on my part. The computer player never objects.

3) My schedule is sufficiently irregular so that even when I am playing, there is no assurance that I could get turns out at a pace that would be satisfying to a human player. The computer is very patient.

4) Last but not least. I began playing boardgame wargames 40 years ago. At that time, it was practically impossible to find opponents among my friends who would be interested in playing. So I did about 99% of my playing solitaire. I got used to it. I am comfortable with it.

A lot of game players I've run into over the years are ego-driven assholes I can barely stand to share a planet with, let alone an enclosed room. While playing PBEM would obviate the enclosed room part, I would still be interacting with them in a more intimate way than I find at all desireable.

I hope this clarifies things.

Michael

[Lord Harmes]

That's fair enough. But don't you miss being suprised? Or having to deal with tactics that might suddenly change?

If you wanted to play against someone who certainly isn't egotistical, and certainly is patient, then I'm still willing. I don't even mind if you did all the setting up, thus reducing the chance of your interest waning...

[GoofyStance]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I began playing boardgame wargames 40 years ago.

Forty years ago?? I'm curious, what board-based war games were available back in the mid 60s, if you can remember? How realistic were they, given their board-related limitations? I'm envisioning a scenario in "GI's and Krauts," circa 1964:

"My menacing, hulking King Tiger just entered the wheatfield, followed by a platoon of Nazi stormtroopers with evil red eyes, froth at the mouth, and bared, filed-sharp teeth ..."

"Ok [rolling dice] my trusty 37mm anti-tank gun just blew the living daylights out of your Tiger with one shot. The lone squad leader, Sgt. Fury, stood up in the middle of the Nazis and, with his tried-and-true .45 Colt, wiped out the whole platoon (without reloading, of course). When it was all over, he lit up a Lucky Strike and walked off into the sunset ..."

[junk2drive]

@mr. emrys, roflmao

too bad your post is too big for my signature line

[Treeburst155]

In the late sixties we played Avalon Hill games like "Tactics II", "Blitzkrieg", and many others. They were as realistic as could be back then. Rules were VERY involved.

Michael Emrys,

You don't know what you're missing. Playing humans is the ultimate CM experience. There are many PBEMers out there who are NOT ego-driven assholes. I'm playing about six of them right now. One guy hit Ceasefire the other day just in case I was tired of the punishment he was dishing out. I declined. All my opponents fight hard, lose gracefully, and win gracefully. I like to think I do the same.

Treat yourself to a CM battle against a human opponent. You will be surprised how much more thrilling the game is.

Treeburst155 out.

Treeburst155 out.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

You don't know what you're missing. Playing humans is the ultimate CM experience.

Playing Pengers is okay too.

I know where Mr. Emrys is coming from. I play a lot of PBEMs, but I still love to play solo for a lot of the reasons he gave.

-dale

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

A lot of game players I've run into over the years are ego-driven assholes I can barely stand to share a planet with, let alone an enclosed room. While playing PBEM would obviate the enclosed room part, I would still be interacting with them in a more intimate way than I find at all desireable.

I hope this clarifies things.

Michael

So...what do you really think about these sort of people?

Regards

Jim R.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by GoofyStance:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I began playing boardgame wargames 40 years ago.

Forty years ago?? I'm curious, what board-based war games were available back in the mid 60s, if you can remember?</font>