PDA

View Full Version : Carry Capacity for Jeep, Kuebelwagen, etc.


TreadHead
April 29th, 2007, 01:18 PM
Question on the carry capacity of the Jeep, Kuebelwagen, Schwimmwagen, and the like. "106" seems too high. Since the driver is included, shouldn't these have a carry capacity of "103"?

Also, the jeeps for the British LRDG and SAS have a related capacity characteristic of being a 4 man unit, plus having a carry capacity of "104".

My apologies if this had been covered before...didn't find anything with a search.

Thanks, Ross

Mobhack
April 29th, 2007, 07:12 PM
The default size of the headquarters happens to be 6, so there needs to be the ability to carry them.

cheers
Andy

chuckfourth
April 30th, 2007, 08:54 PM
Hi Andy

I might be able to add something here. when you say "so there needs to be the ability to carry them" do you mean "so there needs to be the ability to carry them in tiny vehicles"? there are plenty of other slightly bigger vehicles that can actually carry 6 men.
How about carrying them in a light truck? that realy does have a carrying capacity of 6? after all HQ usually comes with some pretty bulky equipment various radios map tables etc, they cant actually do their job without this stuff. I mean even the kettenkrad has a carrying capacity of 6 surely you cant fit it all that stuff into a kettenkrad.
Personally I think its much more important to give jeeps etc there correct carrying capacity than to be able to incorrectly fit a whole HQ unit into such a tiny vehicle, especially when a light truck would be just as good. Of course I prefer correct carrying capacitues as I like the game to be authentic wherever possible.
Best Regards Chuck.

DRG
May 1st, 2007, 12:23 PM
OK then Chuck, I'll try to explain it to you. You won't like the answer but we're all used to that by now. I will say upfront I am not the least bit interested in "debating" this issue with you so you can accept the answer or not.

I'm so glad you "like the game to be authentic wherever possible." and this is one of those cases where we have a different idea of where the "wherever possible" line is.

Let's use the German OOB as an example. There are 6 vehicles that fall into the "Utility Vehicle" category in that OOB.........

156 - Kettenkraftrad
183 - Schwimmwagen
195 - Kuebelwagen
453 - Kfz 69
454 - Kfz 15
802 - Schlepper UE

..........and all have a carry capacity of 6 even though it's a stretch to say the Kettenkraftrad or the Schlepper UE could carry 6 men. One way around that which was used in the past ( and still do for some of the light amphib Weasels )is to call these (2)Kettenkraftrad or (2) Schlepper UE and then just "assume" that these "two" vehicles always moved together and were destroyed together. This brings complaints from other people, also terribly concerned with keeping the game "authentic wherever possible" , that this is "Unrealistic". The REASON they all have a carry capacity of 6 is because people expect when they buy a formation that includes these vehicles that they can actually load the troops into them and if an formation is built with a half dozen vehicles that all have different carry capacities ( let's call that the "authentic carry capacity" ) they get quite rightly pissed at us and send us "bug" reports that such-and-such formation cannot be loaded in into this-or-that vehicle when they try to use those "authentic" units. There are limited number of unit classes and not every specialty vehicle can rate it's own special class

Is everyone with me on this so far???

So if it will help try thinking about this a little less literally. Maybe, try thinking of the obvious examples as being (2) vehicles since you are well aware that the game does not allow splitting a unit and loading them into two vehicles and if that doesn't work then try this......The world record for cramming people into a Volkswagen Beetle is 24. 6 in a Kublewagen wouldn't really be that big a deal would it? We only allow 13 men to be carried on a T-34 but it won't take anyone concerned with "accuracy" long to find photos with considerably more than 13 Russians on a T-34. We have no intention of changing the carry capacity of the T-34. It's a game design decision to allow these "utility" vehicles a , perhaps, higher than "normal" carry capacity .

OK?

Don

chuckfourth
May 2nd, 2007, 09:52 AM
Hi Don
Thanks for taking the time to explain this, a very fluid answer indeed.
I see your problem with the unit classes. I think there are none left? but no problem heres the solution, continuing with the German OOB as an example only the schwimmwagen, Kuebelwagen and Kfz 15 are real utility vehicles. The remaining three vehicles can simply be removed from the utility unit class (026). Kfz 69 is a light truck, Unit class 183, Kettenkraftrad is an artillery prime mover, unit class 180. Schlepper UE has any number of roles but doesnt appear to have provision to carry any passengers whatsoever, and appears in unit classes 056 and 180 anyway. Only 4 German formations use the utlity vehicles, two contain only utility vehicles so no problems for them. That leaves only two formations, 235 PzAufklKp (sw) and 285, FJg Spaehtrp[G] assuming we are going to use "authentic" carrying capacities (say 4 but I prefer 3) PzAufklKp needs no change, only FJg Spaehtrp[G] needs work, currently it is one kubelwagon, one 4 man scout group and two snipers so we have to lose the snipers. Thats Germany done.
Without providing any detail I have also had a look at USA and again this OOB doesnt seem to pose any problems.
I am of course willing to work out for you and test what needs to be done in every OOB in order to give utility class vehicles "authentic" carrying capacities.
I do think it is a problem squeezing 6 men into a kubelwagon, as it depends on what gear they have if its the heavy MG and ammo then they probably weight as much as 10 men, six regular infantry with full kit is also unlikely. Six small slim university students perhaps.
Best Regards Chuck.

DRG
May 2nd, 2007, 11:04 AM
Chuck, here's the short, polite answer

NO

Don

Marek_Tucan
May 2nd, 2007, 04:41 PM
chuckfourth said:
I do think it is a problem squeezing 6 men into a kubelwagon, as it depends on what gear they have if its the heavy MG and ammo then they probably weight as much as 10 men, six regular infantry with full kit is also unlikely. Six small slim university students perhaps.






The default size of the headquarters happens to be 6, so there needs to be the ability to carry them.




Note Andy doesn't speak of MG teams or infantry with full kit. And if you don't like the idea of MG teams or full kit infantry being carried in Jeeps and kübelwagens, there's a simple way to avoid it: don't do that. Works for me so far.

chuckfourth
May 3rd, 2007, 12:58 AM
Hi Marek
Look its fine by me if the powers dont care about this its their call.
But its a little bit more than kubelwagons. Its more about vehicles such as the Schlepper UE. Note this vehicle cannot carry -any- passengers but is classed as a utility vehicle clearly wrong.
Best Regards Chuck.

DRG
May 3rd, 2007, 06:12 PM
Yeah lets REALLY sweat the small crap.....that'll make the game "better"

The Schlepper UE may not be designed to carry infantry but neither were most tanks yet they still can and do. Infantry will find a way to ride on something if there are flat surfaces to sit on so at some point in the past this was added to the utility class for whatever reason( and that Schlepper UE's been there awhile now as a "utility vehicle" ) Maybe it shouldn't but looking at the photo it's not hard to image six infantrymen finding a place to ride if need be and it's NOT like we called it a infantry carrier. It's just a small totally insignificant vehicle that someone thought in a pinch could carry infanrty so it was made a utility vehicle. I'm surprised you haven't noticed that the Artillery prime mover version can carry NINE men or that the "Feldwagen" can carry 20.

Don

chuckfourth
May 3rd, 2007, 08:44 PM
Hi Don
OK then maybe we should sweat some slightly bigger crap, Something closely related to carrying capacity, maybe you noticed the tests I did on your behalf in the "more newbie ??'s" in the Winspww2 forum, Do you think thats its realistic that your 13 men packed on the back of a stationary T34 receive just one casualtie when an unseen MG42 opens up at them at 150m?
Best Chuck.

blitzkreig
May 4th, 2007, 08:35 AM
Chuck,

One of the things I've noticed and actually really like about this game is that sometimes weird stuff happens. I don't know how the code works to nake it thus but it does seem to convey the "fog of war" quite well. What may in fact seem "strange" such as only one casualty in this case seems to model a hundred and one posibilites such as "ops I missed" or the "the bloody guns jammed!"

On the reverse side this works to the players advantage when "incredabile" results benefit the player. I recently had a very brave SS 3 man 50mm mortar team defend a victory hex (after the rest of the pltoon ran away) for 5 turns all on its own. It managed to fight off a polish infanrty coy with nothing but an smg, a few He rounds and some harsh language! Needless to say I was most impressed!

It works both ways

Regards

Ian

chuckfourth
May 4th, 2007, 10:41 AM
Hi Ian.
Actually no It doesnt work both ways (see my tests) at 150m you -never- kill anymore than 1 man. I woundnt mind at all if occasionally half or all of the squad was hit but this doesnt happen.

The problem is this,
OK we can get 6 fully kitted men in a kubelwagen how often in reality did six fully kitted men get in a kubelwagon? rarely, very rarely. But in the game everyone puts 6 fully kitted infanty in the kubelwagen -every- time you use it because that is what it carries.
Take it a step further
When you look on the internet for pictures of WWII tanks in motion how many of the photos show the tanks covered in infantry? one in a hundred? play PBEM for a while how many players don't load an infantry squad onto every tank, 1 in 100. This is because in the game it has been decided that the maximum carrying capacities have been used for vehicles as can occour in -exceptional- circumstances.
But because you can load your full squads on you do it -all- the time. and why wouldnt you? looking at the lack of casualties caused by a burst of MG fire at 13 men bunched up in a tight ball on the back of a tank anyone would think they were travelling in the tank.
One other problem no one seems to consider is what does the fully kitted infantry use for handholds on the various vehicles while they drive at full speed cross-county for kilometer after kilometer? not a trivial question.
Best regards Chuck.

DRG
May 4th, 2007, 11:42 AM
Chuck, is it not obvious to you by now that we have a different idea of what a "big" problem with the game is than you do? Why DO you worry about how many men we allow to load into a kubelwagen? Do you not see that these simple little compromises were made to aid playability and that virtually NOBODY but you has any kind of issue with this?

Don

chuckfourth
May 4th, 2007, 08:25 PM
Hi Don
Kubelwagen is just an example, Personally I think Carrying capacities are too high for most vehicles in particular tanks.
Id still be interested to know if you think not being able to hit any more than one man when firing with a MG at 150m at a squad of infantry bunched up on the back of a tank is "authentic"?
Best Chuck.

DRG
May 7th, 2007, 10:02 AM
We'll look into it after the summer.

Don

Cross
July 3rd, 2007, 11:05 AM
Here are eight fully equipped British airborne on a jeep, and there's still room for more.
Even without the trailer there are five men on the jeep and there's clearly room for another on the back and the stretcher on the hood/bonnet (UK) is empty.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4700/jeepbritishairbornewy8.th.jpg (http://img254.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jeepbritishairbornewy8.jpg)

Perhaps we should upgrade the jeep to allow it to carry a full section/squad http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Cheers,
Cross

Marek_Tucan
July 3rd, 2007, 11:51 AM
Well, that's the classical question... How many men will fit into xxxxxx vehicle?

One more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Always http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
I have a nice pic of UAZ jeep filled with really LOT of Russian soldiers. We were able to count at least 12, but it is possible one "soldier" on the pic is in fact composition of two http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Ironfist
December 4th, 2008, 01:34 AM
I was always wondering how could a Tank carry up to 13 men, as the OOB indicates. Until I saw this picture.

7375

Here is the link. It contains some real experience of tank & infantry team work.
http://www.lonesentry.com/combatlessons/index.html

Best Regards
Ironfist

Imp
December 4th, 2008, 04:46 PM
Hi Don
OK then maybe we should sweat some slightly bigger crap, Something closely related to carrying capacity, maybe you noticed the tests I did on your behalf in the "more newbie ??'s" in the Winspww2 forum, Do you think thats its realistic that your 13 men packed on the back of a stationary T34 receive just one casualtie when an unseen MG42 opens up at them at 150m?
Best Chuck.

I just ran a test but did with moving tanks because moving makes you more vulnerable.
Vision set to 150m 8 man squads on 30 tanks.
Casulties get worse the faster you move just like foot infantry.
Average loss 2 men but if MG got a chance to fire second MG weapon slot losing half a squad is not uncommon. If an RPG team was riding to can get messy.
Applies obviosly to op fire as well.
So loss is 1/4-1/2 of the riders.
If you think some will be in front & some behind turret sounds reasonable, think about it.
If I was manning the MG would I really open up at 150ms versus a tank. Quick burst maybe but I would actualy be more intreasted in planning my exit route afterwards before the tank opens up than hitting anything.

Imp
December 4th, 2008, 05:15 PM
A further note on carry capacities. Desperate times means desperate measures the vehicle might only carry 2 but if it saves your life you are going to risk falling off.
If the game code allowed people should be able to ride on the outside of APCs, or even cleverer if go over rough terrain riders might take casulties depending on speed.

When I was young (&stupid?) in Thailand we hitched a lift on a lite van, 4 of us standing on the bumper hanging onto the drainage channels & ariel of all things.
I am still alive & it beat walking 3 miles
People hanging off vehicles was common out there.
Buses if full you ride the roof rack or bumper, has handles & they only slow down to let you off as on a timetable & get docked pay if late.
With practice you can jump from a vehicle doing 15-20mph & stay on your feet, the trick is to start running before you hit the ground & lean into it.

iCaMpWiThAWP
December 4th, 2008, 09:04 PM
A further note on carry capacities. Desperate times means desperate measures the vehicle might only carry 2 but if it saves your life you are going to risk falling off.
If the game code allowed people should be able to ride on the outside of APCs, or even cleverer if go over rough terrain riders might take casulties depending on speed.

When I was young (&stupid?) in Thailand we hitched a lift on a lite van, 4 of us standing on the bumper hanging onto the drainage channels & ariel of all things.
I am still alive & it beat walking 3 miles
People hanging off vehicles was common out there.
Buses if full you ride the roof rack or bumper, has handles & they only slow down to let you off as on a timetable & get docked pay if late.
With practice you can jump from a vehicle doing 15-20mph & stay on your feet, the trick is to start running before you hit the ground & lean into it.
rofl, are you serious?

Imp
December 5th, 2008, 02:56 AM
rofl, are you serious? Thats an affirmative

Chucking political correctness aside for a minute this carry capacity thing shows diffrent peoples perspective.

Carry capacity of a 4 seat vehicle.

USA > 4 we want to live & here comes the law suite
Brits etc > Generaly 4 but a bit unstable 6 or 7 for the reckless
India etc > 7s normal isnt it?
China 3rd world > If it still moves thats how many it can carry.
Health & safety whats that. We are of small stature & can get many people on this.

To a 1960s Chinese soldier getting a ride would probably be a novelty. If he worked on a farm he might have seen the truck that picked up the produce & possibly a tractor period.

This diffrence of opinion applies throughout tthe whole game & the mechanics prevent certain things that would be nice.

People should think through before post things
1) Firstly game mechanics read the manuel then ask ( I have been quilty once)
2) Read the posts about error reporting procedure etc.
3) Make suggestions but be aware thats what they are due to diffrent perspectives or game mechanics.
4) There is only so much time in the day big issues need to be resolved first. I can't wait to see arty mod coming up. Hopefully wont be shifting all over the place but whatever its likely to be a big change.
5) OOB changes fine if backed up with hard facts or think its an error.
But otherwise if you want them you have the facility to mod them yourself.
If Changed carry capacity of all vehicles in all nations to your view could then post it as an alternative. How much time have you got spare?

You did not know arty mod in the wings probably suffer from 1+2
Sorry degenerated into a bit of a rant but I have a lot of respect for Andy & Don who are far more patient than me. They answer a lot of trivial stuff & it must get wearing because I read stuff & think grief.
I owe these guys big time for wasting my life with this game & appologise for wasting theirs at times but I want them to keep moving it forward & not eventually say enough because of our ramblings.
Buy the bloody CD so they at least get 50 cents for your ramblings. If the game intrests you enough to be on this site then you should at least have the courtesy to buy it.
In fact do your eyes a favour $30 now to save yourself specs later somebody post screen shots same map zoomed out CD & free.

Hmm posting anyway.

Marek_Tucan
December 5th, 2008, 03:18 AM
Well, there is that rumor about how few German saboteurs from Skorzeny's action were found during the Battle of the Bulge... There were four of them in one jeep ;)
Anyway, capacity of any vehicle is always "one man more" regardless on how many are already on board :)

chuckfourth
December 5th, 2008, 05:44 AM
Hi Imp
To me the question isnt how many men can you fit on a vehicle its about how do the carry capacities affect game play.
The British in (early) North Africa had no APCs there infantry travelled in trucks. However because you can load a 13 man squad onto any of the Crusader tanks the lack of APCs isnt a problem because you just load you infantry onto the tanks. Which the British didnt do.
Giving tanks a carry capacity big enough to carry the standard infantry squad (13 or so) is coding for the exception not the general rule which is why I dont like it.

There are two ways to code the general rule, either make tank carrying capacities less that a full infantry squad say 8 or so. Or make it expensive in terms of casualties if the tank is hit. There is after all no better target than tank riders, An infantry squad is spread out over 50 sq. metres, a gun crew is at least on the the ground and hopefully has cover near by. Tank riders are over a metre in the air in a tight little ball, and not seeing much at 50 mph. They have some cover from the turret but this is only to the front, from the side rear and above they remain the ideal target. I think that the casualty rate for tank riders should be the highest in the game which it currently isnt.
So giving tanks high carying capacities and not penalising the riders much if they are hit means that every nation uses them, Id like to see them restricted to Russia who really did use them.
ALso dont forget when you hit the ground running, you've got 20 kilos of pack a rifle in yours arms and maybe a tripod or something just as clunky and heavy.
And
Unlike infantry tank riders are a actually a better target when stationary.
Best Regards Chuck.

iCaMpWiThAWP
December 5th, 2008, 09:47 AM
And they should get more supression, once they see an mg firing at them thell probably jump off the tank and start running for cover

DRG
December 5th, 2008, 11:09 AM
The issue with jeeps and utility vehicles in general is it's something you can put your HQ in . OK.... it may be "gamey" to some to allow that but I can live with it and so can 99% of the people who play but there will always be the rare few that get bent out of shape if a unit has two seats and we give it a capacity of 4.


Don

DRG
December 5th, 2008, 11:28 AM
Chuck, it wasn't just the Russians that did this and you know it or should so no........ we are not going to restrict tank riding to one nation. I think you make these suggestions because you really do no think through what's actually involved and what impact it would make on the game and who else might not like your bright ideas.

FYI looking into tank rider casualties was put on the " to investigate" list some time ago. When the next update is released you can decide whether this lives up to your "standards" or not but generally, if you haven't clued in by now, most of what you complain about and most of what you think we should do to change the game to suit you isn't at the top of our priorities.

Don

Imp
December 5th, 2008, 11:43 AM
Hi Chuck I see your point about riders but would say this.
Russia used tank riders virtually through out the war firstly to run away even on little tankettes (some of which probably do have to high but its a generic figure & you do the research) From late 42 seem to use a lot. Allies Brits etc did not use as much & not really till late 43 from what I can see. Guess news traveled slower then so took a while before someone heard about Crazy Ivan. Do not ask me about minor powers not wasting more time.

Utility vehicles yes with a carry capacity of 6 affects game play could fit 2 ATGM teams in. Not really worried thats a big loss if I lose it & if they really wanted them there a man or ammo would be left behind. You cant split teams so if had several vehicles & wanted to send ATGMs & scouts you would end up needing more vehicles than you would need in a pinch.
Come to that ATGM teams as do a lot of units have generic ammo 4 units so thats wrong.

Given the scale of the game the amount of research required to get every unit for every timeframe right is enormous so I can live with it. Basicaly I would not do it so dont expect game guys to. I do think a few issues with modern APCs, some cannons seem to have very low ammo counts so I tend to stick with MG variety in that case. It does not bother me enough to get off my arse & check it out.

I have modded mobile AT guns as do not like the way its set up. AT guns with an engine are modeled as vehicles so cant be towed but are very slow like speed 5. By changing to foot as move is so small they have the same movement capability. I have sacrificed the ability for them to bog so that they can be towed as to me this is more important.

The whole point is in the grand scheme of things its not important its a game always will be but it does a better job of replicating battle than any other despite covering such a vast timeframe & nations. Can you imagine the amount of research time that has gone into getting this to where it is today then tinkering with code blah blah

Tailor it using house rules & if need be OOB editor to suite your view of what is correct

If you wanted to you could mod all British tanks prior to 43 to have no carry capacity but to have after. A much easier way of course is house rules to cover these little problems that way the tank crew could still hitch a ride to safety if only a tank is near.
Ban the use of riders except to extract its that simple.

I regulary use house rules to add flavour or get round game restrictions such as
All arty in same troop must be within contact distance (2 hexes) not spread out.
Should probably be closer.
Rename ammo trucks if allow as generic to type like arty tank helo, Only correct unit type can reload at. Still not right but better.
First turn or 2 only scouts & their transports can move arty suitably delayed changes flavour of a game & lets them do the job.
Loads more all for variety.
Simple things like saying lets have a high tech clash all infantry mech & dont buy the cheap ones. Gives you a diffrent game as people tend to buy 2 cheap instead of 1 expensive. Just because you have Tigers dont buy them every time you play Germans how boring is that.
Oh thats another house rule you have cause Tigers were not used in N Africa till later

As I said originaly everything is relative to me this is a minor issue I can work around if it bothered me.

Now if we could sort guns so have 3 or 4 classes of limbering from quick to slow to stop things like 88s moving that would be a welcome change but sadly this is an old beast & if it could be done I think they would have so I have not suggested it.
OK should not have made that coffee DRG has beat me at the typing stakes

DRG
December 5th, 2008, 12:51 PM
Chuck has been told many times that MOBHack is provided so people can tweak things the way they prefer them to be .

Don

chuckfourth
December 10th, 2008, 06:01 AM
Chuck, it wasn't just the Russians that did this and you know it or should so no........ we are not going to restrict tank riding to one nation. I think you make these suggestions because you really do no think through what's actually involved and what impact it would make on the game and who else might not like your bright ideas.
Don

Hi DRG
As you dont like me to write long posts Im trying to keep them short. So to qualify my previous statement about tank riders what I mean is that only the Russians had a tank desant -formation-, what im calling 'tank riders' (Of course there is an exception, apparently the Germans had desant troops on stugs late in the war). Other armies had 'infantry riding on tanks' not 'tank riders'. The distinction is important because of the other two major combatants UK and USA 'infantry riding on tanks' is in reality extremely rare. This is because both these armies are fully motorised. Why ride a tank when there is a truck available. Any desant activities must then be on a very ad-hoc basis.
I have thought it out, Ive never used them in over one hundred PBEM and have had no problems, and its no problem to implemet as its a simple OOB change, just make Carrying capacities for tanks one less than the size of that countries infantry squad, and as always happy to do the work for you.
Judging by the tone of you and Andies replies to my posts Im pretty sure you guys dont like any of my bright ideas, unluckily for you this doesnt stop me enjoying your game. As for the playing population clearly gamey players despise me and realism nuts appreciate my input.
Thanks for looking into the casualty aspect of this.
Best Regards Chuck

DRG
December 10th, 2008, 12:54 PM
I have thought it out, Ive never used them in over one hundred PBEM and have had no problems, and its no problem to implement as its a simple OOB change, just make Carrying capacities for tanks one less than the size of that countries infantry squad, and as always happy to do the work for you.


See Chuck here's the problem. You get these "bright ideas" but don't think them through. It's way too easy to run to the forum and start typing.

So lets assume we do institute what I consider one of the most dumbassed ideas you've had yet and then the really smart people ( or "gamey" if you prefer ) load their tanks with scouts , AT and MG units and whatever else is available that fits within that artificially created limit you propose.

And you've accomplished what exactly other than a reason to ask for further restrictions???

See......... here's the thing about choice....any kind of choice. No matter what it is inevitable that SOMEBODY will abuse it and if we attempt to penalize the few that abuse it we actually penalize all the people who don't abuse it as well. Yes, western allied armies tended towards mechanization ( but were NOT "fully motorized" that would imply EVERY infantry unit rode wherever they went and there are many thousands of veterans who would laugh out loud at the suggestion ) more than German or Russian and for the Russians, and later the Germans, tank riding was more necessity than option but the fact remains western allied infantry DID, on occasion, ride tanks into battle, maybe not so much into direct combat as the Russians and later the Germans did but ride on tanks they did and this latest bright idea of yours, designed, solely it seems, to keep your PBEM opponents from doing this, penalizes and restricts something that neither Andy, not I, think needs restricting and you are, in fact, the lone person to ever think the OOB's should be altered to prevent it.



Judging by the tone of you and Andies replies to my posts Im pretty sure you guys dont like any of my bright ideas,


Ya think ??


unluckily for you this doesnt stop me enjoying your game. As for the playing population clearly gamey players despise me and realism nuts appreciate my input.
Thanks for looking into the casualty aspect of this.
Best Regards Chuck

It's interesting the way you set yourself up as the enemy of "gamey players " and the righteous defender of "realism nuts" but I personally reject both extremes. There will always be conflict between the playabilty and realism factions in wargames and this game, or any game cannot appeal 100% to both at once so we try for the "happy middle" and try to ignore the whiners at the extremes


Don

thatguy96
December 10th, 2008, 06:18 PM
The distinction is important because of the other two major combatants UK and USA 'infantry riding on tanks' is in reality extremely rare. This is because both these armies are fully motorised. Why ride a tank when there is a truck available.
Not even in the slightest. The US Army and British Army were very far from fully motorized. Most truck elements organic to US Infantry Divisions were taken up with moving supplies and equipment around regardless.

Any desant activities must then be on a very ad-hoc basis.
Ad hoc does not equal rare. Just because there wasn't necessarily a specific understanding of when, where, and how, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The 1994 USMC manual on tank operations still has a section specifically on how to seat tank riders and the precautions that should be taken into consideration when doing so. The seating plan is for a full USMC squad.

Some examples:

Picture 1 (http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/04/47704-004-2414EE87.jpg)

Picture 2 (http://bp0.blogger.com/_CbwnjooteyI/R40jUa1UdjI/AAAAAAAAFfs/Zy6mSl-Bit8/s1600-h/300px-Valentine_tank_Mk3_desert.jpg)

Picture 3 (http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/img/PA-142610sm.jpg)

Picture 4 (http://img79.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shermantanklq1.jpg)

PanzerBob
December 10th, 2008, 11:07 PM
Good day, all

I don't know if this would make me a Defender Of Chuck!!:D :angel But I'd like to mention Chuck's posts right or wrong have sure taught me a lot on what goes into behind the code if you will of this game. Whether you realise it or not everytime you guys get into "it" with Chuck I learn more and more. I'm glad to see despite the heated air which you spar in ALL of you still rise to the ocassion, it makes for some interesting threads. I'll admit sometimes I come here for humour whether it is intended or not, that is also served with a lot of good information of all sorts about OUR Game.

Steel Panther uber alles:up::up:

Bob out :D

montieth
January 11th, 2009, 04:06 PM
If you're talking about the OC of a company, you don't have a 6 man section that goes everywhere with the Captain. You have a batman and/or a driver in the car and an orderly or a wireless operator. The rest of the section what do command functions will ride in another vehicle, usually one of the company trucks or walk.

Look at the staff tables for a british infantry battalion. You'll find that the OC has a rover (Humber 4x4 or a Jeep or an LRC) and then there's the rest of the Command unit. Usually those chaps would be broken up into various sections to act as they need. There's an HQ AND and the officer.

At least for my first playing around with TO&E's I've added BTN HQs to have appropraite trucks, extra men, some small 'squads' with weapons to account for the armed folks near an HQ (CMPs etc) and made the HQ element a 3 man detachment to account for a wireless operator, a batman and and the OC. A second LARGE HQ unit which WILL fit into a CMP or larger vehicle has been created.

I'm going to at some point, make up stats for a Bedford 3 tonner wireless van and tweak the 15cwt truck to make a smaller wireless van. The larger trucks, were were most of the staff rode when on the move or where they commanded from when things were static.

montieth
January 11th, 2009, 04:12 PM
I do have to add, we're talking about a command element here. They're NOT just passengers. They're doing things. Talking on wireless sets, taking notes, looking at map boards, tallying various figures. You cannot do this when you're crammed on a vehicle in a set with someone else's elbow in your face.

Command sections rode around in a vehicle appropraite to their tasks OR setup a larger command post for better space and working environment.

http://www.mapleleafup.org/vehicles/restorations/restore3.html
http://www.goldbeach.org.uk/images/qlr.jpg

My thinking is that IF you have an HQ, you should have the appropriate vehicles and material to reflect this function. They're not just 6 guys stuck in a field somewhere in some trees twiddling their thumbs.

PanzerBob
January 12th, 2009, 04:06 AM
Interesting you mention this as I have in the past when modding OOB's I have added an "HQ sect" if you will. Usually with vehicles of a HQ nature, CP, FO's, HQ Def, and the like. I have found them handy, and with the new Arty Routines I may go back and do it again.

Bob out:D