WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?

[Warhero]

Hmm is this something like some "Squad Leader Mod" (made by someone) into SP3 a long time ago? There was 1 tank/1 man in 1 hex...

[PDF]

thatguy96 said:

Except that the TO&E for basic infantry equipment changes with each of those ten squads. For each squad you replace you need to have each individual in the TO&E at that level, riflemen, automatic riflemen, grenadiers, etc. You have to create a variation for each of them every time one piece of equipment changes, which creates exponetially more variations. Whereas an equipment change of the basic infantry rifle only requires the creation of a single new unit to represent this in the current format, it would necessitate the creation of anywhere between 3-7 new units under the proposed sub-tactical format.

I don't think so : suppose you have 10 rifle units and 10 LMG types. In sub-tac 1 man format you need 20 units, whereas in squad format you'll need as many as 100 if each combo exists !

[thatguy96]

I don't know any country that fielded 10 standard infantry rifles and 10 standard LMG types all at the same time. There's usually one or two standards and maybe, just maybe, another 5-7 obselete types somehow still in service (been known to happen in the WWII timeline).

German infantry for instance, on a very basic level, only have one major change throughout the conflict, from MG34 to MG42, and this would only necessitate the change in one unit in the sub-tactical format.

However, for more complex units you have two or three rifles plus the MG change. For each rifle you need only one change, 3 different units for the same time period, and then one for each MG change (if in the same timeline), which is 6 different units total.

Now in sub-tac you'd need one change for every man carrying a rifle, anywhere from 4-12 units per period when they are in service, even if you're saving room by only needing two LMG gunner units. Now multiply this by the fact that specific equipment must be alloted down the line. Instances in the OOB where 2 units were created and one given satchel charges (for example), you'd have to create one additional unit for each soldier that would have a charge (unlikely that four satchel charges in a squad would all be carried by one person. This goes for mines, etc.

I don't think you're properly appreciating that A) each combo won't exist and that B) you need to create seperate one-man formations for different persons in the squad TO&E since you're at that level. Riflemen have different kit from automatic rifle who have different kit from Grenadiers etc. For each squad of about 12-14 guys you're likely creating 3 individual units. You'd have to to get the TO&E correct. This means every time there's a change in modeled sub-equipment (such as specialty equipment as mentioned before), you need to modified each of those three units correctly, instead of just one. I say if you went and did it these variations would pile up far faster than variations in current OOBs of infantry units.

[vic]

I tried something like this a while back (DOS ver). I built "fire teams" of 3-4 men so that SP "platoons" really represented squads of (usually) 3 fire teams or maybe 2 FTs and a 3 man MG team. SP "companies" really represented platoons. I did this for a custom USMC OOB and posted on the old Yahoo board. I had one request for a copy and never got any feedback.

I tested pretty extensively and here's what i found:
1. lots of small fragile units (once they get around 50% casualties they tend to "pin" permanently) led to "boggy" gameplay.
2. the code produces very high levels of infantry casualties. even with infantry "toughened up" it's very bloody and small units just can't hang in there.
3. with more units, the 360 degree, all-weapons-are-used opfire thing is just unworkable. one unit moves and gets drilled by tons of opponents. one spends a lot of time watching opfire. likewise firing a unit ("pulling the trigger" during the player's phase) resulted in a deluge of return opfire.

the bad thing about all this opfire is that the game doesn't model "real time" well. it doesn't look at fire recived IN TOTAL and then assess damage. it lets units "pile on" sequentially. e.g. three four-man squads firing rifles should have the same effect as one twelve-man squad...but they don't. the three four-man squads will produce more casualties and more suppression because fire effects are calculated after each "round" is fired. three four-man units can get in (typically) a total of 18 "volleys" where the single twelve-man unit gets in 6.

managing infantry in SPWW2 is all about postioning units to deliver opfire effectively (e.g. interlocking fields of fire). against the AI it's easy...not so easy against skillful humans.

4. the game doesn't look at the number of MEN in a hex when calculating casualties (i.e. no regard to target density). it appears as if UNITS check to see if they are in a hex that has received fire.

it is (the "individual" idea) a neat thought but based upon what i tried the underlying sfw/file architecture makes it very problematic.

best,
vic

[Noah_Vaile]

I seem to get a deluge of return fire anyway, in this game.

[thatguy96]

The point is the resulting opfire would likely decimate or otherwise incapacitate small groups of infantry based on the code. It does not automatically have the same effect on larger groups. With the current code, I agree that sub-tactical engagements would be bloody, and definative, with whoever got the first shot likely being the looser.

Also, as Vic has noted and as I said in previous threads about infantry combat in the SP scope, this is not a place where squad level tactics are possible if even relevant. Infantry units must be moved, in a realistic platoon/company sense with overlapping fields of fire, the ability to support each other, and the ability to call upon platoon or company level support elements (mortars and other heavy weapons) to effectively decide an engagment. If you try and run around a single squad for anything but recon (or possibly hit and run in the enemy backfield against artillery or other static assets) you're going to find yourself outmatched quickly.

[Nick_Hyle]

vic said:
I tried something like this a while back (DOS ver).

I tested pretty extensively and here's what i found:

4. the game doesn't look at the number of MEN in a hex when calculating casualties (i.e. no regard to target density). it appears as if UNITS check to see if they are in a hex that has received fire.

Vic, as an ex-Camo member, this is the one thing I can tell you you're wrong on. I'm not saying that the differential is as big as it should be (or that it's not) but it's definitely there. If you want to check it out, set up a nice empty map test with hidden fire turned off and buy A side with MG and direct fire arty (or whatever) and B side with a measured mix of something like 12 man, four man, and sniper units, and shoot at all of them an equal amount. You WILL knock a lot more casualties off the big squads than the little guys, and you WILL hit them more often.

vic said:
3. with more units, the 360 degree, all-weapons-are-used opfire thing is just unworkable. one unit moves and gets drilled by tons of opponents. one spends a lot of time watching opfire. likewise firing a unit ("pulling the trigger" during the player's phase) resulted in a deluge of return opfire.

the bad thing about all this opfire is that the game doesn't model "real time" well. it doesn't look at fire recived IN TOTAL and then assess damage. it lets units "pile on" sequentially. e.g. three four-man squads firing rifles should have the same effect as one twelve-man squad...but they don't. the three four-man squads will produce more casualties and more suppression because fire effects are calculated after each "round" is fired. three four-man units can get in (typically) a total of 18 "volleys" where the single twelve-man unit gets in 6.

vic

These sorts of modelling issues are the meat, and the part I'm not positive you could tweak without Andy's help. You've been around a while, you remember how many times Camo has tweaked the code to get the outcome of infantry combat to come out right.

That part is math: it's an abstraction, a set of interlinked formulas that give a result as close to what (Camo and the community think) real results were.

That reality is different for the lower level of abstraction and lower scale of a fire-team, rather than squad, level, game. I know Andy did some serious testing on this for the MBT game, looking at differences between modern infantry tactics and WWII tactics.

I think a fire-team (rather than single man, skirmish level) mod could be made to work, and work well, I'm just not sure it could get better than half-decent without Don & Andy's help.

I'd like to see something like that, because while I like the way the current games work for battles of maneuver, I think a fire-team scale WWII game at, say, 10-20 meter hexes, would work much better for city fighting, and maybe (not my thing as much) for other close-terrain work like woods and jungle fighting as well.

[Aubrey]

[quote]
PatG said:

RVPERTVS said:
Interesting idea. How do you think it would enhace gameplay?

Way back when there was an Avalon Hill game based on one man counters. It was more "personal" in a way - I found I cared more about the fates of individual units than with larger scale games. I must add that I tend to prefer smaller actions anyway.
---------------

I believe the game you are talking about was "Sniper"
You plotted the movement of your men, whether they were going to throw a grenade move & fire reload, hand to hand etc. Weapon characteristics were portrayed. Vehicles were included etc.

Room clearing tactics were interesting to learn. Satchel charges etc.

Would have made an excellent game converted to the computer and as far as I know combat at this level has never been done by any developer.

Mark

[vic]

Sorry this response took so long Nick. I was referring to multiple infantry UNITS in the same hex. I realize larger squads take more casualties than small ones, all other things equal.

E.g you can load up a hex with multiple units so that the density of men in a hex is so large that it would be "in real life" a "can't miss" proposition. I have tested this, particularly with artillery and the only conclusion I can draw from the data is that the DENSITY of men in a hex plays little if any part in resultant casualty calculations.

IRL more densley packed areas generate casualties at a PROPORTIONALLY higher rate than sparsely populated areas. This is because of the good old pi r^2 deal, with blast defined as a radius (proportionally more men clsoer to the center of the blast). This is why terrorist bombers go for high personnel-density targets.

What appears to happen in the game is that each UNIT checks to see if it's IN a hex that receives fire and causalties are assessed BUT no adjustment is made for the fact that unit members are more densely arranged because of other units in the hex.

So, for example, in the game 4 infantry squads in the SAME hex will suffer the same TOTAL casualties from an artillery hit as they would if each squad were ALONE in a hex each of which was hit by artillery round. IRL causalties would be significantly higher in the case of the "packed" hex versus 4 squads spread around. Brings to mind the phrase "target rich environment".

In testing this I have gone to extremes, literally packing a hex with infantry squads (the equivalent of shoulder-to-shoulder). [I think all this testing is a sign I need to "get a life". ]

There is a penalty for putting multiple units in a hex, namely one "shot" affects mutliple units. But the RATE of casualties caused aren't any worse than if the units were alone in a hex.

This may have been done to enhance playability, making more of the fire-and-maneuver aspect. The game (compared to actual combat stats) diminishes casualties from fragmentation weapons (arty, mortars etc.) while enhancing rifle fire lethality. Also, given the limitations of computer hardware and software at the time the original game was developed the designer(s) may have had little choice in omitting more complex modeling (e.g. also MG fire).

The other point is of course this started life as a "tank" game with an emphasis on point targets and vehicle-to-vehicle fire. The infantry was shoe-horned in to the vehicle model. With all these limitations considered, the Camo guys have done a remarkably good job in bringing the game along to its current level. And all purely for the love of the game, wow.

Best,
Vic

[chuckfourth]

Hi Vic
Im actually looking at casualty causes at the moment, would you be able to point me to any references that detail casulaties causes? especially from indirect fire fragmentation?
Best Regards Chuck.