For the designers of BiN, a question about game realism...

Have a suggestion or some feedback? Dont keep it to yourself - share it!

Moderators: AlexS, Run5 Staff, SSG Staff

Postby JSS » Sun Mar 07, 2004 12:21 pm

Joel,

Each Inf Div had 3 x 105 mm howitzer battalions and a 155mm battalion organic to it. The Abn Divs and Armored Divisions had a different structure... 1 battalion of 75mm howitzers per PIR/GIR and 1 selfpropelled 105mm battalion per Combat Command in the armored divisions as I recall.

There was one combat engineer battalion organic to the US divisions (all types). AT units, AAA units, etc... were also present in the divisions.

JSS
User avatar
JSS
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby Twinkle » Sun Mar 07, 2004 12:45 pm

The so called independent battalions (for both US and British forces) were pretty much stuck to a single brigade/division size unit during a single campaign and had a size that was roughly similar to the German counterpart.

The organic artillery of US and German divisions were roughly similar, might be that the so called "elite status" divisions of the Germanic army had a slight advantage. I will probably not do a larger study of the OOB's for the Normandy campaign before the game starts to sell as time is not in an infinite supply, but it will be done sooner or later...

Cheers
/twinkle :wink:
User avatar
Twinkle
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 2366
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Joel137 » Sun Mar 07, 2004 3:24 pm

I decided to quit being lazy and look up some info in my copy of Dupuy, a widely considered source.

JSS is basically correct regarding the standard TOE of the US ID

4 arty btns as described, and eng. btn, a cav recon troop, and services support units in addition to the 3 Inf rgt. and something I didn't realize was that each rgt had a 6 tube 105mm Howitzer gun company with it.

Some random actual figures according to Dupuy as of Dec. 16th, 1944 for tank and TD strengths

1ss - 97 tanks and 55 TD/AG and 16AC
12ss - 70 tanks and 57 TD/AG and 20AC
2ss - 76 tanks and 68 TD/AG and 29 AC
9ss - 66 tanks and 53 TD/AG and 29 AC
Lehr - 54 and 68 and 19 AC
116pz - 49 and 25 and 18 AC
2pz - 72 and 49 and 15 AC

Some US units

28ID 53 tanks and 17 TD and 23 AC
99ID 15 tanks and 18 TD and 20 AC
2ID 38 Tanks and 22 TD and 44 AC
106ID 0 tanks and 41TD and 86AC
9AD 176 tanks 129 TD and 55AC
7AD 149 tanks 137 TD and 85AC

Note: Dupuy classifies M5, M5a1, and M24 Chaffees as TD's

The AC's are for the most parts attachments from Corp units, each corp had a cavalry group assigned to it in general
User avatar
Joel137
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:19 am
Location: Brookings, South Dakota

Postby runyan99 » Sun Mar 07, 2004 6:22 pm

So, what have we decided?

Yes, I found the TO&E for a tank battalion to be very robust in fact. Something like 54 Shermans, 17 Stuarts, and 6 Priest assault guns. So, maybe a three step unit isn't unreasonable.

I'm still skeptical about the TD battalion units. Were TDs even employed in full battalions, or were they parceled out in companies and platoons?
User avatar
runyan99
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:32 am

Postby Joel137 » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:42 pm

Personally, I'm still waffling. I'm starting to be pursuaded that the JSS, solution for the tank btns is the most reasonable, three steps, but a lot of them should start with a one step loss.

The TD's are another question, ones's that were permanently attached to an ID, (if any) should perhaps should be considered part of what makes the US ID's have such a healthy anti-shock value.

The german pz division pose a quandry for me. When I look at the numbers I begin to think that Twinkle has a valid point regarding adding in a panzer jaeger unit for them, if those numbers warrant units for the US, OTOH, its not clear to me that their recon group warrants a unit, or if it does should the US ID's get one as well????? I can see it all three ways. Tactical flexibility might argue for the Germans getting it and the US not (though I don't think its clear cut). Also one might say that the extra TD's in the panzer divisions are showing up in part here, and in part in the robust number of steps for the SS panzer regts.

A problem in interpreting the OOB's in the game is that number of steps isn't simply a headcount and weapons count. The number of steps one uses to represent a unit also involves issues of quality and brittleness and is complicated by timed replacement factors as well.

On another note, I read in Dupuy last night that US infantry replacements were getting to be short supply by the time of the Bulge. Something on the order of 11,000 trained infantrymen; which he points out is getting close to 2 divisions worth of combat infantry. This provides justification for the TAO3 replacement rates compared to the TAO2 replacement rates for the US.
User avatar
Joel137
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:19 am
Location: Brookings, South Dakota

Postby barkhorn » Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:24 pm

Not to change the subject but I would like to suggest that corp unit integrity be added.In playing atd I find it too easy to intermix unit's from different corps or for that matter even different armies.I find this to be atypical historically.The oob list in game does'nt distiguish corps just lumps them togetherin a army.
barkhorn
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:44 am

Postby Twinkle » Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:10 am

barkhorn wrote:Not to change the subject but I would like to suggest that corp unit integrity be added.In playing atd I find it too easy to intermix unit's from different corps or for that matter even different armies.I find this to be atypical historically.The oob list in game does'nt distiguish corps just lumps them togetherin a army.


that has been up for discussion (I started the thread), an I got a limited response... anyway, I feel that it would just add an unnecessary complexity as we in that case has to be able to reorganise our corps and so on... It is a complex mater of how corps/army units should work, so maybe best if SSG doesn't go in that direction...

However, I tend to keep my corps/armies in their historical formation as that makes my long time strategy easier to implement.

regards
/twinkle :)
User avatar
Twinkle
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 2366
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Carrington » Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:37 am

Agreed that corps integrity would be a nice option, not necessarily because it would help the scenarios that we have -- KP, ATD, TAO are at a nice complexity level as they stand. But it would be useful in creating new scenarios, say ones in which divisional units show up...

The big issue would be the way that corps are depicted: can one tell them apart on the mapboard?

It occurs to me, though , that one might be able to create (inflexible) corps by taking advantage of the multiple "nation" slots in the OB editor. Has anyone tried this?

I'd also like to see divisions of greater than four units: a ceiling of 6 or 8 would be nice.
Image
Carrington
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:36 am

Postby Joel137 » Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:34 am

Let me play devil's advocate for the moment.

I'm not all that big on Korp integrity.

a) First corp assets appear seperately anyway, that is where a lot of these independent battalions and regiments, artillery and engineer counters are coming from. (Some are Army level assets as well.) See comment at end, below.

b) Corp organization in WWII was much more of an ephemeral entity than divisions. Often Divisions were pulled in and out of Corps at will by army or higher level. This was more true in the German Army, during the Bulge the composition of the Korps changed a fair amount during the course of the battle.

This fact provides an interesting design problem for Corp level games. Which is why I don't think the DBWII engine would be great for Corp level games.

If Corp integrity ever becomes a part of this system, then I think some facility for attaching and reattaching units to different Corp HQ's would be necessary (and I'd probably want some HQ units in the game, as non-combat units)

The point regarding a division level game has some merit I think.

IMO, the integrity rules do two things for the game/simulation. It provides incentives for the player to maintain some reasonable organization. And more importantly, in my opinion, it is a way of modeling (simulating) divisional level assets that are not present in the game as actual counters (arty btns, engineer and recon units, heavy weapon and TD and AT guns; cooks and bakers and file clerks etc.)

Edit: minor grammar changes (nothing substantive)
Last edited by Joel137 on Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Joel137
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:19 am
Location: Brookings, South Dakota

Postby Gregor Whiley » Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:21 am

I think Joel137 has things pretty much right. We will put Corps level structures into a game if and when it needs it. Regimental level games don't need it, divisional level games probably do.

Remember, as has been pointed out in previous posts, you don't just get to decree a Corps structure and just leave it at that. You have to display Corps affiliation to the player, you have to be able to change affiliations, there will probably need to be actual HQ units on the map to control and orient Corps structures and you need to program the AI to be able to use these new structures properly, and work within their constraints.

Gregor
Gregor Whiley
Vice President, SSG
www.ssg.com.au
User avatar
Gregor Whiley
SSG
 
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:55 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Previous

Return to Feedback/Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron