WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

Another addition to the ain't never going to officially happen pile.

While working on armoured trains I have been doing some thinking about how to reconcile the scale mismatch between vehicle icons and the map. Right now, the vehicles are about 6.67 times oversized - not a problem with stackable tanks but a bit of a visual problem for trains.

I poked around the groups a bit, looking especially at some of the one man unit work Wild Bill Wilder has done (very cool - check out his scenarios for MBT).

As a thought experiment only - Andy and Don have far better things to do - what would be the interest in a version of WinSPWW2 at a scale of 1 man, one vehicle and one vehicle per hex? This works out to a game scale of 7.5 metres per hex - the current vehicle scale. The time per turn may need to be adjusted too.

Required:
*Massive work on OOBs
*creating single man units
*multiplying all weapon ranges etc by 6.67 or
maxing out anything over 255.
*Figuring out a reasonable time per turn and adjusting
moves and rates of fire accordingly.
*creating true multihex buildings #
*reworking some if not all terrain shps for wider streams
etc.

Problems:
*No way to represent moving up and down stories in a
building. (could this be addressed by the helicopter code?)
*Current code would still allow multi-vehicle per hex
stacking.
*Other code issues like visibility

# SHPedit will go larger than 89x89 px but the preview displays get ugly. I have not tried to find the upper limit for icon size in the game.

Right now I'm comitted to working on trains http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif but if some interested and talented soul wants to make very basic Russian and German OOBs it might be fun to play around with. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Cross of Iron, [i]Stalingrad or Kelly's Heros anyone?

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

I'd play it no idea how to make it work but I'd definately play it

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

The only issue I can see you running up against is extremely limited OOB space for the number of units you'd then need to create, and probably limited classes too. I'm sure it could be done, but I think you'd need to create sets of OOBs for certain time periods, or just create OOBs and then scenarios around them.

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

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

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

Thatguy, in fact the OOB space would be less of a concern as you'll replace say 10 various squads with just "rifleman", "Rifleman/LAW", "Grenadier" and "LMG Team" and their various combinations in formation section.

EDIT: In MBT that is, in WWII the Rifleman/LAW would be rather Rifleman/AT grenade http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

I seem to recall this was tried some years ago by someone. I don't remember the details but the "1 man, one vehicle and one vehicle per hex" rings a bell

Don

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

The blast circles work on a 50 meter hex, of course.

And there is no way to change that item to work with a 7.5 metre hex.

Cheers
Andy

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

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.

The little areas of dead ground in a hex that are now extrapolated could be portrayed accurately. Smaller unit actions such as The Eagle has Landed, A Walk in the Sun and good chunks of Band of Brothers can be portrayed.

Earlier this week, I was at a Shakespeare play (Two Gentlemen of Verona performed by the Company of Fools) held in a converted church yard park. The original high stone walls had been "loop holed" every 10 - 15 meters by removingthe top half of the wall. Simply moving a meter or two in either direction produced radically different sight lines. So too the surrounding three story brownstones overlooked different parts of the space.

All these factors are present in the game but I see sub-tactical as a sort of WinSP-Haiku. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

Thanks for looking in - You too Don.

As a nasty hack requiring no code change, one could reduce the HEK value but increase the ROF letting a larger number of weaker rounds scatter over a wider area.

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

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.

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

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...

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

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 !

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

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.

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

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

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

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

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

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.

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

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.


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.

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

[quote]
PatG said:
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

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

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". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

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". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif ]

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

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

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.

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

Chuck,

All I had was from the library and that was some time ago and my aging memory fails.

However from "Dirty Litle Secrets of WWII" (Dunnigan and Nofi, not a bad little read incidentally):

U.S Army Medical Service, Historical Unit "Wound Ballistics"
Washington, D.C, Office of the Surgoen General, 1962.
Alllegedly "not for the fainthearted"; covers WWII and Korea.

Also from "DLS of WWII" (page 58):

Regarding GI opinions of which weapons were feared:

"Artillery was the major cause of casualties among the infantry" [i read this as >= 50% - vv] "...mortars 17%...MG's 6%..."

same page...

"Interestingly none of the troops feared rifle fire or considered it 'dangerous'. This was also quite accurate. The most dangerous weapons were artillery (including mortars) and these accounted for over two thirds of all casualties."

Add in other fragmentation (grenades, mines, aircraft ordinance etc.) to the fragmentation numbers, take into consideration most bullet wounds came from MG's (sheer volume of fire) and there's precious little left for "rifle fire" and even that would include snipers.

The classic (tactical) method of inflicting casualties on advancing troops (especially in the open) was to pin them with MG fire and then mortar them. Obviously "advancing in the open" was avoided if at all possible. Company and battalion mortars were handy, responsive and very accurate, particularly in the hands of experienced crew.

The USMC made good use of the 60mm (two or three tubes per company) and first-person info on this can be found in "With The Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa" (the late E.B. Sledge, Marine mortarman, who later became IIRC a college professor, Presidio Press, November 1981. There is also a Bantam Press paperback version, crica 1983.)

Also from DLS of WWII (pp 237-238):

Re: German tactics

"Every infantry squad of ten [not twelve] men had an MG ...crew would always set up before the rest of the squad advanced. In defense, the rest of the squad was there mainly to defend and find targets for the MG. The platoon commander had his three squad MGs to work with and was trained to ensure that enemy troops would rarely avoid walking into a wall of MG fire. The Germans put a lot of thought and energy into placing their MGs...In effect a German infantry squad was just one big MG unit. The other men in the squad [provided protecion, spotted targets etc.] and of course carried a lot of [MG] ammunition. ...German units carried a lot more [MG] ammuntion with them than did comparable American outfits. On the battlefield, firepower was king and the Germans knew it."

hope this helps some. seems like i did a web search for detailed casualty stats a while back and didn't, strangely enough, come up with much sufficiently detailed information. maybe i quit too soon.

as an aside, i did a lot of testing in SPWW2 in an effort to get rifle fire casualties down but none of it did much good. i shortened rifle to range to 7 (the practical maximum anyway) and reduced HE kill to 0 and it was still very bloody, particularly at closer ranges.

part of this is due to the significant overstatement of rifles in a squad. e.g. the SPWW2 German squad "fires" 12 rifles. in fact a real squad had 7-8; 10 man squad with a two/three-man MG crew. (firepower-wise the SP squad is more like a 14-15 man group.) this was what gave rise to the "subtactical" (another post this thread) tests i did. in this i had fire teams (3-4 men) that had ONLY rifles/grenades and others that had ONLY an MG. this mitigated things somewhat casualty-wise (i.e. no slot 1 weapon x "men" PLUS MG in the same unit). however other issues (fragility, propensity to pin etc.) developed which made the try problematic.

perhaps another scheme might work, e.g. "men" in squad equals actual MINUS MG/"secondary weapon" crew. so a GE squad of 10 with rifle, MG, HG, RG would use an SP "men" value of 7 or 8. This would reduce rifle fire casualties and help the fragility issue (enough?). likewise a USMC squad of 12 with rifle, 2xBAR, HG, torch would use "men" = 9 (deduct 3 for the BARs and the flamethrower).

it's a lot of work doing all the modifying and testing and i kind of burned out on the last iteration.

good luck with your research and please share any good info/sources you may run across!

best,
vic

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

Hi Vic
Thanks for the reply, one site I know of that may be of some interest to you is
http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/index.htm
Ill try to dig up the library stuff, but this can be difficult, might be better to look online as I know Ive seen some stats online but never bookmarked them, so the long search begins. Ill send on any links I find.
I do have a comment about artillery you may find interesting.
The statement "Artillery was the major cause of casualties among the infantry" probably deserves a little qualifying. Without seeing the references Id say that its not just the number of casualties thats important but -when- they occoured. At any one time, on most fronts most units sat opposite each other relatively inactive. During these periods other than occassional patrols and sniping the best way to "annoy" your opposite is to drop mortar rounds (or bigger if available) on him any time there is a gathering or any other opportune time. These casualties shouldnt be included in statistics presented to define in-game weapon effectiveness as the game models battles and these casualties occour outside of battles. The question remains of course, what proportion of artillery casualties occour within battles? I seem to remember seeing somewhere that it is actually quite small, but Ill try to confirm this. I also seem to recall reading somewhere that the Mortar was thoroughly hated by the infantry because of its use in this way as a tool of harrassment.
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

For those of you who haven't seen it yet.

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...o=&fpart=1

Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
 

wow...have i really been gone this long? could be a sign that i am "getting a life". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Nick, as regards your observation about the "# of men in a hex", you are correct, to a point. i.e. larger UNITS will sustain more casualties than smaller ones. however, i believe when MULTIPLE UNITS are in the same hex no consideration is given to TARGET DENSITY. each squad is checked sequentially and casualties are assessed squad by squad. the result is that each squad's casualties are assessed as if they were the only squad in the hex; i.e. dispersed throughout the hex.

this ignores the fact that a crowded hex should produced more casualties PER UNIT because of the target density.

this can be tested by firing at a unit that is the sole occupant of a hex and comparing those results to firing on hexes that are packed with multiple squads. my testing indicates the RATE (% of total men in hex) of casualties per squad does not vary as target density increases. e.g. a single squad hex will take one casualty and a hex with 10 squads will take 10 casualties.

this is especially true in the case of arty/mortar fire on packed hexes which should produce much higher casualty RATES
as proportionally more men would be within a shell's blast radius.

best,
vic