Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

I would like to throw out a question for discussion. Especially in campaigns - how many of you select your forces based on what is historically accurate rather that what will make winning easier? For example, taking Mk IVs instead of Panthers or A9s instead of Matildas.

Do you differentiate between core and support by getting the good kit for your boys but being more accurate when it comes to the support troops? For example, Wittmann like Tiger truppen supported by a mass of Volksgrenadiers.

I try to be historically accurate but often can't resist adding in a couple of goodies - especially after my core troops have fought well.

Just curious, http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

I must admit that when I played the old SP (Dos version) long campaign as Germans I had more Tigers by 1945 than Adolf probably did http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif - it was getting too easy as only arty and airpower caused a problem. So this time round I'm trying hard to keep it more "real" - less tank heavy - but like you say, when you got a few 1000 points in the bank it's just soooo tempting to buy that Tiger II platoon... It definitely makes for a more challenging game to go lighter on armour (especially as germans cos their tanks are so hot) and more infantry instead. So last campaign I had maximum of 13 tank, (mostly Stug/JgdPzr) - only buying extra armour support on "advance" flavour missions. Swapped around the types a bit for variety. You only really start "needing(?)" a few panther/tiger when JSII shows up. Anyhow, I read personal accounts of German inf who never saw a Tiger... especially later in the war, Germans were so short of armour it seems too unreal to have a "superforce".

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

When I play I almost always go with the "cheaper" equipment and try to stick to it all the way thru. I next to never get any Tigers. Heck, I think I have only had the Panther just a few times. It gets too easy having the big dogs..LOL.

For example, me and a buddy double up on a campaign, he goes for the hard hitting heavily armored stuff, and I go for the average/lower hitting and average/lesser armored stuff. He does well in his sectors, but, he also uses different tactics than I do. He goes nose to nose with them, because he can. lol. I usually have to out smart them, wait for them to get close enough to penetrate the enemy armor, wait for side/rear shots, or my favorite, use my anti-tank guns to provide covering fire etc, etc....you guys get the jist.

I love seeing those T-34s and KVs marching down the battlefield with the feeling of invincibility as my PaK 38 crews are saying, "Closer, come on closer...wait for it, wait for it, NOW! FIRE!" and BAM...flamer...LOL....

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

For example when playing Soviets, I tend to upgrade units once the company/platoon either made a significant rise on experience or suffered so heavy loses it's rather reforming the unit than upgrading it. This way I keep BT-7 co (with damaged tanks being repaired but destroyed ones not being replaced) until it's all but wiped out, then upgrade entire company to T-34.

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

Great question, not sure how to answer it. For me even though I've read tons of books on the war, I haven't a clue as to what the actual composition to any type of formation. Depending on what nation I'm playing I'll try different combinations but I tend to always start out with a company of infantry, an FO unit, a couple of scouts and then I'll add a couple of tank platoons or a company so everyone can ride. As I said I don't know how realistic my cores are but I try to keep them small and my maps big. This way I scare myself as I can't always control my flanks and I can't tell if the AI is going to do an end around. The area of realism that I struggle the hardest with is trying to save my units. Experience is like a drug and once your core gets some it's awful tough to not go back and restart a screwed up battle. Sometimes I wish that instead of gaining experience we could just get more points for a victory and perhaps we wouldn't become so attached to our units.

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

Yes,interesting question, for me it depends on my mood and sometimes what part of the war I'm reading about. When I play as the Allies I usually stick to realism, and also when I start early in the war with the Germans I stick there as well.

As for "winning" Orbats and equipment, I have a passion for "What If" campaigns, these usually involve recruiting heavy KG's of roughly 2/3's Bn size as my core, fighting late 44/early 45 to Dec 46. But I really wouldn't say these even aren't too unrealistic either as I have lost or been baddly mauled, as well as kicking big butt at times.

I don't think I've ever (except during the early days of SP1 when I was still fine tuning my skills)skewed things to point where I'm more like Hammer's Slammers on the battlefield...............where would the enjoyment be in that!!!

Cheers, Bob

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

Good question!

I love playing as the Germans as they played such a large part in shaping the combat equipment and tactics still in use today. The problem is they have so much cool kit! It is hard to resist, but I do normally try and opt for realism, basing my core around a kamfgruppe of PzGren.

Its worth rembering that there were actually very few Tigers and they were in most cases part of speical units so normally only get taken as support choices unless I play as SS.

Its worth remembering as a German player that there were very few Armoured infantry units availbable during the early war years to. In 1939 there were apparently only 68 251 Apcs actually in service!

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

I am rarely using top equipment. It is so satisfying to see the old scrap win because of tactics, even more if you have inferior troops regarding experience. That's the game about, after all, about you as general.

I played some "realistic" campaigns though, where I simply referred to a random number generator (or if you have a dice, I don't). You know what numbers of equipment where available, so you can simply roll and buy. It relieves me from long decisions, if it is realistic to have this one. Especially because you HAVE a chance to buy King Tigers in perfectly "realistic" manner http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif That is, if you don't plan frequent upgrades. I upgraded just once a year.

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

I mostly play PBEM games. My most played sides are the Italians and the Japanese (in that order). So I guess no uberweapons for me! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I also like to create somewhat realistic forces. Sometimes I base my force on actual TO&E's, other times I just gor a thematic feel (like using only Luftwaffe field units or Ost-Infantry for the infantry formations).

Narwan

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

Ian,

You're right, the number of APCs available was very low, and most Panzergrenadier units had 1 battalion on APCs at most, but never all 3, not even Waffen-SS units. I'm not the picky type of person, just curious: 68 thousand APCs sounds in German service in '39 sounds like really way too high to me! This may be some total war production number, I might be able to find those, but even then it sounds very high! Do you have a source for this? And do we talk about the same thing - namely only SdKfz 251+250 half-track APCs?

I got a book on German weapons production with a lot of statistics and data, I meantioned it in the thread on motorcycle scouts - the numbers it provides are very detailed for most vehicles and weapons, I could tell you the numbers of various weapons that the Wehrmacht had in its inventory at several key dates during the war, the losses during every year and campaign, etc --- unfortunately in this case there is no separate number for APCs, but it says that (abbreviated) at the start of the war the german army had 3.7 million men in total, and active/in reserve 115000/9000 trucks, 2700/600 tanks, and 1300/200 light armored vehicles - this would include the 4-wheel, 6-wheel and 8-wheel recon vehicles - the book says it is difficult to find production numbers for the SdKfz250/251 series, as production numbers often include those of unarmored 1-ton and 3-ton half-track towing tractors, which are based on the same vehicle, but to give you an idea: the books I got agree that total production of the light -250 was around 7500 vehicles and over 16.000 for the medium -251. Also, AFAIK production of both versions only started in '39 or '38 and therefore the numers available on 09/1/39 must have been rather low.

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

I think he meant that there were only 68 SdKfz 251 APCs in service - not 68,251 of all models of APC. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

As you may guess form my posts I play as realistic as possible I rarely buy anything less than coy formations. Strangely I play the same as Narwan, PBEM using Italians and Japanese in that order. Nothing is more satisfying than defeating the english Armour with the poorly eqipped italians in the open desert, 8 AT guns per division etc.
I also like to play an unbalanced force by removing all traces of say armour or AA or artillery etc form my purchase.

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

LOL - sorry 'bout that, I know I shouldn't enter a discussion if I'm too tired to read properly... oh man!! Now, 68 sounds good, goes together with the production start in '39. Besides, the Germans also used a type of wheeled/tracked APC in small numbers called AGDZ, taken over from Austria. It was a tracked vehicle with similar in shape to SdKfz 250/251 but it hat 4 road wheels outside the tracks that could be lowered for on-road use - a rather strange vehicle, it served with artillery observers mostly.

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

Shan,

I did only mean "68" Sdkfz 251s. Should have made it a bit more clear! The 250 series didn't enter production until June 1941. One of my favourite referance books for German armoured vehilces is:

Standard Catalog of German Military Vehicles by David Doyle published by KP Books in 2005 isbn 0-87349-783-x.

Its says there were aprox 6000 of the Sdkfz 250 series were made. I'm not sure about the Sdkfz 251 series.

On another realism point though it's really great being able to hammer the other side with loads of artillery fire! Trouble is depending on how big your game is artillery was in realitivly short supply.

If you think that a typical Pz Division had 2-3 artillery Btls of 3-4 batteries, each with 4 guns depending on formation and losses. A btl sized kampfgruppe is therefore unlikley to have it all on call at once! With the exception of pherhaps an assult mission. Larger pieces over 150mm would be Corps assets and would be even rarer.

It reality (at least for German Mechanised forces) you should take 1 forward observer/observation vehicle for each battery taken. This eats up support points but also means the number of batteries you take will probaberly be reduced as well as being realistic. It would be a real headache for one observer to co-ordinate the lot! Todays British Army certinally uses the one observer per battery ratio with the battery commnader taking the role in the "armoured artillery" formations using AS90.

The Germans made up for the "lack of atillery" by the introduction of inf gun units attached to indivudual btls and regiments. The 75mm and to a lesser extent the 150mm sig would be a common sight in a reinforced btl sized kamfgruppe.

Not sure on other nations though, any one any thoughts?

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

I'm playing Soviet long cmapin, an my core force more or less historically correct understrength tank brigade. However I just couldn't resist few cool toys - some KV-2 and T-34-57. Both had seen actual combat, but were exceptionaly few - all(?) KV-2 were lost in first months, and T-34-57 were few and had problems with ammo and cannon barrels.

historical soviet tank brigade 1941:
7 KV-1
22 T-34
10-50 T-60
Mech infantry batallion (introduced later)
ATG battery
AA battery
mortar battery
trucks, armored cars etc.

For now my core is (3/1942)
4 KV-1
3 KV-2 (not historical, should be KV-1)
4 T-34
3 T-34-57 (semi-historical, should be plain T-34)
5 T-60
5 Zis-30 TD (semi-historical, weren't in the the tank brigades)
2 rifle companies
1 eng company
AA battery
SPAA trucks battery
ATG battery
10 120mm mortars (too much for tank brigade)
4 off-board 152mm (attached to brigade from the reserve of the High Command http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
halftrucks for two infantry companies (not historical)

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

Hi Blitzkreig
As far as I know the German and British armies are very specific in the allocation of divisional artillery. You rank(ie formation size) determines how much of the divisional artillery you will have at your disposal. The limit is one artillery battalion for one infantry/armoured battalion if you want more you will have to resort to your formations organic artillery. The one army I believe that doesnt abide by these limits is the US army. For the organic artillery within a formation a coy will have the coy mortars and the regiment will have the regimental "infantry gun" company. Because of command and control constraints one regiment is very unlikely to use another regiments IGs, one coy is very unlikely to use another coys mortars etc.
So assuming a 3 coy/bat 3 bat per regiment formation, in a regimental attack you will have all the divisions guns available plus your regiments IGs plus 9 sets of coy mortars.
For a coy attack you will have your coys mortars and possibly the regimental guns
For a battalion attack 3 mortar coys, regimemtal guns and 1 divisional artillery battalion.
Corps level artillery is usually busy with counterbattery, long range sniping or interdiction. though as you mention it can appear in assaults on either side.
I agree that it would be nice if some of these constraints could be worked into the game
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

You must take into account, that the front battle formations (which you play) are given ALL of the supporting artillery of the division. Thus if division attacks with say 4 battalions ahead, and you play as a battalion commander, you should take one fourth of divisional artillery. In assault missions it can be easily three times more, because of non-divisional assets (hope germans had some, at least the russians did). This way the proportion of artillery to units/tanks is much higher, than one would expect, as it is normal, that one or two thirds of division are out of contact with enemy. Arty due to its long range can support all the time with all the tubes, if you don'lack ammo. The proportion thus runs two to three times than expected, and you still count just divisional assets. In modern era soviet army (which is undergunned compared to ww2, due to larger calibre, efectiveness and so on) a battalion in attack is supported by battalion of artillery (4 bat. divisional attack - and division has 4 artillery battalions), not counting its own mortars and possible use of non-divisional assets. Thus as a rule, I am accustomed to, I use battery/company rule of thumb to create my core.

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

Chuck,

I've been doing some reading on the North West Europe front and what you've said ties in with that. The US Army seemed to have a more artilery avaiable per BG sized formation than you could shake a stick at.

I was interested to note several books making the point that the US and British armies relied on artillery and airpower to suppress German formations as a way of making up for a lack of "aggressive" spirit in their combat units. Not surprising really when you had guys in the British Army who had been fighting for five or more years.

Some authors claim this contributed to the prolonging of the war as allied artillery ammo consumption was crazily high in late 1944 adding to supply problems before the opening of Antwerp port.

Ian

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

A quick realism question aimed at the designers/DRG/Mobhack really.

Some folks seem to be more concerned about accuracy of the oobs than others. It's a great game and is meant to be fun after all. Is this strive for oob accuracy of interest to you or just a pain in the ***? There is modhack after all.

I'd imagine most of your time is taken with the nuts and bolts of how the game actually works! Is it worthwhile for people to be constantly noting errors in the oobs? If it is how much evidence/sources do you want/need to jusdtify a change?

What do fellas think?

Thanks for your ongoing hard work

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

I have no problem with discussions on OOB accuracy. If people can come up with new information that works with the game system and improves the game I will always consider making changes. The same applies to info on individual weapons or units. If, for example, we have a weapon with a penetration number too high or too low then by all means let us know but supply supporting documentation. *IF* we agree we will make the change. Some suggestions however, ignore the reality of game system itself either though ignorance of how the game is put together or simply because they don't like how the game currently models "reality" and want it done a different way usually ignoring the number of man hours required to make a fundamental change in the game and the possible spin off affects in different areas. THOSE are a PITA mainly because the end result on game play does not even come close to justifying the work involved.

As you say, there is MOBHack and a copy of that comes with every game because we know that no matter what we do SOMEBODY will find something they don't like and think should be different.

Both Andy and I are currently on "sabbatical". Occasionally we may answer questions but we both need a change of scenery that does not involve a computer monitor.


Don

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

Hi Ian

Here are some relevant pasages form
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...er/doubler.asp
"
Despite successes in Tunisia and Sicily, the U.S. Army that assaulted the Normandy beaches was still far from being a well-oiled, coordinated fighting machine. Shortcomings in prebattle training and battlefield coordination during 1942 and 1943 prevented the U.S. Army from developing its full potential as an effective fighting force. One of the major problems discovered was the surprising lack of aggressiveness displayed by infantry units. Instead of employing techniques of fire and maneuver to close with and destroy the enemy, infantry attacks often merely located and pinned down the enemy. Artillery fire was then called on to finish the infantry's job of destroying the defenders. Instead of relying on their organic weapons, infantrymen trusted in the big guns of the field artillery to deliver the coups de grace.16
Another problem compounded the infantry's reliance on artillery support. The purpose of the infantry division's mortars and assault guns was to support the attacks of the riflemen. Consequently, these weapons were usually employed close to the fighting front and became favorite targets for German artillery, tanks, and other heavy weapons. American mortar, antitank, and assault-gun crews often suffered heavy casualties. A tendency developed in which these weapons remained hidden and silent until the salvos of the supporting artillery landed on the defenders' positions. Artillery fires suppressed and neutralized the Germans, and only then would the infantry's organic heavy weapons join in the battle.17
Even more disturbing was the poor coordination that existed during tank-infantry attacks. Experience in combat painfully showed that stateside training lacked emphasis on the planning and execution of combined arms attacks. Infantry commanders habitually failed to exploit the mobility and firepower of the tanks attached to their units. Conversely, tankers operating with infantry were often reluctant to aggressively advance, taking the burden of the attack away from the riflemen.18
"
Training presented a problem because of these numbers.
In sept 1939 Hitler has 108 fully trained fully equipped divisions.
In june 1941 Stalin has 178 on the western front alone.
In Sept 1939 the American Army has 5 divisions thats 188500 men and 14400 officers.
So recruiting training and equipping all started too late. Lend lease added to the problem because equipment that should have been used for training was flowing overseas.
from
http://stonebooks.com/archives/000716.shtml
"Even with two BARs, however, the U.S. infantry squad could not match the German firepower, since the MG42 had a greater effective range and twice the BAR's rate of fire. In fact, the MG42 alone could almost match the rate of fire of every weapon in a U.S. infantry squad shooting at once."
Ive been asking for the BAR to be downgraded to reflect this but to no avail so far.

So in short the americans infantry had every reason to rely on divisional artillery, they didnt have smokeless powder (and so were easily spotted) the germans did. The MG34 and 42 were murder the BAR wasnt. The germans infantry was bristling with hand held AT and the shermans burnt easily. The germans had better training.
Considering this I find the American experience 65 morale 75 a bit high compared to the German experience 70 morale 65

AFAIK the British did OK in the field, they had a high level of training throughout. But as the war ended there was a lot of political pressure to minimise casualties. The hideous attrition policy of WWI was public knowledge by now and the current party wanted to be voted back in.

This site is also interesting
http://www.army.mil/cmh/collections/USAWW2.htm

Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

I don´t strive for "realistic" forces. It´s a game after all. The best part is to spend an hour (or two) thinking what to buy, what kind of companies with what possible support weapons to make, create battlegroups of tanks and infantry, is this machinegun better at its job than that one, do I wish to use mortars in direct fire suppot etc etc.

We have to remember that the cost calculator compensates for supertanks and weapons. One tank can´t be in more than one place at a time. I prefer heavy armor, because when I need their firepower, they have to be the best available to be able to nullify serious head-on threats. Tanks for me are meant to take the enemy head-on. Infantry and artillery can deal with lesser threats with some PAK or something. If I can´t match the enemy´s tank power, I´ll have to use tactics and ambushes. This sometimes feels like cheating against the AI, as it walks straight into one.

I just love buying my own force structure from the ground up. Then it is MY force, not somebody elses.

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

Amen to all that, Pdoktar.

That's why I play campaigns, and have been since learning the game many years ago. I recruit my KG's/BG's/TF's and treat them like I'm an old and trusted CO.

Cheers, PanzerBob out.

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

Fair enough - my "game" is to play with reasonably limited kit or under appreciated forces. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

To stretch your point completely out of shape, why not take only Tigers and snipers?

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

It is fun to play with all the shiny best kit but I'm in the realism school of thought. To have any real chance of sucess even against the AI you need a balanced force. Big Tanks with massive guns and armour will still get creamed by trained infantry if in urban areas and forest.

Happy Gaming!

Re: Realism vs \"Winning\"
 

Don´t take them into forests and towns.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif
That´s what the grunts are for, maybe a Tiger 500-800meters behind the main grunt line ina town, closing the road from enemy vehicles..?

And PatG, I hate enemy snipers, and they can´t still do good things like close assault effectively and keep positions in 1 hex range.