British Commando Units

[Mobhack]

The CDO platoons (AKA half sections) would probably be best with 4 rifle sections, and a 5th as an engineer class (for their obstacle clearing ability) with SMG, satchel bombs and other CQB stuff.


Andy

[Marek_Tucan]

Originally Posted by Cross

Hi Marek,

The Germans and Russians have plenty of 13 and 12 men sections in SP. Most of the Japanese infantry are 12 men sections.

But these are regular infantry, we're discussing commandos here, IOW units that had to fight often outnumbered, in small teams etc. - to reverse the argument about LMG being gone, if you have one large squad suppressed, it's gone, if you have "Assault" and "MG" elements separate, one can support the other, the same in assault - it would be likely that in the absence of heavy weapons, you'd want the LMGs to provide fire support while maneuvering elements go close to the enemy. So I would say that for spec. troops, such division would be justified.

(just for record, tried a battle in similar settings using USMC company in "Squad organisation" and "Fireteam organisation" - while fireteams were fragile if taken isolated, they were huge bonus when suppressing the enemy as more weapons fired and they were harder to suppress.)

[redcoat2]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

This organisation seems to be a wee bit of a return to the old gunpowder musket days(1700s-1900 or so), used for line battalions to order volley fires.

Each company would be split into two platoons or 'firings'. and sometimes each platoon was then further split into two halves known as section 'firings'.

Volley fire from the muskets was a combination of each platoon firing together, or in section firings. (AKA rolling volleys). The volleys could start on the wing companies and work to the centre companies, or vice versa.

The idea was that some fraction of the battalion would always have muskets ready to fire, so the line could not be totally surprised by unexpected events (e.g. some cavalry turning up and getting a free charge home).

Andy

I think the ‘file firing’ you describe was often in the manuals of the time, but not often used in reality. Few British officers of the ‘blackpowder’ era bothered to read Dundas or the other manuals available to them. The officers that did use file firing found it to be very impressive on the parade ground and very unimpressive on the battlefield. They found that file firing often quickly degenerated into wild firing under combat conditions. Volley firing by rank – or by the classic two ranks – was probably much more common. Even volley firing by rank often became confused after three or so volleys in combat. Luckily for the British two or three steady volleys was often enough to halt or break an enemy attack.

I suspect that the Commando units used for short hit-and-run operations out of Blighty were reasonably up to strength, but yes, most units would have been under strength to some degree. The strength of a Commando Troop was originally set at 62 men because that was the number of men that could be comfortably fitted into the Assault Landing Craft they were using at the time.

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

The CDO platoons (AKA half sections) would probably be best with 4 rifle sections, and a 5th as an engineer class (for their obstacle clearing ability) with SMG, satchel bombs and other CQB stuff.

Andy

This would work. I assume you mean that one of the four rifle 'sections' would also be the HQ section?

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

But these are regular infantry, we're discussing commandos here, IOW units that had to fight often outnumbered, in small teams etc. - to reverse the argument about LMG being gone, if you have one large squad suppressed, it's gone, if you have "Assault" and "MG" elements separate, one can support the other, the same in assault - it would be likely that in the absence of heavy weapons, you'd want the LMGs to provide fire support while maneuvering elements go close to the enemy. So I would say that for spec. troops, such division would be justified.

(just for record, tried a battle in similar settings using USMC company in "Squad organisation" and "Fireteam organisation" - while fireteams were fragile if taken isolated, they were huge bonus when suppressing the enemy as more weapons fired and they were harder to suppress.)

I don't see much difference - in SP - wether the section are Light Infantry, Ghurkas, Calvalry, Engineers, PzGren, Ski Troops, Paras or Commando. The standard section should fight as a section in a 50M hex.

Sensible exceptions are made for scouts, snipers, AT teams, MGs etc. But these exceptions are 'support', and are consistant.

Why should Commando sections be the only ones split into fire teams and the disadvangtages - in SP - that incurs; and also have the disadvantage of only being able to purchase a 'platoon' (Troop) with tons of support baggage already attached?

Surely Commando troops should be more flexible, not less flexible?

We must remember the scale of the game. Fire and movement is done on the platoon level in SP not the squad/section level.
So one whole section supports another as it moves forward.

Support units, especially MGs, can still be purchased and used for supression; just as you may with regular infantry.

I agree with you that smaller fire teams are more vulnerable/fragile in SP. And agree that there are some circumstancial exceptions to this.

The current SP Army Commando Troop is not historically accurate.

I guess my thought is that by transforming the basic Commando Troop to a more typical SP infantry platoon, you are making it more historical and a more effective fighting force. Currently, I wouldn't use a Commando Troop for anything other than a scenario build.

Seperate smaller support units would be available to 'add on' as the situation requires.

We should also remember that Commando Troops fought in the line alongside regular infantry. Their daring raids got all the press attention, but these units often had to fight like regular infantry on the front. But better equipped no doubt.

cheers,
Cross

[Cross]

An additional thought:

By leaving the Royal Marine Commando Troop as is, we still have a Commando Troop with small support units attached, and the less traditional organization, and perhaps a more accurate representation of a 'raiding party'.

An updated 'conservative' Army Commando Troop would be more representative of how these units were organized when they fought on the front line in a more traditional role.


cheers,
Cross

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Cross

An additional thought:

By leaving the Royal Marine Commando Troop as is, we still have a Commando Troop with small support units attached, and the less traditional organization, and perhaps a more accurate representation of a 'raiding party'.

An updated 'conservative' Army Commando Troop would be more representative of how these units were organized when they fought on the front line in a more traditional role.


cheers,
Cross

One way to do it.

SP is based on an individual element being the squad/section, and that any action at less than a section level is not modelled. A section/squad is the 'centre marker' for any individual teams that may move off 50-100 metres under the section corporal's command but the player (and AI) do not need to worry about sub-minor tactics like that.


Andy

[Marek_Tucan]

Originally Posted by Cross

I don't see much difference - in SP - wether the section are Light Infantry, Ghurkas, Calvalry, Engineers, PzGren, Ski Troops, Paras or Commando. The standard section should fight as a section in a 50M hex.

But Commandos are not "standard" infantry, right?

Sensible exceptions are made for scouts, snipers, AT teams, MGs etc. But these exceptions are 'support', and are consistant.

Why should Commando sections be the only ones split into fire teams and the disadvangtages - in SP - that incurs; and also have the disadvantage of only being able to purchase a 'platoon' (Troop) with tons of support baggage already attached?

A section with LMG and AT rifle is hardly a "support baggage" and you forget that more smaller units have also significant advantages, that tend to suit better special units than regular infantry - for example more tactical independence exercised by their members compared to regular infantry, here it would be simulated by fact the platoon has more elements that are able to maneuver independently. As the illustration of another extreme there is that Russian company of 10 tanks treated game-wise as a single platoon, simulating on the contrary significantly less tac independence of given army.

Surely Commando troops should be more flexible, not less flexible?

Again we must agree to disagree, I would say that also purchase-wise, having a Troop consist of two Sections, these consisting of a wider mix of units (LMG sections, rifle sections, engineer sections) lets you to fine-tune the composition better, ie is more flexible. You want a close-in work? You buy the "Rifle section" with satchel charges and SMGs. Want "long-range work"? You take that with rifles and a sniper rifle... etc. Besides by having "big squads", you encounter another bit of inflexibility called "4 weapon slots"

We must remember the scale of the game. Fire and movement is done on the platoon level in SP not the squad/section level.
So one whole section supports another as it moves forward.

Support units, especially MGs, can still be purchased and used for supression; just as you may with regular infantry.

Again, I would say that concenrs primarily "regular" units, special ones should be able to do more, not just be an expensive rifle squad that gets suppressed only marginally slower and dies just as easily as regular troops.
As for support MGs, they simply were not often available to commando ops (esp. in the beginning) and their place was taken up by Brens. Problem with simulating it in the SP if you have only big squads is ofcourse that you have to keep the entire squad back if you want to use it as a LMG covering the others and then it is only one squad, capable of suppressing 1-2 (if you are lucky) enemy positions.

I agree with you that smaller fire teams are more vulnerable/fragile in SP. And agree that there are some circumstancial exceptions to this.

The current SP Army Commando Troop is not historically accurate.

I guess my thought is that by transforming the basic Commando Troop to a more typical SP infantry platoon, you are making it more historical and a more effective fighting force. Currently, I wouldn't use a Commando Troop for anything other than a scenario build.
Seperate smaller support units would be available to 'add on' as the situation requires.

We should also remember that Commando Troops fought in the line alongside regular infantry. Their daring raids got all the press attention, but these units often had to fight like regular infantry on the front. But better equipped no doubt.

cheers,
Cross

And my thoughts are that if you transform the Cdo troop to a basic SP light inf platoon, then why have them at all? They should be exceptional, as they were IRL as well, compared to elite line infantry. They did things a different way. As there are Napoleonics being mentioned earlier, it would be like putting 95th Regiment of Foot (Rifles) into a battle line. Yes, they were often forced to fight that way, but their expertise and purpose was to form a skirmish screen and whereas any British Regiment can fight in line, only few would be able to go completely into skirmish line effectively, usually only Light companies were able to do so.

Anyway, seems we would have to "agree to disagree" on this topic

[Cross]

I just had what may be a better idea.

The current problem is partly caused by the ‘Troop’ confusion. As I said before, a Commando Troop is really a company level organization, but SP only gives it one officer.

This is probably because early SP designers made the ‘mistake’ of modeling the Troop as a (large) platoon, and you can purchase a whole Commando (5 Troops) in SP as a ‘company’ level unit, which IRL was actually a battalion.

In real life (not SP) the unit below the Troop was called the “Assault Section” which was about 30 men commanded by a Lt.

What would possibly work better, is if SP had platoon level ‘Assault Sections’ of three squads of 10 men. One would be a HQ section led by an officer, and one would be a Engineer class, heavy weapons or support section (giving the Assault Section/platoon a wider range of equipment and ability).

Then create a company level Commando Troop of two Assault Sections (platoons) led by a HQ section commanded by a Captain.

This would much better model the officer heavy Commando formations. You’d have 7 sections in a Troop, 3 sections would be officers. Far more realistic than the current 9 ‘sections’ one officer.

If we use 10 men per section you’d have 30 men in an Assault Section (platoon) which historically was about 28 men, and 70 in a Troop which was historically around 66. Or you could go with 9 men sections for 27 in an AS and 63 in a Troop.

cheers,
Cross

[Cross]

Hi Marek,

BTW, I see this as an interesting discussion, not an argument.

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

But Commandos are not "standard" infantry, right?

Commando are not standard infantry. But Paras, Ghurkas, Engineers and Calvalry are also not 'standard', yet are consistently represented in SP by whole sections, not two fire teams.

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

A section with LMG and AT rifle is hardly a "support baggage" and you forget that more smaller units have also significant advantages, that tend to suit better special units than regular infantry - for example more tactical independence exercised by their members compared to regular infantry, here it would be simulated by fact the platoon has more elements that are able to maneuver independently.
As the illustration of another extreme there is that Russian company of 10 tanks treated game-wise as a single platoon, simulating on the contrary significantly less tac independence of given army.

Small units do have limited advantages in SP; detection being one, and as you said, tactical independance. If I could be Devil's Advocate' for a moment, why should Commando Troop 'squads/sections' get better tactical independence than other elite units in SP? They already get much higher experience/morale. Though ironically, sections kept as a cohesive unit (not two fire teams) will survive much better in most SP situations.

As for platoons of 10 tanks simulating less tactical independence, I agree. But that’s also the problem that the current Commando Troop has, with one officer responsible to rally 9 ‘sections/units’. My latest suggestion (see above) would make this formation less spread out and far more manageable; and in most situations, more effective.

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

Again we must agree to disagree, I would say that also purchase-wise, having a Troop consist of two Sections, these consisting of a wider mix of units (LMG sections, rifle sections, engineer sections) lets you to fine-tune the composition better, ie is more flexible. You want a close-in work? You buy the "Rifle section" with satchel charges and SMGs. Want "long-range work"? You take that with rifles and a sniper rifle... etc. Besides by having "big squads", you encounter another bit of inflexibility called "4 weapon slots"

I think Andy came up with a good solution to the 4 slot limit by suggesting a engineer class section. You can also add support units to a troop, like HMGs, snipers, mortars etc. which will give you greater tactical flexibility.

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

And my thoughts are that if you transform the Cdo troop to a basic SP light inf platoon, then why have them at all? They should be exceptional, as they were IRL as well, compared to elite line infantry. They did things a different way.

I don’t think the suggested changes will turn them into another light infantry platoon. They will have better experience, morale, leadership, weapons, abilities and can move faster. They will be more consistent with SP, and IMHO far more effective.

If you want the multiple small units, then you can still use the Royal Marine Commando Troops, which I’d leave 'as is' at this point.
So we'd have greater flexibilty, in that we could choose to use Army Commando (front line oriented formations) or RM Commando (stealth oriented formations).

Cheers,
Cross

[Cross]

After thinking about - and discussing - the concerns and possibilities, I believe the main problem springs from the early SP designers attempt to model the company level Commando Troop as a large platoon and the battalion level 'Commando' as a large company.

If we did away with the battlion level Commando formation, no one would miss it. You could still build a Battalion sized Commando formation by purchasing 5 Troops (companies).

Then we could model an Assault Section (platoon) as three sections; and a company level Troop as seven sections:

Assault Section (27 or 30 men):

1x Platoon HQ (9/10 men)
1x Section (9/10 men)
1x Hvy Weapons/Support/Engineer (9/10 men)

Commando Troop (63 or 70 men):

1x Coy HQ (9/10 men)

2x Assault Sections (54 or 60 men)

The above suggestion would bring the Commando units in line with other SP formations. And it would be cool to have usable Commando formations. They are one of the best known units in one of the most used OOB, but the current formations are hardly even good for Scenarios, and no one uses them in PBEM, well not twice anyway ;-)

I guess this is mostly a repeat of my post two posts ago, but I just wanted to clarify my thoughts a little.

Those that also want smaller (4 men) sections can purchase and attach scouts, or use the RM Commando Troops.

Alright, I'll shut up now

cheers,
Cross