Changes to the Unit System

Order of Battle is a series of operational WW2 games starting with the Pacific War and then on to Europe!

Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators

bebro
The Artistocrats
The Artistocrats
Posts: 3554
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:50 pm

Re: Changes to the Unit System

Post by bebro » Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:16 am

IIRC it's often units which were traditionally cavalry became mechanized (and later air mobile with helis indeed), but kept the names often.

I also think there's a bit of an extra role for them, like recon in force or rapid deployment for (modern) air mobile units, but can't say I'm an expert on this ...

TheFilthyCasual
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:56 am

Re: Changes to the Unit System

Post by TheFilthyCasual » Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:37 pm

What really need changing are commandos. They're simply too fragile - sure, you CAN use them, but it's more efficient to just replace them with another infantry unit which can handle frontline combat.

For commandos to be useful they need one or more of the following changes:

-being able to move after attacking (literally being able to hit-and-run)
-making their special ability their normal attack (they take no damage when attacking)
-flexible movement

Zekedia222
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:30 pm
Location: Somewhere between Chattanooga and Anchorage

Re: Changes to the Unit System

Post by Zekedia222 » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:57 pm

The entire point of commandos is not to be frontline units. They work fine for my purposes (dropping them on airfields, sabotaging them and nearby supply points, while destroying any grounded aircraft). I’ve accumulated 4.5 to 5 star SAS commandos this way (Burma campaign).
I do agree they need some change, I would prefer option 2 or 3, preferably both. I don’t think option 1 would be possible, given the way combat works for all units, No movement after attacking.
Klinger, you're dumber than you look, and THAT boggles the MIND.
- Charles Emerson Winchester III

TheFilthyCasual
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:56 am

Re: Changes to the Unit System

Post by TheFilthyCasual » Mon Jul 20, 2020 7:04 pm

I've never found a situation where Paratroopers wouldn't be a better choice than Commandos.

Zekedia222
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:30 pm
Location: Somewhere between Chattanooga and Anchorage

Re: Changes to the Unit System

Post by Zekedia222 » Mon Jul 20, 2020 7:45 pm

I prefer SAS over paratroopers, because unlike paras, SAS has the guerrilla trait (IIRC). It’s annoying at best, and dooming at worst to move in jungle without that trait. They are also HALF the CP cost, and thus can mount doubly sized operations.
Usually I’ll still include one in any airborne operation, but in the event of an enemy attack which threatens the operation, they’re the first to leave. Paratroops CANNOT leave through jungle. It just doesn’t work.
However, outside of the Pacific, I completely understand the choice of paratroopers over commandos. The commando benefit is nil in the terrain of Europe.
Klinger, you're dumber than you look, and THAT boggles the MIND.
- Charles Emerson Winchester III

conboy
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Changes to the Unit System

Post by conboy » Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:17 pm

Gabe,
Thanks for the answers. So it's basically some military jargon gibberish meaning nothing. Probably anything that moves fast counts as Cavalry, even tanks and helicopters, right...? :roll:
Okay, it has nothing to do with horses as such... silly me...
Here's what you get when you look it up on wiki:
[Cavalry missions are]Reconnaissance, security (e.g., flank screening, advance guard, rear guard, combat out post, etc.), and economy of force missions. The term "cavalry", e.g. "armored cavalry", remains in use in the U.S. Army for mounted (ground and aviation) reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) units based on their parent Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS) regiment.

Nowadays you have air cavalry (helicopter) and armored cavalry (variety of supercharged vehicles and helicopters too). But, in the old days, only heavy cavalry had anything like the breakthrough/overrun mission of today's armor, the light cavalry pretty much was like today's cavalry - lightly armed (in the US civil war they mainly used shotguns, carbines, and pistols (and sabers)), very fast, and mainly recon, flank security, raiding, and delay missions. There are lots of exceptions, of course, which only further confuse things.

I went with the 11th and 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiments on some exercises in Germany in the 80s. My opinion of them were that they were highly motivated, well trained troops. They were genuinely proud of their units and took their mission very seriously. Honestly, I thought that they were genuinely 'bad-ass' .

It was explained to me that their primary missions were border patrols (even in peacetime to ward off the mighty Czechs) and in wartime it was the list above, but primarily recon and flank security. They were not designed to overpower the enemy, but to find them, make them have a bad day, take their names, and have them destroyed by heavy rocket artillery or other convincing means.

So if I can extrapolate to WWII, your assessment is correct, in WWII, US Cavalry units were light, fast, and assigned recon and flank security missions. Sometimes, if they were in the right place, they'd be assigned exploitation missions (e.g., Strasbourg), or attacks on the enemy rear or as probing elements (recon in force...) But that might have been because they were the most conveniently located units.

There you have it, hombre.

conboy

GabeKnight
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2915
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Changes to the Unit System

Post by GabeKnight » Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:36 am

TheFilthyCasual wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:37 pm
-being able to move after attacking (literally being able to hit-and-run)
-making their special ability their normal attack (they take no damage when attacking)
-flexible movement
I like using commandos. Unlike other infantry units they are concealed to the enemy and operate outside my supply zones, ideally behind enemy lines, attacking mechanized units (like AT, AA or arty) or bunkers or such without being spotted or attacked back.

Their attack has to cost something, otherwise this unit would be unbalanced; I know, I've tried it.

And all this flex-movement dicussions are useless for units with low MP points. Once they enter the enemy unit's ZOC, they couldn't leave either way, flex-movement or not.
It's the same as for light tanks. I've tried it, it makes only sense for those >8MP, and even then the gain is minimal, if any. Sure, sometimes you can get into the more favourable "flanking" position like this, but other than that you'll only end up with another unit (besides recon) that brings up the "unused action points" popup at the end of the turn because you moved once and didn't use up the second AP... :roll: :roll:



And thanks very much, conboy, for the whole "Cavalry" explanation. :D
Well, I was basically looking for info or new ideas for my mod and was confused by the wording used. Thanks for the clarification. Usually I use wiki too, but sometimes it's really confusing to read (for me) as I lack the military background knowledge and most terms mean nothing to me and I would have to look them up and so on and on and sometimes I spent hours reading stuff that in my view wasn't interesting just to able to understand something I didn't want to know in the first place... it can be exhausting. :lol:

bebro
The Artistocrats
The Artistocrats
Posts: 3554
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:50 pm

Re: Changes to the Unit System

Post by bebro » Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:09 pm

GabeKnight wrote:
Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:25 am
I've increased the Katyusha supply to 4 because of that (German Wurfrahmen has five!)
Serious question for everyone: I tend slightly in the other direction - keep Katyusha BM13 and 31 to 3, but reduce Wurfrahmen to 4 CP, as it shares the same strengths, but is vulnerable in a simlar way.

Also, I'm thinking to slightly reduce movement costs in very few cases for halftracks. For example winter move in open terrain for them is just like wheeled, but IMO halftracks weren't so bad in snow. However, the bulk of the penalties, esp. in mud etc would stay, so it's just minor adjustments.

Thoughts, prayers, curses?

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3255
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Changes to the Unit System

Post by kondi754 » Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:27 pm

bebro wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:09 pm
GabeKnight wrote:
Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:25 am
I've increased the Katyusha supply to 4 because of that (German Wurfrahmen has five!)
Serious question for everyone: I tend slightly in the other direction - keep Katyusha BM13 and 31 to 3, but reduce Wurfrahmen to 4 CP, as it shares the same strengths, but is vulnerable in a simlar way.

Also, I'm thinking to slightly reduce movement costs in very few cases for halftracks. For example winter move in open terrain for them is just like wheeled, but IMO halftracks weren't so bad in snow. However, the bulk of the penalties, esp. in mud etc would stay, so it's just minor adjustments.

Thoughts, prayers, curses?
Reduce Wurfrahmen to 4 is good
When it comes to halftracks, the best German vehicles during Russian fall, winter and spring were Maultier halftracked trucks, so... :roll:

GabeKnight
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2915
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Changes to the Unit System

Post by GabeKnight » Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:14 pm

bebro wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:09 pm
GabeKnight wrote:
Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:25 am
I've increased the Katyusha supply to 4 because of that (German Wurfrahmen has five!)
Serious question for everyone: I tend slightly in the other direction - keep Katyusha BM13 and 31 to 3, but reduce Wurfrahmen to 4 CP, as it shares the same strengths, but is vulnerable in a simlar way.

Also, I'm thinking to slightly reduce movement costs in very few cases for halftracks. For example winter move in open terrain for them is just like wheeled, but IMO halftracks weren't so bad in snow. However, the bulk of the penalties, esp. in mud etc would stay, so it's just minor adjustments.

Thoughts, prayers, curses?
Nope, sounds good to me.

I'm keeping the Katyushas at 4CP in my mod, though. Those whole Wurfrahmen, Katyusha and B-29 Superfortress units are overpowered IMO. Like some of the "heroes" in PC2. Of course I love to use them, I mean, one hit and the enemy unit, entrenched or not, is history. But it feels a bit like cheating.

GabeKnight
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2915
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Changes to the Unit System

Post by GabeKnight » Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:02 am

GabeKnight wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:36 am
And all this flex-movement dicussions are useless for units with low MP points. Once they enter the enemy unit's ZOC, they couldn't leave either way, flex-movement or not.
It's the same as for light tanks. I've tried it, it makes only sense for those >8MP, and even then the gain is minimal, if any. Sure, sometimes you can get into the more favourable "flanking" position like this, but other than that you'll only end up with another unit (besides recon) that brings up the "unused action points" popup at the end of the turn because you moved once and didn't use up the second AP... :roll: :roll:
Okay, I've had the flex-movement-change to light tanks with MP>=9 for about two weeks in my mod now and I must say that I've changed my mind about it.
With those speedy units it really is useful. And the AI knows how to use it well, too. I'll definitely keeping that in my mod and now I'm also for the suggested changes to add a second step to some light tank units in the vanilla game!

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle Series”