 |
|
OOB design theory - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: OOB design theory (/showthread.php?tid=57714) |
OOB design theory - FM WarB - 12-26-2010 A question for all scenario designers and Panzer Campaigns players: What is more effective for units, reflecting weapons accurately or always having at least three "companies" that can combine to form a "battalion"? If you try to reflect tank types accurately , you can wind up with two or less units that can combine to form a "battalion." If you use small numbers for the three "companies," one of them is likely to get wiped out, thus reducing the "battalion" effectiveness. If you use mixed tank types it is likely to disguise the weakness of the poorer tanks. But you can maintain historical company designations. A Christmas Conumbdrum and happy hollidays to you all RE: OOB design theory - Glenn Saunders - 12-26-2010 (12-26-2010, 10:39 AM)FM WarB Wrote: What is more effective for units, reflecting weapons accurately or always having at least three "companies" that can combine to form a "battalion"? Why not go with the best of both worlds - take all the Panzer (we are talking Germans here - right) by correct tank types. Ignore the Battalion level and form your Regiment out of COYs from both Btlns. Then create enough Coy size units to allow for combining of three into "Btln unuts to avoid the high Fatigue effects of companies. If you have a small unit where there isn't enough tanks to make several units that can combine - make them Btln sized units in the game to keep them from surfering higher fatigue because they can't combine. See the image attached for an example of what I mean. Glenn RE: OOB design theory - FM WarB - 12-26-2010 I've always felt that solution works well for Germans. American tank regiment's battalions were usually split into separate combat commands so it doesn't work as well for them. RE: OOB design theory - Volcano Man - 12-27-2010 Mixed units seem to be the best approach, especially for the Allies. Anything else and you end up with too many small units which become insignificant, but either way is OK. I haven't heard many complaints from either side over the years, well, except by the extremists - and in regards to that, you can't win anyway. ;) RE: OOB design theory - Tide1 - 12-27-2010 (12-27-2010, 09:01 AM)Volcano Man Wrote: Mixed units seem to be the best approach, especially for the Allies. Anything else and you end up with too many small units which become insignificant, but either way is OK. I haven't heard many complaints from either side over the years, well, except by the extremists - and in regards to that, you can't win anyway. ;) Extremists hehe.... victory through supreme fire power. RE: OOB design theory - FM WarB - 12-28-2010 I just ran a test, constructing 2nd and 3rd AD battalions with one 2 tank co (named HQ but not a functional HQ) and two 17 tank cos of M4s, plus one separate M5 co. Put them in a shootout with 1. SS Pz Korps in the Bulge. When combined into a +++ battalion. the companies of 17 tank strength got whittled down to 2 before the two tank "HQ" company took any hits. A very satisfactory result! |
){kind=link}