D'85: BRM lacking Amphibious capability?

PincerDK · 08-11-2009, 07:04 AM,

Sure did ;)

Ostland [SPR] · 08-12-2009, 06:30 AM,

All thanks!

Volcano Man · (This post was last modified: 08-12-2009, 07:32 AM by Volcano Man.)

FWIW, I am not sure how everyone else does it but the "_Alt" classifies these units as CRPs / FSE mixed tank / recon vehicle units according to the Soviet doctrine that I trained against. These soviet recon units were actually quite capable in real life, not just BRM and BRDM cannon fodder. If they are represented as mixed force like this then they surely shouldn't have the amphibious flag.

JDR Dragoon · (This post was last modified: 08-12-2009, 07:43 AM by JDR Dragoon.)

Volcano Man Wrote:FWIW, I am not sure how everyone else does it but the "_Alt" classifies these units as CRPs / FSE mixed tank / recon vehicle units according to the Soviet doctrine that I trained against.

The divisional reconnaisance battalion would likely not be used to build a CRP or an FSE (which are security elements sent out ahead of a regiment in march column). If the CRP or FSE has any scouting vehicles they would most likely come from the regimental reconnaisance company, not the divisional reconnaisance battalion.

Volcano Man · (This post was last modified: 08-12-2009, 08:30 AM by Volcano Man.)

JDR Dragoon Wrote:
Volcano Man Wrote:FWIW, I am not sure how everyone else does it but the "_Alt" classifies these units as CRPs / FSE mixed tank / recon vehicle units according to the Soviet doctrine that I trained against.

The divisional reconnaisance battalion would likely not be used to build a CRP or an FSE (which are security elements sent out ahead of a regiment in march column). If the CRP or FSE has any scouting vehicles they would most likely come from the regimental reconnaisance company, not the divisional reconnaisance battalion.

Yes of course. It is an abstraction to say the least in the sense that divisional reconnaissance battalion is being used to help simulate (or assist) the regimental reconnaissance actions -- it only depends on how explicitly someone wants to interpret the OOB structure. AFAIK, the divisional level recon battalion did assist the regiments if needed (or at least it theoretically would if required).

The _Alt approach is to abstract the recon units in this manner to afford the regiment a *useful* reconnaissance element whereby it can help fix the enemy for the main body, or help it determine a bypass. It can be done many different ways of course which is the beauty of a game at this scale, but (IMO) the divisional pure recon units are pretty much useless otherwise. ;)

JDR Dragoon · (This post was last modified: 08-12-2009, 08:33 AM by JDR Dragoon.)

Volcano Man Wrote:The _Alt approach is to abstract the recon units in this manner to afford the regiment a *useful* reconnaissance element whereby it can help fix the enemy for the main body, or help it determine a bypass.

Given the very high hard attack values of all units in the _Alt scenarios and the very low defense values for light armor I fail to see how the WAPA reconnaisance units are any more useful or able to survive contact than in the stock version.

Volcano Man · 08-12-2009, 09:02 AM,

JDR Dragoon Wrote:
Volcano Man Wrote:The _Alt approach is to abstract the recon units in this manner to afford the regiment a *useful* reconnaissance element whereby it can help fix the enemy for the main body, or help it determine a bypass.

Given the very high hard attack values of all units in the _Alt scenarios and the very low defense values for light armor I fail to see how the WAPA reconnaisance units are any more useful or able to survive contact than in the stock version.

Well, that might very well be that you haven't played the _Alt for all I know, because the mixed units have both higher defense values and attack strengths because of the tank/BRDM (or BRM) mixed approach. But clue me in here, have I apparently invaded some kind of personal space and inadvertently started a pissing contest on modded scenario design decisions? :chin:

Seriously though (the previous paragraph was mostly in jest), my point was simply that the WP recon elements can be represented in many different ways at this scale (amphibious or not, mixed or not), it is utter absurdity to say that they can only be used to represent either divisional pure OR regimental mixed recon units, especially since the latter units are not even represented in the OOB in any form. My _Alt design decision is to simply make them more *useful* (again the stress on the word) to perform reconnaissance duties in the traditional WP sense of the word. But we all know how much everyone wants to prove they know more about WP and soviet doctrine than everyone else... :rolleyes:

JDR Dragoon · (This post was last modified: 08-12-2009, 09:05 AM by JDR Dragoon.)

Volcano Man Wrote:Well, that might very well be that you haven't played the _Alt for all I know, because the mixed units have both higher defense values and attack strengths because of the tank/BRDM (or BRM) mixed approach. But clue me in here, have I apparently invaded some kind of personal space and inadvertently started a pissing contest on modded scenario design decisions? :chin:

No problem, and yes I have played some of them. No pissing contest, merely an observation from someone who have played with the _Alt values in effect.

Volcano Man · 08-12-2009, 09:19 AM,

JDR Dragoon Wrote:
Volcano Man Wrote:Well, that might very well be that you haven't played the _Alt for all I know, because the mixed units have both higher defense values and attack strengths because of the tank/BRDM (or BRM) mixed approach. But clue me in here, have I apparently invaded some kind of personal space and inadvertently started a pissing contest on modded scenario design decisions? :chin:

No problem, and yes I have played some of them. No pissing contest, merely an observation from someone who have played with the _Alt values in effect.

Ah ok, well, my apologies then. I certainly have no misconception that the _Alt scenarios are perfect, they are just an alternate approach and no better than any other. I would certainly take offense though to someone trying to convince everyone that their mod scenario is more "realistic" than someone elses or more realistic than the stock scenarios for that matter (I am not saying that anyone is doing that). At this scale, no one approach is more realistic than another it is just has a different set of abstractions. ;)

That said, there are many different ways to approach the issue; it would probably be better to just go ahead and make a mixed recon unit for each regiment and keep the divisional recon battalion as "pure". But then again it would be question of whether more units per division is actually needed to do the same effect. Oh well, there is plenty of flexibility for designers and modders to justify just about anything to say the least.

Epoletov [SPR]. · (This post was last modified: 08-12-2009, 04:12 PM by Epoletov [SPR]..)

CptCav Wrote:As Glenn said, the recon units are not composed solely of vehicles depicted in the pictures. The recon units also have tanks.

Regards,
CptCav

It is necessary to change the name of it unit.
For example: "BRM - T-64" or other type of the tank (T-72, T-80 on my data in 1985).
Also as " Luchs - Leopard-I " or " M1 Abrams - Bradley ".
Also demands replacement Image Icon. :stir:

I doubt of quantity points parameter "Assault".
BRM recon unit = 8 (3 BRM+4BMP+3MBT).
Luchs-Leopard-I = 16 (probably 50/50 % Luchs/Leopard-I)

But Leopard-I (105-mm gun) is weaker than T-64, T-72, T-80 (125-mm gun).
Leopard-I worse armoured, and also has more out-of-date systems fire control.

What do you think of it ?
:chin: