Mount/dismount code for mech units

[john connor]

In some form, especially by the time the EF pack is out. Please.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

I am copying Daz's post from the GUI thread because it's on this subject.

Ok here is another one to chew on, although it is a change of subject, sorry about that.
I have been thinking about dismounting the motorized, and mechanized units, after my last comment in my AAR, about vehicles in Polder.
As an abstraction, could the transport vehicles from the motorized units be linked to the supply mechanics?
For example, if you or the AI decide to dismount a motorized unit, they can only get their vehicles back if they can make a valid supply check, after a set amount of time has elapsed to simulate the drive from the vehicle pool to their location, but the vehicles will not be displayed on the map they will just become an abstraction of supply.
Maybe even adding them to the supply base E&S list.
If you or the AI decide to dismount a mechanized unit however, you would need to find a way of spawning an additional counter, that will become another fully functional unit represented on the map, that will represent the support vehicle's, and heavy weapons of the mechanized dismounted infantry.
These can only be re-combined once they are within a set distance of each other.

 

[john connor]

Some of the vehicles have guns and such like that might be needed in combat, the use of which might need to be simulated in some other abstracted way - they're not just all trucks. So when the switch is made from wheel to foot it would be nice not to lose that, somehow. No? Complicated, I know, and the main urge to get dismount code in definitely comes from a need to send foot troops where wheels cannot go, but there's also the possibility of the tactically separate use of mech combat carriers and foot troops. Your carriers fire from across the river, inin a suppression role, whilst your foot troops assault up the hill, a kilometre or so. Must be possible to abstractly account for this kind of thing too, I hope.

The supply check thing seems interesting, otherwise - does it appeal to you as a solution, Dave? The supply mechanics would hopefully be more user controlled than they are now though, so you can specify valid routes.

 

[Erik Springelkamp]

I think that creating two units instead of one for the dismounted state will be much clearer in all respects. The motorized/mechanized part remains that way, the dismounted men become foot units. With a mount/dismount command or check-box somewhere in the command panel. This will require some new code to indicate the relation of the two units, and a special state for the men when mounted, but otherwise units function just regularly, instead of introducing complex abstractions for the transport part of the unit.

Anyway, when Dave says they are already working on it, he will have made his design decisions by now.

 

[john connor]

I'm not sure, Erik. It's company level, normally. Separating them out into two counters sounds more tactical (as in plato0on level), no? I wouldn't myself necessarily need or want to see different counters, just the effects of having that function and the means to command it effectively. That might require two counters in some sense, but maybe not. I'd be happy if this was an abstracted thing. But I would like to be able to send the carriers down the side of the village, for example, supressing with MG fire, whilst the foot troops move through house to house, as it were, all in an abstracted way. Would this not just be a matter of giving some kind of stats boost to mech infantry, I wonder? Might already exist. And then I'd also like to be able to send the infantry across the river leaving the carriers and have them assault the village at the other side on foot (is this not just a stats penalty when they're dismounted, then?), then hook up with the carriers again somehow.

 

[Daz]

I personally would like to be able to take control of the transport elements with a separate counter, as well as the mech ones.
I mentioned having the motor pool as an abstraction, because I think Dave is worried about to big a performance hit, on lower end computers, for having too many counters on the map at the same time.
Abstracting the MOT element for the motorizes units would help to limit this performance hit a bit.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Well we have considered both approaches - ie to abstract the transport as an event or to model it as a second unit. The first is certainly easier but there are significant drawbacks, namely the loss of firepower from the withdrawn transports. For lorried infantry, this doesn't represent much but for the dedicated mech infantry it would deprive them of significant fire support. Our feeling at the moment is to go the whole hog and model as separate units - ie carrier and carried.

 

[john connor]

Ok! Sounds great to me. though I imagine a lot of work! Is this for CO2 - I mean first release of CO2 - that you are considering this?

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

No the first release will be devoted to the UI. But Mounted Ops is the highest priority for the next release.

 

[Joe98]

I believe we are talking about German and US half tracks carrying infantry. The weapons of both vehicles are meant to fire in the general direction of the enemy whilst the infantry dismount, form up and begin their advance.

So, the game programme might be written as: Up to the FUP the troops are mounted. After the FUP the troops are infantry with a MG in support.

After the battle, under any order without a FUP, the troops are automatically mounted again.

This reduces the micro-management for the player and hands it to the staff.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Yep agree in part. It's a little more complicated than that. For instance, currently the unit will be considered to "dismount" automatically if the nearby enemy threat level is too great. Now this means that if a unit is moving and it encounters nearby enemy it's vehicles don't get pushed to the front with consequent heavy personnel losses as each gets brewed up. We should model that too in the new system. So the reasons for dismounting are more than just attacks. There is also the case where they need to occupy terrain that vehicles can't reach - eg forest or across an unbridged river.

 

[TMO]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but the current thinking about mount/dismount seems to involve units with dedicated transport. What I'm thinking is that units such as 1st Canadian Armoured Personnel Carrier Regiment and the 49th Armoured Personnel Carrier Regiment operating Ram Kangaroos didn't have dedicated passengers. Each squadron (there were two per regiment) could transport an infantry battalion into battle but would usually, after disembarkation, return to bring forward another battalion of infantry. Could this be modelled?

Regards

Tim

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Of course it could be modelled. There are effectively two modes to mounted ops. The first involved organic transportation and the other involves temporary transport support. You are talking about the latter. Other examples of this include the provision of ferrying transport during a river crossing, the use of helos to transport a unit from ship to shore from a carrier etc.

 

[Mehring]

Sorry to have got to this a bit late.

My understanding is that as well as trucks or halftracks and their passengers, the game needs to model different tactical doctrines. Below was gleaned from discussion on another game forum some years ago.

If I understand right, the Western Allied approach was to motorise infantry from a central pool which would assign vehicles for covering significant distances. This made all their infantry divisions motorised for operational and strategic purposes, but the quantity of organic, readily at hand motorisation, was low compared to the German's motorised division. It meant that the US and Commonwealth motorised infantry was, for tactical purposes, strictly foot. If that is correct, to reflect that in game, you might allow W. Allies infantry to enter a map on trucks but risk serious casualties or auto dismount at a certain distance from known enemies. You might also choose to motorise a foot unit to cover a distance after a significant wait for trucks to arrive. A dismount/mount button would be needed but given the general plenty of trucks in central pool, I see no need, other than by scenario special rule to simulate unusual circumstances, of creating truck units for the W. Allies.

German doctrine was to transport infantry right to the battle, before dismounting. Because this transport was organic and less plentiful, losses to it would have tactical repercussions, be it trucks or halftracks, but it was generally on hand, certainly on an attack. If trucks played no part in engagements, a machine gun equipped half track might well be used to provide covering fire, where protective terrain allowed, and the numerous SPW 250/251 support versions are testament to their battlefield purpose. Only the FT mounting 251/16 would be appropriate for close quarters fighting. this sort of usage demands splitting a dismounted mot/mech unit into two or more units.

I imagine that the destruction rate of these open top, lightly armored vehicles was not prohibitive because they were almost invariably at a greater distance from in range enemy than were other targets. Faced with mortal danger, and unlike a war game player, all but the most disciplined troops will tend to target the closest visible threat rather than something, perhaps more valuable, but of less perceivable threat and further away. To simulate that might require units taking a check before targeting the non-closest enemy unit.

There's also the issue of AFV mounted infantry, of necessity pioneered by the Russians but, I believe, used by all sides at various points in the war.

 

[GoodGuy]

Sorry to have got to this a bit late.

Nah, just 1 year and 2 months...

My understanding is that as well as trucks or halftracks and their passengers, the game needs to model different tactical doctrines. Below was gleaned from discussion on another game forum some years ago.

Correct. For instance, German halftracks didn't just transport or support infantry units, they also cooperated with tanks, often even closely. In these cases, the Panzergrenadiere dismounted when they had to tend stragglers, or when they had to help closing pockets. But say in Stalingrad and Charkov, it was the only way for the infantry to gain some ground (protected from small arms and MG fire, at least) and to have some additional firepower, when being mounted.

but the quantity of organic, readily at hand motorisation, was low compared to the German's motorised division.

I don't think that this is true.
A few elite units (this goes for SS, Army and Luftwaffe units) had the required strengths, which included the AFV and APC pool, at one or another point. Most of the other units either never reached the required levels, or they had to give units away, in order to maintain a minimum level of transportation/protection for other units that were (on paper) supposed to be motorized/mech units, too.

But the Western Allies had so many vehicles at their disposal, that they could use almost 6,000 trucks for their "Red Ball Express", employed between August and November 1944.

The Russians still had a general lack of transport vehicles, despite the US delivery of trucks under the lend-lease act, even in 1943. Some Russian units had to commence the attacks at the Chir river on foot, as there was no transportation available for them.

In turn, the Germans never established a car pool level that really matched the required strength unit levels on paper, this goes especially for halftracks. The Germans managed to fill their truck pool with captured french and Russian trucks - to some extent, and captured french halftracks (IIRC) were used too. Even though the truck pool was way bigger than the halftrack pool, the truck production output never reached the required level, either. Looking at the rough transport vehicle numbers of all sides, the Western Allies had a level of luxury going the Germans didn't even dare to dream of.

Only the FT mounting 251/16 would be appropriate for close quarters fighting. this sort of usage demands splitting a dismounted mot/mech unit into two or more units.

The 251 came in so many flavors, it also came with short-barreled inf guns, mortars, AT guns etc. etc., that it could actually be used in close combat, as well. Such halftracks were used in Stalingrad, during (and right next to) tank operations, in Kursk, and especially in Charkov, and also as assault vehicles for the dash across the Arnheim bridge (the Brits got that mix of armored recon cars and halftracks with their PIATs, IIRC).

I imagine that the destruction rate of these open top, lightly armored vehicles was not prohibitive because they were almost invariably at a greater distance from in range enemy than were other targets.

Actually, the loss rates were distinctively higher in SS units, as many of their commanders (those with less or no military education) tended to employ them almost like armored vehicles, means in a ruthless fashion, or they even had to employ them like that, due to the lack of tanks (during later stages of the several battles of Charkov, for example).
Since a) the pre-war and early war production output never reached the planned level and since the production of these vehicles involved quite some manual labor (limiting attempts to streamline the design) until 1943, the loss rate (mainly on the Russian front) was a serious nail in the mech forces' coffin, as such excessive losses could not be sustained.

will tend to target the closest visible threat rather than something, perhaps more valuable, but of less perceivable threat and further away. To simulate that might require units taking a check before targeting the non-closest enemy unit.

"Further away" and "less perceivable" are relative terms. The engine doesn't render historical view ranges, but historically, the Germans had superior view ranges (which came with the better clarity provided by their obs devices and gun periscopes). So, an armored or mechanized unit that can actually acquire, identify and engage meaty targets in the distance (say 1200 - 1400 meters), will not go for enemy infantry still crawling, straggling and searching for cover in front of them (say 800 meters away, outside their [inf] small arms range).

There's also the issue of AFV mounted infantry, of necessity pioneered by the Russians but, I believe, used by all sides at various points in the war.

The Russians didn't pioneer this.
If there was chance for a free a ride, a foot soldier never said "no", no matter what side he was fighting for. German grunts in spring 1942 :