Help - how to get support units "into the action"

Discussion in 'Command Ops Series' started by JArraya, May 13, 2015.

  1. JArraya

    JArraya Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2015
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    6
    When giving commands at a battalion level, I find that my attached support units (AT guns for example) stay out of harm's way. I'm guessing they default to bombard mode.

    Do I need to get them into the mix manually (assign them an attack order individually) or am I doing something wrong in terms of formation/orders?

    Thanks!
     
  2. Kurt

    Kurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    36
    Hi JArraya, I aint no expert but I know you cant issue an attack order to AT guns or AA units. If you have a browse of the Estab Editor feature you will see that infantry and tanks belong to a sub group called 'LINE' this means they do the business of charging toward the enemy trying to kill or maim them and then occupy there ground. Other sub groups are 'LINE SUPPORT', they can join in the charging and killing but wont do it unless there are also some 'LINE' units in the same attack group. I think AA and AT are 'LINE SUPPORT' , generally they wont close to within bayonet/fist/head-butt/eye-gouge range but will instead get into a direct LOS position and shoot with their ranged weapons. Units within the 'SUPPORT' sub group will generally sit back and fire their indirect weapons eg mortars, howitzers cannons. If you want your AA or AT to join in more aggressively then I would suggest giving them individual 'move' orders to wherever you need them. I do just that and its quite effective particularly when AA units with quad cannons get close up and open fire ! So go for it but remember killing at close quarters will expose these units to deadly enemy fire also.:dead:
     
  3. EdJaws

    EdJaws Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    2
    To supplement Kurt's fine instructions, you can also turn on the range rings to help show you the effective range for AT, AA guns or any other unit so you can place them manually in the best position.

    Ed
     
  4. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    97
    I always think we shouldn't have those individual AT units because it seems like wrong scaling to me. They should be just abstracted in with the line units (some are, for some units). As it is, I'm afraid I've always ended up placing them individually, right where I want them.
     
  5. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    275
    It's funny how things come full circle isn't it? Back in 2001 when we released Red Devils over Arnhem HMG and AT guns were distributed amongst the line units. But then people complained because they needed to deploy to fire and then couldn't be used in the assault, because the unit was moving. Also that they were too vulnerable as the assault units closed with the enemy. These were valid arguments. When I proposed an arrangement that allowed 50% of them to fire, that still was not good enough. Hence why we made them separate line support units. Having said that certain HMGs are included in the companies.
     
  6. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    97
    Whilst I'm sure I was 'offering constructive criticism' back in 2001 ;) I didn't myself take part in that discussion. My thought was only that surely in most combat situations the Bn support (thinking direct fire units like MGs and AT guns etc here, not indirect fire units) would have been divided out as needed between at least 2 of the line companies (or divided out as a support asset for them to call on like that), allowing your 7 AT guns , say, to be spread more realistically than can be achieved if they are fixed into one support company, all together, stuck within the support company's footprint. Obviously there might be times when it's nice to have a strong, coherent undivided support asset to move around and place, but mostly I would like that capability shared out more than is possible if it's all under one counter.
     
  7. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    275
    And how would you address then the issues raised earlier about the need for such weapons to deploy to fire and their vulnerability to fire when integrated with the line unit?
     
  8. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    97
    True. That's a problem - especially what happens to them in an assault. I don't know the answer. It's an issue you're always going to get as a consequence of the scaling, I guess. Command Ops is, for me, a Bn level simulator (because that's the level at which it fits best to the terrain features available for use on the maps) with the nice possibility of you also being able to command down to Co level. But the AT problem is a kind of platoon level problem (how to split the support company into platoons and put them with individual companies, as would have happened). Probably not solvable (without being to able to divide counters) and the compromise we have (separate support companies) is as good as the alternative, imho.

    So ignore what I said.....;)

    Peter
     
    #8 john connor, May 21, 2015
    Last edited: May 21, 2015
  9. Kurt

    Kurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    36
    Platoon AT weapons are a good compromise I feel, as for HMG's its best sharing them out to infantry companies. Light AT guns were sometimes used in assaults because they could be moved without vehicles or horses but heavier AT guns are just to heavy to push/pull in an assault.
     
  10. papymaj5

    papymaj5 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    7
    If you look at the estab of a lot of line units they already have an AT gun and or HMGs attached to them organically in their estabs.
     
  11. Daz

    Daz Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    861
    Likes Received:
    118
    I like the way that the Bn Support AT Platoons are handled by the AI at the moment, where they are left at the FUP.

    My biggest criticism though is, I should be able to move them and use them, if needed, without it affecting the current on-going attack,
    The same with the Mortar Platoon.
    We should be able to detach and reattach these units to the HQ at any time during an attack to use them as we see fit without fear of it messing up the on-going attack IMHO.
     
  12. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    275
    Yeh I have thought about this. What's really required IMO is to allow the tasking of units within a designated reserve role to suffer only minimum orders delay - ie 5 minutes. Plus, if a MissionPlan's forceGroup is changed but only from a reserve role then the mission is not replanned. To implement this though I would have to revise every plan doctrine to add a specific reserve task. It's doable but its lot of work. Also, we need to work out for Moves, where the force moves in a formation which subgroup of that formation constitutes the reserve. Normally this would be the Main Guard but often you may find that either already committed b the AI or pretty close to the action anyway.
     
  13. Kurt

    Kurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    36
    I am not a big fan of AT guns being organic to an infantry company, HMG's are easily moved in an assault provided they are .303, 7.62, 7.92 or similar. In the Bulge scenarios in CO2 some US infantry companies have a single 57mm AT gun organic, this gun is not really man portable enough for participation in an assault so is a fudge/compromise.
     
  14. Erik Springelkamp

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    4
    When they are more or less ignored during an assault, but effective in a defence, I think it is a good compromise, and the most realistic option possible in the current situation.
     
  15. Kurt

    Kurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    36
    Fair comment Erik :). I am curious ,is Springelkamp your real surname ?
     
  16. Erik Springelkamp

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    4
    Yes. Names ending in -kamp are common in the Netherlands, it means field, and the name indicated that the family lived near a field of that same name.

    But the springel- part is a mystery.

    The name was unique when the Dutch were forced by the French in 1811 to register a surname. Before that my male ancestors didn't have a real surname: for 4 generations they were called Egbert Egberts, and before the 1680's it disappears in the mist of time.
     
    Kurt likes this.
  17. Kurt

    Kurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    36
    Interesting ! my surname is Mansley , names ending in lee,ley,leigh or similar mean "field" in old English :)
     
  18. GoodGuy

    GoodGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    24
    Springel sounds somewhat ..... German, though.
    http://www.weltkriegsopfer.de/Kriegsopfer-Hermann-Springelkamp_Soldaten_0_495021.html
    That's a site listing WW II-victims.
    Hermann Springelkamp. Is that a relative? The entry says that he was born in the Netherlands and buried in Emden (Germany) in 1942 (row and grave no. are mentioned too), which sounds like he was either a POW or a civilian forced labourer in Germany.

    A Groningen Springelkamp tree:
    https://www.genealogieonline.nl/de/stamboom-sentis/I7449.php

    Is that your tree?
     
  19. Erik Springelkamp

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    4
    That is a remote branch of my tree (as all Springelkamps descend from a single Egbert Egberts Springelkamp, born 1739, Delfzijl (opposite Emden), who took his name in Sappemeer, where he became a farmer in the newly developed land in a huge former peat-moor area, that has produced all the fuel for Holland during its Golden Age.

    Most of the tree lives in that same area in the East of the province of Groningen, that is close to the border with Germany.

    My great grandfather, a barge skipper, moved to Emden around 1908, after his wife had died, and he couldn't continue to operate his ship. He worked in the harbour there and re-married a German wife.
    His son, my grandfather, stayed in the Netherlands however and moved to the city of Groningen.
    His second son in Germany - too young to fight in WWII - came to the Netherlands and became Dutch.

    The relations between Emden and Groningen go way back: they were almost sister cities: in the Middle Ages artisans learned their trade in the other city before becoming a master (so their early errors would not be known :)

    People speak the same dialect.

    Yet political differences at a much higher level meant a totally different wartime history of course, but it made me realize how it is somehow a tiny random difference that I am Dutch and not German, with pretty large consequences.

    But I never heard of a Herman Springelkamp before.

    There are not that many Springelkamps, but still far more than I know - or care to know :)

    But all this is quite off topic here.
     
  20. GoodGuy

    GoodGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    24
    Yes, but still interesting. Thanks. :)
     

Share This Page