CM Red Thunder page is up

[Elvis]

Correct on both counts. I wasn't convinced fausts would have done me much good until Bil ran his T34s down the road. Had I anticipated that and had a couple of fausts there to greet him, it would thrown a real monkey wrench into his game.

I just wonder why they don't have them.  Panzerfaust 30 and 30k would be common enough by the summer of 1944.  I would assume that 'Stragglers' are patched together combat units and not some hodgepodge of rear echelon types.

When you buy the Straggler unit, it does not include panzershreck either?

One would guest Straggle units would be way down on the list of units getting refit & resupply, Germany had a wee bit of a supply issue in the summer of 1944 with both East & West fronts under heavy allied assault.

Perhaps but that is not known by someone doing a qb selection.  i believe Elvis had no idea until after making the selection regarding what of they had.

Yes and no. If there had been a schrek team in a platoon I would have known it. And did know that I didn't have them (that's why I bought a couple). But I did not know if I would have fuasts. One of the reasons I took the suggestions for the Straggler Group is because I hadn't used them yet and I thought it would be fun to see them for the first time in a situation that I could possibly publicly embarrass myself.  :)

[Bletchley_Geek]

One would guest Straggle units would be way down on the list of units getting refit & resupply, Germany had a wee bit of a supply issue in the summer of 1944 with both East & West fronts under heavy allied assault.

I'm not sure this is accurate. The Wehrmacht's supply system never stopped working. Units in the field were obviously able to continue resistance to the very end. I'm sure there were local shortages, most likely acute when formations were cut off. There is no doubt that the quality of items declined sharply during the war. Uniforms were made from wood fibre, Mauser K98s produced without bayonet lugs and fewer twists in the rifling to conserve metal and simplify production, etc. (not to mention greater instances of sabotage by the slave labour who was making the stuff). But as for actual shortages or an inability to move supplies to the front - other than the well-documented Allied air superiority, the Germans did relatively well to move munitions, food and supplies to their front line units. Artillery ammunition was probably one item always in short supply but the Germans came more and more to rely on medium mortars to make up shortfalls of heavier guns.

I think the Germans may actually have had, ironically, poorer logistic support for their troops in the first months of Barbarossa. Railways were of the wrong gauge, no winter clothing had been prepared, anti-tank weapons were at a premium, etc.

I think that these 'Straggler Groups' are a reasonable portrayal of ad-hoc German infantry units, which were quite a common feature in the Eastern Front during major (successful) Soviet offensives. These units were usually formed with whatever personnel was at hand: stragglers from shattered line units, rear-area troops rounded up and organised into a 'fighting' outfit,  artillerymen from units which have had to abandon their guns, personnel from the Ersatz battalions or other ad-hoc field training formations (in those formations who still could afford to have an organic training unit) or a mix-and-match of the three previous examples. The parlous state of their equipment matches quite well the 'improvised' nature of the outfit.

I also think that having such a 'generic' formation to account for these is a good idea: scenario designers and QB players can always add an specialist team (machine guns, panzerschrek, tank hunter teams, etc.) to these outfits, to customize their equipment (and enhance their capabilities).

[Michael Dorosh]

I think that these 'Straggler Groups' are a reasonable portrayal of ad-hoc German infantry units, which were quite a common feature in the Eastern Front during major (successful) Soviet offensives. These units were usually formed with whatever personnel was at hand: stragglers from shattered line units, rear-area troops rounded up and organised into a 'fighting' outfit,  artillerymen from units which have had to abandon their guns, personnel from the Ersatz battalions or other ad-hoc field training formations (in those formations who still could afford to have an organic training unit) or a mix-and-match of the three previous examples. The parlous state of their equipment matches quite well the 'improvised' nature of the outfit.

I also think that having such a 'generic' formation to account for these is a good idea: scenario designers and QB players can always add an specialist team (machine guns, panzerschrek, tank hunter teams, etc.) to these outfits, to customize their equipment (and enhance their capabilities).

No real disagreement here, though why on earth BFC doesn't also let scenario designers alter the OOB data is beyond me. It seems like a peculiar strain of madness to assign a standard OOB chart to an irregular formation which by definition doesn't have a standard OOB.

As an example from a history I am more familiar with, my own regiment crossed the Albert Canal with a handpicked assault team that decided to arm itself entirely with Sten and Bren guns. They fought a successful night action with elements of a German infantry company on the far side of the canal following a surprise incursion over a damaged lock gate.  I understand some things can't be simulated to a "T", but I don't see the harm in permitting scenario designers to at least try new weapons/unit combinations within the squads, particularly in cases where there is a historical justification for doing so.  Perhaps at some point if things like fatigue and ammunition modeling is more defined, we will see it - so that anyone wanting to for example have assault squads with 5 LMGs each will suffer greater penalties in terms of trying to move around the ammunition for them, and gain a better understanding of why they didn't do such things in actuality.

[Elvis]

No real disagreement here, though why on earth BFC doesn't also let scenario designers alter the OOB data is beyond me. It seems like a peculiar strain of madness to assign a standard OOB chart to an irregular formation which by definition doesn't have a standard OOB.

Because altering the code to allow from the more abnormal irregular formations, when they can be more "customized" in the scenario editor, isn't a good use of time.

[Bletchley_Geek]

No real disagreement here, though why on earth BFC doesn't also let scenario designers alter the OOB data is beyond me. It seems like a peculiar strain of madness to assign a standard OOB chart to an irregular formation which by definition doesn't have a standard OOB.

I think the rationale - which indeed, can be perceived as a peculiar strain of madness, pretty much as any rationale - is that the provided formations and establishments are meant to be 'generic' as in 'the most common setup', leaving scenario designers a certain limited leeway when it comes to 'customize' those establishments by setting the equipment quality level - which is awkward to set, you need to remember to do so "before" adding the establishment to your OOB - and adding 'specialised' teams. Some forces come with some options (like having Bazookas for US Line rifle squads).

It's not the most flexible way of modifying 'generic' establishments, that's true.

As an example from a history I am more familiar with, my own regiment crossed the Albert Canal with a handpicked assault team that decided to arm itself entirely with Sten and Bren guns. They fought a successful night action with elements of a German infantry company on the far side of the canal following a surprise incursion over a damaged lock gate.  I understand some things can't be simulated to a "T", but I don't see the harm in permitting scenario designers to at least try new weapons/unit combinations within the squads, particularly in cases where there is a historical justification for doing so.  Perhaps at some point if things like fatigue and ammunition modeling is more defined, we will see it - so that anyone wanting to for example have assault squads with 5 LMGs each will suffer greater penalties in terms of trying to move around the ammunition for them, and gain a better understanding of why they didn't do such things in actuality.

It's true that the current system is a bit awkward to model this episode you mention. The way of achieving something similar would be to replace the squads in each platoon by a combination of 2x Scout Teams and 1x LMG team, which effectively means you'll end up with a totally split force. That can work for a Coy-level engagement, but if you put a Bn split by default like that on the map,  playing the scenario is going to be busy work.

[Michael Dorosh]

when they can be more "customized" in the scenario editor

If that was true, there wouldn't be a need to alter any code.  It isn't though, and I'm not sure where this suggestion comes from.

Besides, there already exists a mechanism for having different OOBs. You're talking about a change to the UI.

[Redirected]

In the case of a scenario designer, I am sure they could test out formations and then adjust the scenario once they see what everone is toting around.  But in the case of Elvis, well, he seemed to find out the hard way. 

But, the whole 'Formations for Sale' approach is what you are buying when purchasing these products.  That's the lockdown and Steve has gone to the wall about it.  It's just marketing.

[TacticalWargames]

At last we go to the East front. Can't wait! CMx2 gets better and better with each new release\patch.

[Elvis]

when they can be more "customized" in the scenario editor

If that was true, there wouldn't be a need to alter any code.  It isn't though, and I'm not sure where this suggestion comes from.

Besides, there already exists a mechanism for having different OOBs. You're talking about a change to the UI.

We must be 5 asking past each other because I have no idea what you mean.

[Bletchley_Geek]

But, the whole 'Formations for Sale' approach is what you are buying when purchasing these products.  That's the lockdown and Steve has gone to the wall about it.  It's just marketing.

I don't think they closed it up like that because they're evil people or something. I haven't heard from Steve - or rather, I can't recall - that he justifies locking up the database because of people doing stuff overlapping the subject matter of future planned projects. If that was the case, I think it'd a somewhat misguided precaution. I think it'd be extremely unlikely that someone came out from the Internets and plonked, say, comprehensive late 1942 tables of organization & equipment for the US Army on the basis of the mid-1943 US Army TOE's they distribute in CMFI. Probably no more than a 10% of the people making scenarios would have the patience and stamina to do the research and spent substantial amounts of time fiddling with the tools rather than playing the game.

The 1% that are capable to pull a MASSIVE project like working out from scratch a TOE from sources are probably already working for BFC (or most of them). So, indeed, I can see that Battlefront doesn't find opening up the TOE database worth of any programming time, at least in the short term. They're obviously catering for the most common use case (the one that if they hadn't covered would have irked the most people).

[Tuna]

Purchasing units for QB's certainly is a pain!

[RyanE]

I have always had the impression that Steve looks at QBs as a necessary evil of selling the product.  The more cynical me thinks they made the OOBs rigid to stick a thumb in the eye of people who obsess over QBs.

[Tuna]

But PBEM QB's would be a lot more fun, if you could easily put together the force you want, without it being a 'chore'!

[Redirected]

I don't think they closed it up like that because they're evil people or something.

Nope.  Not evil.  It's just a marketing approach.  Same as 'The Families' approach to product. 

[RyanE]

What has it got do with marketing.  It doesn't cost them anything.  In fact, I imagine it costs them more to build all the rules and locks around units.  CMSF's OOB management was horrendous.  To this date QBs really don't work because you can't adjust units.

Why would marketing play a role.  It shouldn't push people away if they loosened up the rules.  In fact, it might actually get people to play more.  Unless you mean negative marketing, then I agree.