Alex_brunius said:
A tank division consisted at least of 8000men, each tank did have a maximum crew of four. If you show me the tank division that had 2000tanks I will buy this argument. But (most had around 200 iirc) so the other 90% of the division were indeed MOT/MECH infantry, mechanics and other supply/support personal. These personal would not die or even get hurt if you knock out the tanks.
Its alot easier to wipe out 200 tanks than 8000men if your sitting in a stuka.
So, you're postulating a situation where all 200 tanks are KOed but nothing else is touched? Well, (a) how likely is that? and (b) so that means STR maybe 50 or so. The abstraction is generally valid - where it is not (e.g. all tanks lost but no other equipment) the case is so unlikely that on the scale of HoI we don't need to worry about it, IMO.
Also note STR losses are not all total losses. Men might be wounded, equipment inoperable but possible to mend.
As previously said, if you knock out all 200tanks in a ARM division, there will still be at least 7200men alive and ready to support new tanks or even drive them after working closly with their previous friends. But unless new tanks arrives the division have lost the majority of its offensive power.
The chance that all tanks get KO-ed while no other personnel or equipment are touched seems minute, to me. If all tanks are U/S then I would expect a high proportion of other equipment also to be broken. Given time, of course the wounded will recover and with replacement men and equipment the division will once more be a fighting force - but right now it has no capacity.
Also consider this, a division that only lost all personal need zero IC to reinforce, and a division that lost all its equipment but none personal need full IC cost but no manpower (this is the extreem and only to display my argument).
Quite true - but how likely is it that all of one will be wiped out while the other is untouched? I think the assumption/abstraction that says both will be affected roughly equally (men and machines) is a good assumption for a game of this scale. The amount we would gain in game play by adding loads of complexity, tracking every tank and squad-pack of weapons, just would not be worth it.
Unless you think its equally easy to destroy a persons rifle (equipment) and a heavy tank (equipment) then, No It just complicates things with no real gain. And in all divisions that had heavy tanks, soldiers with rifles also fought so the example do apply.
Your comparison is not valid - ask instead whether it's easier to destroy a heavy tank or a hundred rifles (or however many represent as much fighting power as a heavy tank).
The gameplay gain from having separate elements of a unit include:
- The 'experience' of a unit can remain while you convert it to another type.
Equipment can be stockpiled or traded/sold without 'fiddles' to get the manpower right.
Retreating/evacuating troops can abandon their equipment - equipment can be captured.
Upgrading can be more rational - give your veterans new kit and equip your militia with the obsolete stuff with no need to make it!
If a american ARM division looses 500% of its tanks the IC cost to reinforce them should be close to full IC times five. lets say three times the cost.
In Doomsday tanks are only 10% of the full divisions manpower so 500% tank loss would be 5losses of 10%, or 50% lost. Reinforcement cost is 40% of base price so in doomsday we pay 0.5 x 0.4 = 20%IC instead of 300%IC to replace one thousand lost tanks...
You see my problem with this system?
I see the problem, but this is a completely separate issue that can be addressed without tracking individual tanks. Just off the top of my head, the reinforcement costs should be 80% or so (both cost and time, not 80% and 50%, compounding). It should not be 100% because some mending must be possible. A critical thing is that retreating troops should continue taking casualties unless their speed is more than their enemy's speed! Most casualties (prisoners) and lost/abandoned equipment happened on the retreat. Finally, replacements should be a 'commodity' - like supplies - that are stored locally to the action and used by reinforcing units (I think this is one reason the 'time' factor is shortened, to correct a 'placement' discontinuity).
If you seperate the tank production you will also get gearing on the reinforcement tanks you build. Its much more logical to get better gearing the more tanks you build instead of the more fresh divisions you train. Its the factorys that gear up not your instructors right? ^^
Actually, I think instructors 'gear up' just as much as factories do. Lack of a solid cadre of experienced NCOs for training limited British army unit creation in the early stages of both World Wars.
As to 'gearing' for reinforcement that is actually the same as the new units that are being made - good point. Maybe just have replacements taken from the stocks of equipment elements made for all (new and old) units? I.e. each converts to 100 'points' of replacement for appropriate units - maybe too complex. OTOH just abstract 'replacement points' ought to get a good gearing bonus!
Im not saying you should have to keep track of each persons rifle, but a soldier equipment kit for 100 soldiers (since 100= 1% of most division sizes), or kits of 10 AAA pieces might be resonable sizes to produce ( also close to the IC cost of 1 tank).
WW2 involved millions of armed men, tens of thousands of tanks, hundreds of thousands of AA guns - and you seriously suggest the game keep track of all of these?? What about field kitchens, tents, ammunition boxes, entrenching tools, steel helmets, tank transporters, trucks, cars, ammunition carriers, radio sets, fuel bowsers, radar sets, fire control computers, hospital equipment, medical aid stations, engineering tools, boots? Maybe 'Supplies' are too abstract - don't they get used up at different rates? Should they be divided into small arms ammo, tank gun ammo, artillery ammo, AA Ammo, demolitions charges, mines, barbed wire, rations, spare parts? Where does one stop? Surely at some point we just have to say 'this is an appropriate level of abstraction for the scale of game we are playing'?
