SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

[Thanas]

I accept the ruling regarding Kenya and will await Norsemen's proposal.

EDIT: Edited because I missed his post at first glance.

[Steve]

I'll be honest, I find the four day curbstomp of the Low Countries to be a bit disconcerting for the future health of the game. I really continue to feel hesitant to participate in anything when the map literally changes overnight and it seems that a great deal is decided outside the posts one sees in the IC thread.

Unfortunately, the player for that country became absentee and, it must be said, his force dispositions and naval acquisitions were.... poor. Siege was kind enough to take up the defensive effort instead of concentrating on his own country.

Ultimately, this goes to show that if you're going to be gone for a while, for any reason, take the measly thirty-sixty seconds to fire me or a mod a PM or to post such in the Commentary thread. Seriously. Karmic did none of this, he just disappeared, and gave no expectation of when he would return.

That said, I do encourage others *looks at Ryan and Wilkens* to actually post the progress of their conflicts and dealings, even if secret bits are kept to PMs (though mods should be informed, select one that you feel has the least chance for conflict of interest if it makes you feel better). I've yet to see one good post on the naval battle off Punto Fijo, or the Mexican advance past Penonome, or more posting about the fortifications alone Colombia's Panama Line.

And Thanas.... Nairobi, remember? I think the layout of Karmic's OrBat has actually planted some kind of brain bug in you regarding African geography.

[Thanas]

Ultimately, this goes to show that if you're going to be gone for a while, for any reason, take the measly thirty-sixty seconds to fire me or a mod a PM or to post such in the Commentary thread. Seriously. Karmic did none of this, he just disappeared, and gave no expectation of when he would return.

I also sent him a PM a full four days before the ultimatum warning him of his inefficient OOB and told him that if I were in his shoes, I might redo the entire Navy etc. I received no reply.

And Thanas.... Nairobi, remember? I think the layout of Karmic's OrBat has actually planted some kind of brain bug in you regarding African geography.

It sure did.

[Thanas]

Edited my post regarding Kenya to comply with the ruling.

[Lascaris]

BTW, I've been doing some thinking on my army's doctrine regarding artillery. As has been mentioned by others, I have a lot of it; about one arty brigade for every three infantry brigades. I figure in divisions where this prevalent (everything except the mountain troops and cavalry) the infantry brigades have no organic heavy arty of their own, it is all pooled for the divisional arty brigade.

The problem with that is that the brigades (read regiments) did not have organic heavy artillery on their own. Some infantry divisions had organic heavy artillery in very limited numbers (12 155mm for US and French divisions frex) An artillery brigade has some 50 pieces of that calibre.

So no 1 artillery brigade per 3 infantry brigades is too heavy. IMO there should be a rule limiting the number of artillery brigades at the start of the game same as with motorized and armor brigades but that is up to the mods to accept or not.

[CmdrWilkens]

That said, I do encourage others *looks at Ryan and Wilkens* to actually post the progress of their conflicts and dealings, even if secret bits are kept to PMs (though mods should be informed, select one that you feel has the least chance for conflict of interest if it makes you feel better). I've yet to see one good post on the naval battle off Punto Fijo, or the Mexican advance past Penonome, or more posting about the fortifications alone Colombia's Panama Line.

I just got downsized at work and have an 11 week old child, you are lucky you get maps Mr Mod

Yeah I know I posted up about the awesome border smashing incident and haven't really posted anything since then. After the next set of rolls I'm going to buckle down for a few days and try to get some good combat fluff written up but until then 420mm guns FTW

[Steve]

Well, it's not just you I was directing that at.

[Norade]

Infantry/Cavalry Organization:
Division: 15,000 soldiers (3 brigades)
Brigade: 5,000 soldiers (8 fighting companies, 5 support companies, 2 artillery companies 50 man command team)
Company: 330 soldiers (10 troops, 10 man attached command team)
-Artillery Company: 1 battery of 75mm howitzers, 1 battery of 105mm howitzers
Troop: 32 soldiers (4 fire teams of 8)
Fire Team: 8 soldiers (5 regulars, 1 sergeant/specialist, 2 support gunners)

Artillery Organization:
Artillery Brigade: 11 batteries (55 guns)
Artillery Battery: 5 guns
Heavy Artillery Brigade: 11 batteries (55 guns)
Heavy Artillery Battery: 5 guns
Siege Artillery Brigade: 3 batteries (9 guns)
Siege Artillery Battery: 3 guns

-An Artillery Brigade has 7 batteries of 4.2" guns, and 4 batteries of 6" guns
-A Heavy Artillery Brigade has 4 batteries of 4.2" guns, and 7 batteries of 6" guns
-A Siege Artillery Brigade has 2 batteries of 10" guns, and one battery of 12" guns

I think it seems reasonable, for each division to have 20 organic guns.

Any comments on my force organization?

[Ryan Thunder]

Well, it's not just you I was directing that at.

Yeah sorry, I really have no excuse. I've been writing stuff and then discarding it in disgust.

[Beowulf]

An artillery battery is generally considered to be the equivalent of a company. Troops are a specifically cavalry term, with the more general term being a platoon or company for the same size(depending on country). There's generally an intermediate echelon of control between the brigade and the company, called the battalion. Battalions are generally made of between 2 and 5 companies/batteries/troops(depending on branch and country) Artillery battalions would generally have roughly the same manning requirements, and so roughly the same number of batteries (though some exception is made for really heavy gun). A battery of 5 guns is distinctly odd, with a more common number being either 4 or 6. Eleven batteries doesn't really divide nicely into battalions, resulting in an odd battalion in a given brigade. A fireteam is actually a lower level of organization than you have, generally, and wouldn't actually exist at this point. The correct terms is squad.

It may be helpful to look at actual divisional structures from the period. http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/M-F/index.htm has a good look at the evolution of the division throughout the 20th century. It's interesting to note the very large variability in division size, from around 9k (in a peacetime interwar division) to almost 30k men when the US entered WWI. And that's just for infantry divisions.

[Czechmate]

reposting because the artillery thing is apparently still shambling about nomming brains:

My suggestion (the division bit is rough and malleable but seems about right):

Divisional artillery:

1 6-gun battery of 75mm guns per infantry battalion.

2 6-gun batteries of 105mm guns per infantry brigade.


Artillery brigades (corps-level attachments):

3 battalions of three 6-gun batteries. 2/3 are 155mm pieces and the other battallion is 203mm.


Siege artillery brigades (special-assignment army-level attachments):

2 battalions of 3 2-gun batteries (total 12 pieces) - this is appropriate for stuff like Skoda siege mortars or Big Berthas or largish fortress artillery pieces.

OR

2 battalions of 2 1-gun batteries (total 4 pieces) - this is appropriate for railway guns.

ADDENDUM (since it came to mind before I hit 'submit'):

Dora and Schwerer Gustav, were they built later in this game, would essentially comprise Siege Artillery Brigades unto themselves because of the enormous supply and support group required to operate them.

Thoughts?

[Steve]

Oh, for Shinn and Thanas, I talked to Crossroad and he decided he's tried to join too late to play. You two have Borneo again.

*shifts eyes around, tries to snatch piece of Brunei when no one is looking* j/k

[Norade]

An artillery battery is generally considered to be the equivalent of a company. Troops are a specifically cavalry term, with the more general term being a platoon or company for the same size(depending on country). There's generally an intermediate echelon of control between the brigade and the company, called the battalion. Battalions are generally made of between 2 and 5 companies/batteries/troops(depending on branch and country) Artillery battalions would generally have roughly the same manning requirements, and so roughly the same number of batteries (though some exception is made for really heavy gun). A battery of 5 guns is distinctly odd, with a more common number being either 4 or 6. Eleven batteries doesn't really divide nicely into battalions, resulting in an odd battalion in a given brigade. A fireteam is actually a lower level of organization than you have, generally, and wouldn't actually exist at this point. The correct terms is squad.

It may be helpful to look at actual divisional structures from the period. http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/M-F/index.htm has a good look at the evolution of the division throughout the 20th century. It's interesting to note the very large variability in division size, from around 9k (in a peacetime interwar division) to almost 30k men when the US entered WWI. And that's just for infantry divisions.

I didn't know a battery was equivalent to a company and even knowing but it would seem odd to have 320 men for only 5 or 6 guns.

As for troops, yes I know, but being in an armored recon attachment as a cadet means troops sound more natural to me. Though I suppose I should change that if I wanted to be more accurate... Though I haven't heard of company equaling platoon before. In Canada you have troops or platoons within a company usually.

As for Battalions, that was a level of organization that I never had to use too much, but seeing as it is a good level of organization to use I'll add it in. Though each battalion will be a bit different in the average brigade and will be the only non equal division of forces in my military.

As for odd battery size, is there a disadvantage to an odd number of weapons in a battery? If so I'll change it but if not I'll just be an odd ball. The same with my artillery brigades, I was thinking that they might simply be divided by weapons type for organization and thus would have two unequal brigades of 7 and 4 batteries, or of 2 and 1 batteries in siege groups.

Lastly, I don't know why I used fire team instead of squad, nor did I know that they didn't exist in this time period, it just seemed an easy way to allocate support weapons evenly in a platoon and made it easy for me to allocate weapons for my army.

Infantry/Cavalry Organization:
Division: 15,000 soldiers (3 brigades)
Brigade: 5,000 soldiers (8 fighting companies, 5 support companies, 2 artillery companies 50 man command team)
Battalion: 5 companies (2 battalions of 4 fighting companies, 1 divisional artillery battalion, and a 5 company support battalion)
Company: 330 soldiers (10 platoons, 10 warrants (1 per platoon))
-Artillery Company: 1 battery of 75mm howitzers, 1 battery of 105mm howitzers, 300 personnel
Platoon: 32 soldiers (4 squads of 8)
Squad: 8 soldiers (5 regulars, 1 corporal or master corporal/specialist, 2 support gunners)

Artillery Organization:
Artillery Brigade: 11 batteries (55 guns)
Artillery Battery: 5 guns
Heavy Artillery Brigade: 11 batteries (55 guns)
Heavy Artillery Battery: 5 guns
Siege Artillery Brigade: 3 batteries (9 guns)
Siege Artillery Battery: 3 guns

-An Artillery Brigade has 7 batteries of 105mm guns, and 4 batteries of 150mm guns
-A Heavy Artillery Brigade has 4 batteries of 105mm guns, and 7 batteries of 150mm guns
-A Siege Artillery Brigade has 2 batteries of 250mm guns, and one battery of 300mm guns

I think it seems reasonable, for each division to have 20 organic guns.

Either way this is my edited organization pending word on if 5 gun batteries are shafting me in someway.

[loomer]

The deployment of Russian tanks is in accordance with Stas's wishes before he left Russia entirely and in accordance with diplomatic relations between Russia and Afghanistan at the present time. That is all.

[Beowulf]

I didn't know a battery was equivalent to a company and even knowing but it would seem odd to have 320 men for only 5 or 6 guns.

As for troops, yes I know, but being in an armored recon attachment as a cadet means troops sound more natural to me. Though I suppose I should change that if I wanted to be more accurate... Though I haven't heard of company equaling platoon before. In Canada you have troops or platoons within a company usually.

As for Battalions, that was a level of organization that I never had to use too much, but seeing as it is a good level of organization to use I'll add it in. Though each battalion will be a bit different in the average brigade and will be the only non equal division of forces in my military.

As for odd battery size, is there a disadvantage to an odd number of weapons in a battery? If so I'll change it but if not I'll just be an odd ball. The same with my artillery brigades, I was thinking that they might simply be divided by weapons type for organization and thus would have two unequal brigades of 7 and 4 batteries, or of 2 and 1 batteries in siege groups.

Lastly, I don't know why I used fire team instead of squad, nor did I know that they didn't exist in this time period, it just seemed an easy way to allocate support weapons evenly in a platoon and made it easy for me to allocate weapons for my army.

Infantry/Cavalry Organization:
Division: 15,000 soldiers (3 brigades)
Brigade: 5,000 soldiers (8 fighting companies, 5 support companies, 2 artillery companies 50 man command team)
Battalion: 5 companies (2 battalions of 4 fighting companies, 1 divisional artillery battalion, and a 5 company support battalion)
Company: 330 soldiers (10 platoons, 10 warrants (1 per platoon))
-Artillery Company: 1 battery of 75mm howitzers, 1 battery of 105mm howitzers, 300 personnel
Platoon: 32 soldiers (4 squads of
Squad: 8 soldiers (5 regulars, 1 corporal or master corporal/specialist, 2 support gunners)

Artillery Organization:
Artillery Brigade: 11 batteries (55 guns)
Artillery Battery: 5 guns
Heavy Artillery Brigade: 11 batteries (55 guns)
Heavy Artillery Battery: 5 guns
Siege Artillery Brigade: 3 batteries (9 guns)
Siege Artillery Battery: 3 guns

-An Artillery Brigade has 7 batteries of 105mm guns, and 4 batteries of 150mm guns
-A Heavy Artillery Brigade has 4 batteries of 105mm guns, and 7 batteries of 150mm guns
-A Siege Artillery Brigade has 2 batteries of 250mm guns, and one battery of 300mm guns

I think it seems reasonable, for each division to have 20 organic guns.

Either way this is my edited organization pending word on if 5 gun batteries are shafting me in someway.

You misunderstand me: a troop corresponds to either a platoon or a company, depending on country, so in the US it's a company equivalent formation, while in Canada, it's a platoon equivalent formation, with the next level up, the squadron, being a battalion equivalent formation in the US, and a company equivalent formation in Canada.

320 men would be a bit much for a six pieces of artillery, but that's in part because you've got your companies with too great of a span of control. Experience has shown that a commander can control between 2-5 subordinate ground units. 10 is fairly excessive, and will likely result in him either losing track of where some of his men are, or grouping them into ad-hoc sub-company formations. Halving the number of men he's controlling down to 5 platoons both brings your batteries into a company equivalence in number of men, as well as reducing the span of control to similar to normal military practice. This may result in too many battalion at brigade level for effective control, but that's why God invented the Regiment.

Something else I've noticed is a definite dearth of room for commanders and their staffs at the upper echelons... by which I mean everything between squad and brigade, non-inclusive. At Platoon level, in the western model, you'd have a platoon leader and a platoon sergeant. Company would have a company commander, executive officer, first sergeant, and probably a couple more men. Battalion would be similar, but more so, with the addition of intelligence officers, supply officers, et al, possibly.

[DarthShady]

I'm no expert, but this seems like too easy a victory for Beo...I take it rolls were made on this and the Soviets aren't losing simply because Stas isn't around anymore?

[Steve]

I'm no expert, but this seems like too easy a victory for Beo...I take it rolls were made on this and the Soviets aren't losing simply because Stas isn't around anymore?

Pretty much. Timothy was doing the rolls for this sequence and had a hot hand. Of course, he kept that hot hand, otherwise the Soviet captives would've been a bit more than 120,000...

[Thanas]

Alright, I am just about to go do things for tomorrow. I might not have time to be online much up to the 27th. I'll at least try to reply to PMs, though.

[Lascaris]

I'm no expert, but this seems like too easy a victory for Beo...I take it rolls were made on this and the Soviets aren't losing simply because Stas isn't around anymore?

Pretty much. Timothy was doing the rolls for this sequence and had a hot hand. Of course, he kept that hot hand, otherwise the Soviet captives would've been a bit more than 120,000...

And then people wonder why I make comparisons to risk.

[Steve]

Yeah, it's not perfect, but as the saying goes, "Wars are uncertain", and dice-rolls are about the only way I can think of to fairly determine outcomes.

[Lascaris]

Yeah, it's not perfect, but as the saying goes, "Wars are uncertain", and dice-rolls are about the only way I can think of to fairly determine outcomes.

Suppose that attacker starts out with X forces and defender with Y. And that Xf anf Yf are the final forces at the end of the battle.

X^2-Xf^2=a(Y^2-Yf^2) where a the factor determining the advantage if any of the defender.

It takes all of two lines on excel to determine not just the outcome of a battle but also the casualties both sides are going to suffer. Rather reasonably accurate and needs no dice at all to produce the... less than balanced results we are seeing here.

[CmdrWilkens]

Yeah, it's not perfect, but as the saying goes, "Wars are uncertain", and dice-rolls are about the only way I can think of to fairly determine outcomes.

Suppose that attacker starts out with X forces and defender with Y. And that Xf anf Yf are the final forces at the end of the battle.

X^2-Xf^2=a(Y^2-Yf^2) where a the factor determining the advantage if any of the defender.

It takes all of two lines on excel to determine not just the outcome of a battle but also the casualties both sides are going to suffer. Rather reasonably accurate and needs no dice at all to produce the... less than balanced results we are seeing here.

Except that sometimes the attack uses forces well suited to breakthrough followed by sealing off the line of advance, or the attack breaks through to a major supply line which would force major retirement and mobile operations where the attacker has the advantage. Dice roll are probably the best way we have to simulate the randomness of things like unit morale, well co-ordinated attacks with proper artillery support and follow on troops, incompetent (or brilliant) subordinates who either push troops through to their maximum or possibly lag in their preparations and leave their soldiers open for massed losses.

Likewise at sea despite the glaring truth of the N^2 law in a full on engagement a host of things from weather to lucky shots (think the run to the south at Jutland where just a few shells took out 3 capital ships because of improper powder handling). Moreover scouting and the chance of encounter in the vast spaces at sea even in sheltered waters like the North Sea or the Caribbean and Gulf can be tough.

In other words I think we need to keep dice in the mix if for no other reason than that we could otherwise simply draw up plans, run the whole thing through excel and spit out the result of a war with potentially disastrous consequences for either side in a matter of minutes.

The only change is maybe we should go to 10d10 or 5d20 and roll for percentage successful. It would give us a fair bit more room to work with than the rather odd 18 point scale. But that is the only suggestion I have.

[Steve]

The only change is maybe we should go to 10d10 or 5d20 and roll for percentage successful. It would give us a fair bit more room to work with than the rather odd 18 point scale. But that is the only suggestion I have.

Hrm? What is it you're proposing with this? Use the resulting value as a "percentage" to determine success?

[loomer]

The mobilization of Afghani reserves continues - once we're off pause, for Q4, I should qualify for full wartime IBPs, yeah?

[Norseman]

3d6 is best because it creates a perfect bell curve where the numbers are heavily clustered around the middle 8-12, but once in a while you get results that are just out there. Seriously calculate the probability of getting the various figures and you'll see that I'm right. Also 3d6 means that we only need to allocate numbers 3 to 18 to various results, that again is a lot easier than the range we'd get if we started adding more dice ("No no! If he rolls and 88 then Hitler's ghost does a strip tease, but if he gets a *99* he's hit over the head by Nostradamus! Isn't that obvious?")