If we're talking design ...

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,406
Reaction score
2,108
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Re: ...and we are!

But in this case the equation was complicated by the fact that before taking the replacements into account, these troops clearly deserved to be represented by 6-6-7s. So it wasn't just a question of, "How long do these troops deserve to stay 6-6-6s?" It was also a question of, "How quickly do they stop being 6-6-7s?"
How many turns long is the scenario intended? Will the US player need to have these squads in action most of the way? If they are going to be taking MCs again and again throughout, there is a greater chance of failing by ELR at some point , leaving many weaker units for the end game. (Which is fine if that is what you want to model.) How much will this actually hurt the defense? (a 667 to 666 is not quite the drop as the Russian 447 -> 426)

This is what I see as the biggest problem for the Russians in Porechye Bridgehead-- most of thier infantry will be broken conscripts by the latter part of the game, which hurts even more as leaders die off. I still want to play it someday, though.

Being the stickler for historical accuracy that I am, instead I put the scenario aside and waited for more information to present itself, so I could better judge what the "historical" answer was. (Besides, this wasn't the only question I had about the history.) Recently I came across a new source, which stated that the strength of Company I at the time of the battle was only about 80 men; it turns out that the process of getting replacements into the ranks was much further behind than my earlier, less detailed sources had led me to believe!

Under the circumstances, Company I will probably be represented by 8 x 6-6-7s with an ELR of 4, especially since they have a whole lot of Germans to hold off until the cavalry shows up!
Could be 6-6-6s in greater quantity as well-- a lower class unit often represents a squad that is understrength. Give them more/better leaders to reflect their veteran capabilities.

Will the 'cavalry' be part of the scenario? At what point do the brave GIs of Company I get a little help, and in what form?

It may take a few playtests to determine the best way to represent these things.
 

jwb3

Just this guy, you know?
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
4,393
Reaction score
260
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Country
llUnited States
Re: ...and we are!

How many turns long is the scenario intended?
This is a great unknown, actually. It's probably the most flexible part of the design.

For the rest of your thoughts, the truth is that I'm really not going to know the answers until I get the first version of the design done, and probably give it a test run. There's a certain feel I'm looking for from the design, which is the main point of recreating this particular battle. It may be that the feel will end up guiding the unit choice (number and type of squads) more than anything else.

Could be 6-6-6s in greater quantity as well-- a lower class unit often represents a squad that is understrength. Give them more/better leaders to reflect their veteran capabilities.
Hmmm... Definitely something to consider. Thanks!


This is what I see as the biggest problem for the Russians in Porechye Bridgehead-- most of thier infantry will be broken conscripts by the latter part of the game, which hurts even more as leaders die off. I still want to play it someday, though.
Haven't given up on it myself, despite the negative comments some others have made about it.


John
 
Top