What counter to use for Hitler Youth

[wrongway149]

yet, one (old) Royal Scots regimental history (The FIrst of Foot by Augustus Muir) says, weeeeeeeeeell out of context as the book has already mentioned this 'battle' anyhow, it says that "At dawn next day the Jocks began their advance to clear the defile. They were met with only sporadic fire from snipers, evidently the guerilla bands had had a severe mauling and, with the approach of fresh British troops, had decided to pull back and concentrate for closer defence."

Bollocks I'm thinking because if this is true then all the work, hours I have put in is for nothing as I can't get a scenario out of this BUT, other books state there was fighting
so, definetly fighting, and one area was taken pretty easily too I guess but there must have been heavy fighting elsewhere (if White is correct) and they were fighting for a couple of days by the sound of it I think there is still a scenario to be had out of this

But, as I say, conflicting reports, I'm a bit confused now to be honest

Also I know i missed a trick here though as White mentioned an 88mm gun firing, but only once so I ignored it, but Muir says they had two old flak guns, so, clearly there was a couple of guns up on that ridge somewhere, wether they were involved in any direct action on the ridge I am not sure though as the only reference (in White) says they fired at targets OFF the ridge

You are trying too hard to cram 10 pounds of stuff into a five pound bag. All that sounds like it could actually be several tournament-sized scenarios.

 

[Alan Hume]

Could well be I guess
Still, got it sorted now at least, just need to get it playtested

 

[Eagle4ty]

Don't try to have the players re-fight the engagement. Use the "Now you are there, can you change history" approach. A scenario or CG (especially) that has one make the same decisions, EXACTLY the same circumstances, etc. that existed on the battlefield at the time just isn't that much fun. Do we want historical circumstances? Yes for the most part, but the ultimate aim is to have an enjoyable game. JMHO
(I think you would be well advised to listen to Wrongway's valuable advise).

 

[Alan Hume]

Don't try to have the players re-fight the engagement. Use the "Now you are there, can you change history" approach. A scenario or CG (especially) that has one make the same decisions, EXACTLY the same circumstances, etc. that existed on the battlefield at the time just isn't that much fun. Do we want historical circumstances? Yes for the most part, but the ultimate aim is to have an enjoyable game. JMHO
(I think you would be well advised to listen to Wrongway's valuable advise).

Very good point, I think you are right, a buddy of mine said much the same thing the other day, you are aiming for a playable game not a historical re-enactment, that was his whole point, I think I will take that all on board as best I can

 

[jrv]

Very good point, I think you are right, a buddy of mine said much the same thing the other day, you are aiming for a playable game not a historical re-enactment, that was his whole point, I think I will take that all on board as best I can

Perhaps even a better way to put it is that you are aiming for an enjoyable game. A lot of players won't enjoy it if you go completely ahistorical, but if your history book says that 100 men took part, you don't have to use exactly ten squads. First it's not true that an ASL squad represents ten men as some squads had more or less, but also depending on the circumstances you may want to give the side more or less tactical flexibility because it portrays the action better. If you look at the strange motley of tanks that form the Soviet force in Directive Number Three, it is unlikely that such a force ever engaged in combat anywhere. But it is a fun scenario just because of the strange mixture of tanks. Scenario design is art not science.

JR

 

[Alan Hume]

Perhaps even a better way to put it is that you are aiming for an enjoyable game. A lot of players won't enjoy it if you go completely ahistorical, but if your history book says that 100 men took part, you don't have to use exactly ten squads. First it's not true that an ASL squad represents ten men as some squads had more or less, but also depending on the circumstances you may want to give the side more or less tactical flexibility because it portrays the action better. If you look at the strange motley of tanks that form the Soviet force in Directive Number Three, it is unlikely that such a force ever engaged in combat anywhere. But it is a fun scenario just because of the strange mixture of tanks. Scenario design is art not science.

JR

Thanks, yeah, for sure, I am slowly giving way from the stance that 100 men equals 10 squads, that has up til now, been my default setting but I'm getting over it yeah, I am trying to start from history (and be true to history as much as I can) while aiming for a good game now

for example, I just looked at some Le Franc Tireur scenarios for ideas based on how they do things and they have a British company at only 7 squads not the full 9 I usually do (so, I took that and reduced a company I had that were overpowering the Germans accordingly and figured it would still be historical as, as you say, the full squad doesn't necessarily have 10 men in it, it might have more or less depending on the situation)

so, yeah, trying to go more for gameplay here

 

[MrP]

An MMC is not 10 men, it is 4FP 5 range and 7 morale....think more in terms of combat effectiveness than numbers of people.....

 

[Alan Hume]

thanks, that is what I have been thinking 10-15 men, , rather than combat power

 

[jrv]

thanks, that is what I have been thinking 10-15 men, , rather than combat power

A1.121 "historically the squad might range in size from seven to 15 men (depending upon nationality, date, and circumstances)."

JR

 

[Alan Hume]

that helps me a lot actually, it means I can put in less squads if need be (or more) for a scenario depending on how many I feel is warranted
to make the game playable (considering how many counters the opposition get)

 

[jrv]

that helps me a lot actually, it means I can put in less squads if need be (or more) for a scenario depending on how many I feel is warranted
to make the game playable (considering how many counters the opposition get)

If you are not overly obsessed with "historical accuracy" you should be able to do that anyway. Design for effect (and fun). Again looking at "Directive Number Three," it is unlikely that any such force ever fought together, especially the Soviet side. The forces are a representative sample of the weapons available, and it makes for a more fun scenario. The real forces were probably more segregated and probably more numerous. The number of units in a typical Red Barricades CG is substantially less than the number that were there historically. Historical accuracy can and should be compromised to provide a good gaming experience when necessary. The good scenario designer knows when he has to compromise and how much with which he can reasonably get away.

JR

 

[Alan Hume]

Thanks, that is indeed what I am trying to learn, up to now I have been a stickler for historical accuracy in all things but I see now that it sometimes has to take a backseat in order to make a scenario fun (or indeed even playable)

 

[Paul M. Weir]

A repost that I had in my "Paul's Ponderous, Pompous, Pedantic Proclamations, Patter and Platitudes" thread (that was not reloaded) outlined my views on squad composition. In that I put forward the idea that the number of manual bolt action rifles was nearly irrelevant.

For the most usual 4-X-Y squad which represents most nations' squad with a single LMG and the rest rifleman (possibly a single SMG), 1 FP represents the LMG, the other 3 FP represents that there are some riflemen. Those 3 FP are more a psychological thing than a real physical threat, the fact that someone, anyone is firing regardless of effectiveness. Reduce by 1 for particularly bad or unmotivated troops (Ax Minor, Italian, Partisan, etc), add 1 for each LMG and just possibly add 1 for particularly high quality troops (mainly to give a CC boost). Ditto add 1 if the majority armed with semi-automatic rifles (US Garand) or 1 for roughly each 3-4 men armed with SMG.

The reason for my conclusions were that the bulk of bullets (FP) came from LMG and SMG with a small edge if equipped with semi-auto. The bolt action rifle really added little to squad FP, so a 7 man rifle squad with a LMG would be little different to a 12 man rifle squad with a LMG in terms of killing power. Add a 2nd LMG or replace bolt rifles with SMG/assault rifles and that is a different story. I also decided from my analysis that ASL does not really distinguish between LMGs, a BAR is the same as a MG-42 when an inherent LMG, though the MG-34/42 does always give spraying fire. While that may stick in peoples' throats, there is some logic to it as that squad has to haul the LMG ammo to last them anything from a few hours to a few days and will rarely simply blaze away using the full capacity of their LMG (OK, face a Banzai charge and all bets are off).

As an example, consider a 10 man German squad with 1 LMG, 1 SMG and 8 rifle men. Assume the LMG gunner and squad leader carry 1 250 round can and each rifle man carries 2 for a total of 18 cans or 4500 rounds, about as much as is practical. A MG-34 will fire all that in 5 minutes, so to last for, say, 4 hours to a day, the MG-34 will have to be used sparingly. A BAR is not really much worse in such circumstances. A MMG/HMG or to some extent an extra (SW counter) LMG is a different matter as they, presumably, represent not just the extra MG but a mass of extra ammo and somewhat better gunner(s).

So in the end the number of bolt action riflemen, according to the existing ASL pattern, makes little difference, just the number of SMG and LMG.

As for estimating the number of squads? Ideally you rely upon the size of the formation, an early war squad often contained 4 squads, some 3, by mid war a platoon had just 3. A company had 3 line platoons, some with a small MG or lt. mortar platoon, a battalion had 3 line companies (4 for British) with 1 or 2 support companies. The higher the level of a formation (or the bigger the total number of troops) the higher the number of auxiliary troops, whether specialist weapon crews or supply, command, comms, etc troops. So if you are dealing with an around 10 man squad, for <100 total divide by from 11 to 15, <300 divide by 15 to 20, etc.

 

[Alan Hume]

Hey Paul,
many thanks for that well thought out post, appreciated, I will absorb it at leisure tomorrow, I just read it just now and it's gone 1am over here in Scotland so I need to go get some sleep (once I've locked the cat in his room

I will give that formula a go though for sure