Platoon Leader campaign rules development

[Concord]

Development of this campaign map is advancing very quickly, so I am posting the draft rules here, for further development.
As established in this thread, the campaign will use CMFB, and will likely be set in the southern part of The Netherlands.

The Battlefield
The campaign map is designed in a grid of battle zones, each 480m x 480m.
The map is 8 zones wide across the front and 6 zones deep.

The Units
Each battle will have a platoon as its core unit.
Each counter on the campaign map will represent a platoon, although the unit may be depleted by previous combat losses, or bolstered will some extras.
Overall, each side will have a total of one complete battalion to use.

The Mission
So far I am focused on this competition being purely combat based, with elimination of the other side being the goal.
I may consider adding some kind of terrain based motivation as well, but it's not clear how this would work.

The rules developed for this campaign may serve as a prototype for the much larger Urban Warriors CMBS campaign, but scaled up (company sized units).

 

[Concord]

Battle Losses

I am planning on keeping this very simple, similar to the Brigade Battles, but with some developments.
Each core unit is a platoon, which is essentially 3 squads plus an HQ.
A unit may be depleted by combat losses, which will be calculated as a percentage headcount based on the AAR screen results.
A platoon can be reduced to 2 squads or even 1, but will always retain a platoon HQ.

The Battalion

Each side's complete force will be a battalion.
The battalion will be based on CMFB's OOB.
The US Infantry Battalion 44, the Heer Grenadier Battalion and the Waffen SS Grenadier Battalion each consist of 3 Companies and a Weapons Company.

Each side's Weapons Company will be able to be distributed in limited chunks to each platoon by the side's CO before each turn starts.
The exact format is yet to be determined, but it might be (for example) a limit of 1 medium mortar section and 1 HMG section allowed to be attached to each platoon.
These additions may possibly be tracked individually - if a battalion asset like a mortar crew is eliminated, it is no longer available to the side, for the remainder of the campaign.

There may be some additional units (perhaps not specifically tracked), such as battalion level scout teams and snipers that can be assigned each turn by battalion HQ.

I am considering representing each side's actual battalion HQ on the map, perhaps as a 'special' platoon along with the actual battalion commander.
If this group is eliminated, all battalion extras like the scouts and snipers will no longer be available.

 

[Concord]

The OOB

As stated, the US Infantry Battalion and the German Grenadier Battalions (both SS and Wehrmacht) consist of 3 x Companies and 1 x Weapons Company.
All units will likely be Veteran experience, Normal Motivation and +1 Leadership.
The assets of each company can be distributed to each platoon at the start of a round, and the same with the battalion's weapons company (with limits).

US Infantry Battalions (4271 points)
3 x Companies, each with 3 platoons,
3 x Platoons, each with HQ and 3 squads (some carry Bazookas). In addition, each company comes with a Weapons Platoon, which has 2 x MMG and 3 x light mortars.
1 x Weapons Company, which is 8 x HMG (in sections of 2) and 6 x Medium Mortars (in sections of 2).
I have not included the Pioneer Platoon or the AT Gun Platoon.

Waffen SS and Wehrmacht Grenadier Battalions (3479 points)
3 x Companies, each with 3 platoons,
3 x Platoons, each with HQ and 3 squads, and 1 Panzerschreck. In addition, each company comes with a HMG section.
1 x Weapons Company, which is 3 x HMG and 12 x Medium Mortars (in sections of 2).


Although I wanted to stay true to the CMFB battalion OOB, I am considering what modifications I will need to make.
For example, even after removing the US Pioneer Platoon and AT Platoon, they have a significant points advantage on the German battalions.

 

[Concord]

So that's where I'm at so far.

I have sliding scale in mind for calculating battle losses, with simplicity being key.
While I don't want to track casualties for individual units, the weapons companies probably will need to be, because they're so powerful at this scale.

The map is based in square grid rather than hexes (had to preserve my sanity, since hexes are offset from one another).
This brings up the question of whether to allow diagonal movement.
I am tempted to say yes, although with simultaneous movement being planned, there are many potential 'traffic jam' issues that may happen.

In the most simple situation, imagine 2 opposing platoons, each with orders to attack into the other's square.
They can't just swap locations; one of them will be successful in moving into the other's position and becoming the attacker.
Who? It may be resolved by a dice roll, with CO's being able to sway the roll using a limited number of 'initiative' bonuses at the start of each round.

 

[holoween]

Although I wanted to stay true to the CMFB battalion OOB, I am considering what modifications I will need to make.
For example, even after removing the US Pioneer Platoon and AT Platoon, they have a significant points advantage on the German battalions.

Play around with the date. Using the standard squad rather than the cheaper grenadier variant the Wehrmacht Battalions price rises from 2989 in october 44 to 3785 in january 45.
The price difference is also largely to jeeps. Take out all of them and your cost dropps to 3659.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Although I wanted to stay true to the CMFB battalion OOB, I am considering what modifications I will need to make.
For example, even after removing the US Pioneer Platoon and AT Platoon, they have a significant points advantage on the German battalions.

Another way of doing it could be to include all the OOB units for both sides, but then adjust troop quality until both sides are worth the same amount of points.

For example, instead of making everyone veteran, US forces could be regular +0 and the Germans veteran +1.

I think this would match well with the setting of the campaign.

 

[Concord]

Or maybe we just ignore the points totally.
There isn't that much difference in effectiveness.

The Americans have more HMG's (which fits with the historical assessment of American firepower advantage).
The Waffen SS have some good weapons at the squad level (including assault rifles and semi-autos with scopes) and 12 medium mortars is fairly good too.

In a historical context, the Germans could be considered to have some manpower shortages this late in the war.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Or maybe we just ignore the points totally.
There isn't that much difference in effectiveness.

The Americans have more HMG's (which fits with the historical assessment of American firepower advantage).
The Waffen SS have some good weapons at the squad level (including assault rifles and semi-autos with scopes) and 12 medium mortars is fairly good too.

In a historical context, the Germans could be considered to have some manpower shortages this late in the war.

Yes, that's of course also an option. Just ignore the points and see what happens.

I think the US squads are a good deal bigger though, and can split into three groups.. coupled with their many 60mm mortars, that's going to be effective in an infantry-only campaign.

Also, the US Garand rifles are really good, while I find the German assault rifles quite lackluster.

As an aside, have you considered making all troops regular +0?

 

[holoween]

I think the US squads are a good deal bigger though, and can split into three groups.. coupled with their many 60mm mortars, that's going to be effective in an infantry-only campaign.

Also, the US Garand rifles are really good, while I find the German assault rifles quite lackluster.

My experience has been that the longer drawn out the fight is the better the US infantry tends to perform. First minute or two the mg42 dominates the fight. Then gunner kills, reloading and more riflemen getting into the fight tends to shift the balance quite a bit.
A Grenadier platoon is certainly weaker than an american rifle platoon and will have to rely on 81mm mortars. A PzGrenadier platoon can fight them equally thanks to more men and mgs. A Volksgrenadier platoon will struggle at ranges over 200m because of how few mgs it has but utterly dominates the fight below 100m.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Spoiler: Off-topic thoughts about the StG44

A Volksgrenadier platoon will struggle at ranges over 200m because of how few mgs it has but utterly dominates the fight below 100m.

I haven't played so much with Volksgrenadiere, but in the cases where I have squads with rifles and 1-2 Stg44, I'm not impressed with their performance. Their accuracy seems extremely low, even at short range.

Someone once showed me a test (maybe it was you?) putting a platoon of StG44 against a Garand platoon.

The StGs won effectively, but that was because the US troops ran away from their cover. With the recent game changes, troops now stick better to cover, so this advantage should now be less...

 

[Concord]

As an aside, have you considered making all troops regular +0?

That was what I did for the Brigade Battles campaign (vanilla everything).

However, in the Western Front campaign anyone? thread, @ChuckDyke and I were discussing maybe using the 30th Infantry Division (Old Hickory), or maybe the 104th Timberwolves, set in the southern part of The Netherlands (Holland). They would definitely be veteran class.

http://7tharmddiv.org/us-troops-in-holland.htm 25thWehrmacht and 25th Panzer grenadier division and a Dutch SS of 7000 men were in the area of the time of surrender. US 2nd Armored division 30th Infantry division liberated Southern Limburg (Panhandle) It depends how detailed you want to make this.

My experience has been that the longer drawn out the fight is the better the US infantry tends to perform. First minute or two the mg42 dominates the fight. Then gunner kills, reloading and more riflemen getting into the fight tends to shift the balance quite a bit.
A Grenadier platoon is certainly weaker than an american rifle platoon and will have to rely on 81mm mortars. A PzGrenadier platoon can fight them equally thanks to more men and mgs. A Volksgrenadier platoon will struggle at ranges over 200m because of how few mgs it has but utterly dominates the fight below 100m.

Well maybe we should look at using a PanzerGrenadier battalion eh (the 25th Panzer Grenadier division)?

 

[Bulletpoint]

-

 

[holoween]

Well maybe we should look at using a PanzerGrenadier battalion eh (the 25th Panzer Grenadier division)?

I just did a bit of testing and in a full platoon vs full platoon fight grenns always loose, Volksgrenns are equal at 200m better below and worse above and pzgrenns are equal at 200m worse below and better above.

The StGs won effectively, but that was because the US troops ran away from their cover. With the recent game changes, troops now stick better to cover, so this advantage should now be less...

Yea that was me and they dont do that anymore. Stgs are still good at short ranges but not nearly as much as they should be.

 

[Concord]

Each battle square is 480m long/wide.
I imagine that many of the firefights will be 50m - 200m, some longer ranges on some maps.

So Grenadiers always lose at these ranges? Wow.
Whereas Volksgrenadiers do better and Panzergrenadiers do worse than the US platoons at these ranges? Hmm.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I imagine that many of the firefights will be 50m - 200m, some longer ranges on some maps.

So Grenadiers always lose at these ranges? Wow.

I wouldn't say they always lose - it's about tactics after all. But I'd say they have the cards stacked against them. Both from the Garand, the extra US troop numbers, and the US ability to split squads into three teams.