Both are solid options. GD could be interesting simply because you could have a lot of options building it and HG would make for an interesting mix of LW infantry and armor.
von Luck
von Luck
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
GD would be more fashionable than interesting, IMO.
HG, on the other hand, would be a truly original one.
Well let's just say I'd be happy to see either
I also liked the philosophy of deck building behind Gross Paris in terms of many smaller cards to fill out the deck. having a similar setup with GD could make for some diverse and unique ways to build them.
Without making this simply a wish list I am also keenly interested in seeing an American infantry div that utilizes the long tom as an on map asset. Where the Americans lack diversity to a degree I'd like to see a few more specialized assets to make them stand out. Food for thought
von Luck
I also liked the philosophy of deck building behind Gross Paris in terms of many smaller cards to fill out the deck. having a similar setup with GD could make for some diverse and unique ways to build them.
Without making this simply a wish list I am also keenly interested in seeing an American infantry div that utilizes the long tom as an on map asset. Where the Americans lack diversity to a degree I'd like to see a few more specialized assets to make them stand out. Food for thought
von Luck
Agreed.
Yet it is a historical and structural issue with the US Army being standardized as much as possible. Few units stand out by their equipment once you've made one division of each type (airborne, infantry, armored).
The Italian campaign would be a good way to bring diversity to American divisions, with older equipment, some field modifications, Italian auxiliaries, specialized troops, ...
Some examples:
1st Armored Division:
* would still field some T-19 & T-30 half-track as artillery/support.
* had 2x early (prototype) Hellcat, then named T-70.
* only M4A1 variant of Shermans, but with 76mm & 105mm versions.
* had a "real cavalry" recon element, same as 4th Armored, hence Dismounted Scouts and combat armored car.
* the first elements of the future 10th Mountain Division were attached to the division, hence possible "light infantry" Mountaineers. The latter also had a few Italin Alpini (the crèrme de la crème of the Italian army), hence possible handful of elite Italian commandos.
* most recon units in Italy had organized a "recon & demolition" group to clear the way of German obstacles, hence possible "Recon-Demolisher" squad.
34th Infantry Division:
The only division which could compete with the Big Red One in terms of combat experience, being also one of the rare interwar professional division and the first one to be sent in Europe.
In England, they trained with the British commandos, who taught them some of their irregular ways, and the 34th ID had thereafter its own commandos. The latter were taken away to create the first Rangers units, but the division reformed an off-TO&E 168th Commandos company within the division, with selected elements.
* possible American (ninja?) commandos.
* the division included the 100th Infantry Battalion, the first Nisei (aka Japanese-American volunteers) in the ETO. Later combining with the 442nd Inf. Regt. (also Nisei) they went on to become the most decorated regiment in American History, known for never backing down and always accomplishing its objectives whatever the cost.
* the 760th Tank Battalion attached to it for most of the campaign was known to field some unusual vehicles, such as the first field-tested M17 Whizz Bang (MLRS Shermans, but more shotguns than artillery, more like Wargame's Buratino than the Calliope) and T8 & T8E1, that is jalopied Stuart used as transports, as done by the Canadians and Desert rats in SD44.
* and of course, a lot of veterans ...
3rd Infantry Division:
Less original, in-between the two previous ones with some aspects of both:
* had T-19 half-track (from 1st Armored when the latter started receiving Priests).
* also used T8 & T8E1
* had the only two others T-70 (prototype Hellcat) in Italy. They didn't convinced the division's command as TD in Italy where their speed wasn't of much use, but were used with some degree of success as recon tanks. Hence Recon Hellcat?
* had the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment attached, hence could count on both regular and AB infantry.
Being a secondary front with less access to brand new equipment actually makes tinkering and use of older equipment much interesting IMO ...
Last edited:
Em... yes and no. The 34th was a National Guard division, and so was a reserve division and not professional. They did indeed perform so well during the run up to their overseas deployment that they were among the first to arrive in Great Britain and were selected for Operation Torch... but this is an anomaly. Any 'professionalism' displayed by the division was likely due to the fact that they kept a good proportion of their pre-war personnel in place and weren't totally dispersed and watered down with draftees like other National Guard divisions. That meant that the companies and battalions were built around community structures that had been in place (and often, the National Guard was seen as a kind of a Men's Club for their communities, where childhood friends and family would go into the service again and in rural communities the bonds within units were often very close).
As the war went on, many - if not most - of the National Guard divisions had their personnel shifted and transferred and replaced at such a rate that they rarely maintained the demographics of the state they came from, and very much became US Army divisions, not state National Guard divisions.
You are right: I mixed up with the 3rd ID, which was actually one of the few other interwar division.
Yet, they were one of the best trained and most effective US infantry division of the war nonetheless ...
Yet, they were one of the best trained and most effective US infantry division of the war nonetheless ...
If I remember correctly, Germans classified 3rd Division as "Sturmdivision" (roughly translate as "Assault" or Breakthrough" Division) for its very aggressive tactics and usage.
While doing a little cursory searching I found an interesting site that has some detailed information on OoB for US infantry divisions during WWII.
https://history.army.mil/documents/ETO-OB/ETOOB-TOC.htm
I admit I was searching for hard proof of interesting assets and discovered that 1st ID had a battery of 155mm howitzers (M114/M1) - not long Tom's but would still be interested in seeing them in game (both BRO ((in MP)) && the M114)
As things stand presently I feel like the American "king of battle" is under represented - the Germans have more and better options which doesn't quite fit with my understanding of American artillery in WWII. I could be mistaken but I was under the impression we shot an order of magnitude more shells than the Germans.
von Luck
https://history.army.mil/documents/ETO-OB/ETOOB-TOC.htm
I admit I was searching for hard proof of interesting assets and discovered that 1st ID had a battery of 155mm howitzers (M114/M1) - not long Tom's but would still be interested in seeing them in game (both BRO ((in MP)) && the M114
)As things stand presently I feel like the American "king of battle" is under represented - the Germans have more and better options which doesn't quite fit with my understanding of American artillery in WWII. I could be mistaken but I was under the impression we shot an order of magnitude more shells than the Germans.
von Luck
Last edited:
Long Toms were typically a corps-level asset (as they were long range guns, not howitzers). Same with 4.5-inch guns, 8-inch (203mm) and 240mm howitzers. The way artillery works, especially corps-level assets, are they are assigned to support a unit, but aren't administratively or operationally controlled by a unit. In other words, a division can use someone else's guns if those guns are available, but they can't tell the guns where to go or what to do, nor do they have to process administrative paperwork for that asset. Plus, for the most part, an any American artillery observer or even trained leader with a radio is theoretically able to call any artillery - the forward observer describes a target and it's up to the relevant fire direction center (typically at the battalion level, but sometimes the divisional artillery commander level - though this was often just a rubber stamp) to assign guns to kill that target.
Some good basic info comparing US and German artillery here: https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german-field-artillery-in-world-war-ii-a-comparison/
That said, I believe divisions are composed of units that are available to divisions, not necessarily organic. 4.2" mortars were not organic to American divisions (they were separate battalions of the Chemical Corps) yet they're included with the only American leg infantry division we have. I'd love to see a battery of Long Toms on my SD battlefield. Something nice to schwack those stupid long-range German guns and might make a fun antitank gun in the right circumstances...
Some good basic info comparing US and German artillery here: https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german-field-artillery-in-world-war-ii-a-comparison/
That said, I believe divisions are composed of units that are available to divisions, not necessarily organic. 4.2" mortars were not organic to American divisions (they were separate battalions of the Chemical Corps) yet they're included with the only American leg infantry division we have. I'd love to see a battery of Long Toms on my SD battlefield. Something nice to schwack those stupid long-range German guns and might make a fun antitank gun in the right circumstances...
As an aside, it might be interesting to provide and artillery forward observer unit for the Americans (and maybe French?) capable of doing a Time On Target offmap barrage. Maybe give it a bit of a longer lead time (30+ seconds to call for fire? 45?) but have all the ordnance fall at the same time (give or take a couple of seconds) rather than whatever the duration of the barrage is now.
Matt, have y'all ever tested something like that?
Matt, have y'all ever tested something like that?
My chief interest in long Tom's is to provide something other than 105mm support to American infantry divisions. The M114 is a valid option that would satisfy that need and was an organic asset that seems to have been common.
As for differences in American artillery use vs German artillery use that honestly matters less to me - the Americans had the best system for calling support in the war. Barring some odd KG shenanigans I doubt the Germans would have had access to nearly the quantity nor consistancy of artillery that the Americans brought to bear.
Yet in SD44 we are treated to a wide variety of German artillery options (which is both realistic and fine) but the key limitations of German artillery isn't really present. For every round the German guns put down range the Americans could double, triple, or often quadruple. However in SD44 the Germans have superior artillery options to the point one might be fooled into thinking the Germans had a vast advantage in indirect when the opposite was true.
I'm not looking for games where artillery is spammed but I would like it to feel like the American infantry divisions can bring the steel rain in a way only America could do.
So sure - maybe long Tom's aren't the answer but I am keenly interested in seeing somthing to help realize the difference in firepower when it comes to the "king of battle".
von Luck
Last edited:
Yeah, I getcha. I said I'd love Long Toms too. A common complaint I see about artillery, though, is that it is all too often spammed - and indeed, artillery is often a balance "problem" in nearly every other WWII tactical game I've played. The Combat Mission series, often cited as one of the grognardiest of tactical games, makes the artillery expensive, more difficult to use than it should be (God help you if you try to aim a single pixel deep into those woods!), and very limited ammo.
Maybe a solution is to make the offmap artillery more useful? Give it more than three uses per OP/FO or increase its useful range or area of effect and/or increase its 'cool down'? I *never* use off-map artillery now. I find on-map artillery to be generally more useful for my purposes, and a card of 3x M7 Priests is worth far more to me than a single 155mm M4 OP. Do others use the OPs? I get the AI using them occasionally in skirmishes, often with mixed results.
Maybe a solution is to make the offmap artillery more useful? Give it more than three uses per OP/FO or increase its useful range or area of effect and/or increase its 'cool down'? I *never* use off-map artillery now. I find on-map artillery to be generally more useful for my purposes, and a card of 3x M7 Priests is worth far more to me than a single 155mm M4 OP. Do others use the OPs? I get the AI using them occasionally in skirmishes, often with mixed results.
The M114 is a 155mm howitzer not a long tom btw .
.jpg)
As an added bonus the M114 appears to have been relatively common as I have seen it in the OoB for 1st ID and 3rd ID(the only two divs I have looked at so far).
The Combat Mission games portrayed artillery calls very effectively aka if your Russian you either use it as a preparatory tool or wait 30 minutes for your spotter to call up the Russian command structure to use that corps level 122mm arty Germans had it slightly better around 8-10 minutes with a TRP and American arty was on point at 10 minutes without the TRP and like 5 minutes with the TRP.
Anyways I agree balance needs to be adhered to however as things stand now I feel as though it's not telling the whole story. From where I stand I see room for improvement
von Luck
.
The Combat Mission games portrayed artillery calls very effectively aka if your Russian you either use it as a preparatory tool or wait 30 minutes for your spotter to call up the Russian command structure to use that corps level 122mm arty
Germans had it slightly better around 8-10 minutes with a TRP and American arty was on point at 10 minutes without the TRP and like 5 minutes with the TRP.Anyways I agree balance needs to be adhered to however as things stand now I feel as though it's not telling the whole story. From where I stand I see room for improvement
von Luck
Last edited:
Heh, I'm writing a book on the US Army in the Cold War. I know the difference between an M1/M59 155mm Long Tom and an M1/M114 howitzer. I'd like to have both in-game, but especially the Long Tom. Hell, I'd love an M1/M115 8-inch howitzer on-map too.
Oh good - you kept coming back to the long tom so I wasn't sure
I do share your sentiment though. On map assets are nice to have and provide good flexibility and variety to US forces. On map long tom is preferable to spotters because the barrage is relatively unimpressive - unless its carried on an aggressively priced platform ala an M4 I don't see a tremendous amount of value. The long tom was frequently used as a counter battery asset because of it's good range - as the game is presently that's very difficult to realize.
We'll see what's next but I hope my concerns have been noted. While I realize the desire/need to keep this game focused on the tactical aspects as opposed to strategic I also hope a good middle ground can be found in regards to realistic use of assets.
von Luck
I do share your sentiment though. On map assets are nice to have and provide good flexibility and variety to US forces. On map long tom is preferable to spotters because the barrage is relatively unimpressive - unless its carried on an aggressively priced platform ala an M4 I don't see a tremendous amount of value. The long tom was frequently used as a counter battery asset because of it's good range - as the game is presently that's very difficult to realize.
We'll see what's next but I hope my concerns have been noted. While I realize the desire/need to keep this game focused on the tactical aspects as opposed to strategic I also hope a good middle ground can be found in regards to realistic use of assets.
von Luck
Last edited: