Official SEOW

Hi all,

I would like to propose a more elaborate way of using infantry in SEOW with regard to the different levels of entrenchment, ie. defensive capability.

Current state:

The infantry which is left unmoved in the planning phase spawns as entrenched infantry in the mission. They spawn in platoons of 4 squads (if the platoon is at full strength) and are arrayed in a star pattern with the AT section in the center and the whole formation spans 400m by 200m. The entrenched infantry objects are very tough to kill from the air and extremely hard to spot. They can be destroyed by a human pilot only by strafing and using rockets. Bombs can also be employed but only from a very low altitude nearly horizontal flight. No dive or level bombing is possible. Frequently, the pilot can't see the infantry until it is too late to drop a bomb even from low level. The frontlines formed with these units is effectively invisible from the air. Even if these units are spotted by a low flying spotter plane or a drivable jeep, again higher altitude attacks or massive bomb attacks are ineffective due to very large spacing of the individual squads.

Against other ground these entrenched infantry are a formidable opponent. Tanks charging directly into such a defensive position can take heavy casualties. For the moment attacking these positions with moving infantry doesn't work due to some changes in HSFX6, but this will be addressed in HSFX7. When it will be working again, it will take at least a 3 to 1 advantage in numbers of the attacking infantry to destroy an entrenched position.

So the entrenched infantry is a very nice defensive unit which can even stand ground on its own, and has a capacity to kill even a largest tank at short range. This is fine, but it is a bit of an overkill when all a planner has to do is leave a squad of infantry unattended and this squad will transform automatically into a very capable defensive unit.

Proposed changes:

1. The infantry left unmoved in the planning phase should spawn as static infantry (standing and firing).

They should use the same spacing and formation as currently used described above. They will still be very hard to spot from the air but are more easily destroyed when spotted because they are much more vulnerable to strafing. This infantry would be much more vulnerable to advancing enemy units, especially tanks. Against assaulting infantry they would have slight advantage in 1 to 1 engagements, since their accuracy is better because of being stationary.

2. An infantry platoon must be ordered to "dig in" in the planning phase, in order for it to be spawned as entrenched infantry with significant defensive bonuses that accompany this type of object.This process should be delayed by at least 1 turn (mission) if not more, and the best way would be to put in a slider in the SEDCS selecting the "digging in delay". While in the process of entrenching, the infantry platoon would be present in the mission in the static standing infantry mode as described above.

This would complicate the deployment of entrenched infantry. It would force the planner to use them only as a true defensive force, with carefully planned (ahead) times and locations for such deployments. It would render impossible such actions as dropping paras onto the runway in one mission, then having these paras appear as entrenched infantry smack in the middle of the airfield immediately in the next mission, without giving any chance for the opposing side to react or prevent this.

3. An optional feature accompanying entrenched infantry would be to automatically spawn a trench system connecting the individual squads, which would work as the automatic "artillery emplacements option".

The main effect of this feature would be to render entrenched infantry more visible from the air and thus creating a much better illusion of a front line. This trench system would make the squads be much less spread out, and much more observable from the air. The formation in this case would be 100m by 50m for a platoon of 4 squads. This distance is still enough so that they can't be all killed by a single 500kg bomb (2 at best depending on the shape of the formation), but they would be much more susceptible to dive bombing and even level bombing attacks.

4. Another possible feature would be to include a selection of entrenched infantry platoon role/formation.

As the commander orders infantry to dig in, he would be able to choose a formation for an optimal defense against an expected type of attack by the opposite side. For example, a platoon of 4 squads of infantry can be selected to take an AT formation which would trigger a certain trench shape and arrangement of the platoon. It would also trigger a conversion of 2 squads to AT section entrenched objects while the other 2 would normally spawn as inf. section entrenched objects. Another option would be an AI (anti infantry) formation where 1 squad of infantry would convert into a 360deg firing MG42, while the other 3 squads would be the normal inf. section entrenched objects without AT capability. A third option and formation would be a mixed formation where the platoon would appear as it appears now, ie. 3 squads of inf. section e. + 1 squad of AT section e. This would give the opportunity to the commander to have slight bonuses vs expected attacking units. It would be nice to use this especially if the battle line consists of many infantry platoons, each of which could be assigned a more specialized role if needed.

Concerns and possible mod alterations

The main concerns are server load due to additional static objects (trenches) and the distancing of infantry squads. The current proposal you can see in the images below puts about 6 static objects per 1 platoon of 4 infantry squads. That means that for 400 infantry squads in a template, we will have 100 platoons and if all of them are entrenched at the same time, this will produce 600 static objects in addition.

Another issue is an mg42. It is too vulnerable, so it may need a beef up of armor to the same or similar value as entrenched inf. objects. This can be solved by editing technics. In HSFX7 this object will rotate 360deg so this will work out fine for an AI defensive position.

I have asked Charlie if we could have a longer trench object which could be used to space infantry further or if we are happy with this spacing to just reduce the number of auto generated objects.

Let me know what all of you think and if someone is willing to test and check how this works, I can put a link for a mission in FMB I built with correct formations, so that you can test their performance and visibility.

Great ideas!

Yes, good ideas. I remember the Uranus campaign where infantry had a real importance. This was a good thing in a SEOW campaign. But they were too strong and so difficult to remove ^^ Using your ideas above, this could approach the war reality . Additionnaly, if it could be possible, modify the object to be more visible could be great.

Great ideas, indeed.


I would like to see, some day, a selectable stationary pattern for multiple units platoons. The star pattern sometimes is why a tank destroys his platoon mate when opening fire as static weapon, as you all know.
I see completely reasonable that a new deployed infantry unit appears standing as digging trenches usually takes a long time. But a hole doesnt much and I think it is what the entrenched infantry tries to represent. Standing infantry are weak when exposed to artilery. A 150 mm battery firing by sight has a good range, even if the recently deployed infantry is hidden into a forest, the guns will shell them for the whole mission and from the first second after the start, wich is not too realistic without proper intel, IMHO. So getting entrenched infantry is how the soldiers look for a shelter once they hear the incoming shells or they just step down from the trucks n the frontline.
I agree in the delay for building a trench string, once a certain number of infantry units are within a range; like the TF formation, you could be able to select the infantry units to link the trench among. And you can speed up the trench formation if you include a bulldozer in a standard radius range...
I agree on the 360 degree turning machinegun and would like to include the 35 & 45 mm ATguns as they were light enough to be turned around manually by the gunners.

I really like the idea of having to order entrenchment as it would take a long time to actually dig a fortification and you would get one mission without them being protected. In defense of the current system our studies on the effectiveness of artillery showed that very few entrenched infantry were actually killed by barrages and the main effect was on morale and movement.

Loon wrote: The star pattern sometimes is why a tank destroys his platoon mate when opening fire as static weapon, as you all know.

I didn't really look into static tanks, but in PQ16 I am intentionally using platoons of 3 for my tanks, because that box of 4 is just asking for friendly fire casualties. Of course, my Tigers are always in a platoon of 1, I am not taking any chances there!

Loon wrote:
I see completely reasonable that a new deployed infantry unit appears standing as digging trenches usually takes a long time. But a hole doesnt much and I think it is what the entrenched infantry tries to represent.
Standing infantry are weak when exposed to artilery. A 150 mm battery firing by sight has a good range, even if the recently deployed infantry is hidden into a forest, the guns will shell them for the whole mission and from the first second after the start, wich is not too realistic without proper intel, IMHO. So getting entrenched infantry is how the soldiers look for a shelter once they hear the incoming shells or they just step down from the trucks n the frontline.

This depends a lot on how you understand the abstraction of infantry actions in IL2/SEOW. As you can see from the images above, a very heavy bomb falling 10-20m from a dug in infantry doesn't do any damage. I'd say that a simple personal shallow hole you would be able to dig out for yourself in 10 minutes would not offer such a level of protection. You would have to make something much more elaborate, and the time to do it would heavily depend on the terrain.

You can just as easily imagine standing infantry as crouching or infantry prone behind a few feet of dirt they dug out. The effect of artillery on such a unit would be devastating in a real battle. It might be devastating in SEOW as well, I don't know, but in which event would you suffer arty fire on static infantry? If your infantry is behind the front, they will have enough time to dig in before the enemy can bring his arty. If the infantry is at the front, then you can easily close the distance in one turn between the arty max range and infantry; you will not just stand there letting enemy barrage you. In addition you can always re-deploy your static infantry before the beginning of a mission based on intel you have about the enemy arty which might be in range. Right now you can also re-deploy a dug in position which is totally unrealistic when you take into account the level of protection they offer.

Here is a nice link (it has some problems loading images for me, but they are clickable):

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref ... -10-I.html

They say here that a standing foxhole (something like what we have) would be dug out if a unit is supposed to remain 6h and more at a given position!

As for the trenches in my idea, it would serve only to identify an elaborate defensive position more easily from the air. Perhaps it is not entirely realistic in WW2 except in some cases of a very elaborate defenses characteristic of stalemate situations (Tobruk, Italy, Crimea, etc.) and right now, large numbers of dug in infantry tend to create such prolonged fights. But bare in mind that many other times prolonged fights have been occurring around some built-up areas like small villages or some isolated structures where infantry wasn't dug in but was using the structures as strongholds. In this case the structures are the landmark for aerial bombardment. Currently, you can put a squad of dug in infantry in a village, and no matter how much you bomb the village from the air, most likely you will not cause much damage to the them because they will be in holes. You do agree that you would not build foxholes in a village, or inside a house?

Standing static infantry placed in a village will be hard to spot, but if you bombed the village you will cause casualties. Which is much more realistic in my view. And if you want to dig in for extra protection, then your forces should be penalized by being closer together and slightly more visible.

I like the entrenchment delay as well.
Not a big fan of having them stand up in the open as stated in point 1 but there is no mid way of doing it in IL2 ie. lying down or finding cover behind trees etc.

The dig in delay is more realistic to obtain an entrenched position.

I also like the larger trench structures.

If used though I would like to see them as persistant in the campaign as they could then be reoccupied by either side and captured and occupied immediately from the enemy.

I'm not sure as to the changing roles within a platoon and its formation. I would think that what the platoon is composed of is all you should have and this should not vary. This is in keeping with battelfield integrity and what comes onto the filed is what stays on the field. Thats not to say I don't like the different roles and formations I thinks its a great option, its just that if you want AT guys in X position and MG guy in Y then you already have them in your forces and move them there and that no one changes weapons mid battle when changing line formation.

This all may add up to static object blowout but with systems being better, it just needs testing to find campaign limits and maybe set limits elsewhere to accomodate it.

Hi Hawk5,

just a short reply about the MG42: some infantry platoons have an LMG squad (like pz. grens), but the dug in rifle sections don't have that capability. So, effectively you lose chain fire when you dig in. I think it should be the other way around; you are certainly more likely to use chain fire when you have a stable support for your weapon than when you are on the move. Since we don't have dug in rifle and automatic weapons section as different objects, Mg42 is the only solution I could think about.

About AT; many soldiers can carry a panzer faust, or there will be a couple of bazookas in an infantry unit. When you move you only have 1 due to the way it is built into the engine. But it is not far off imagining that you can deploy more heavy weapons if you want when you are stationary.

In combat, soldiers would take a weapon that is needed at a certain moment, so if tanks appear all of the foxholes might use their panzer fausts or sticky bombs or whatever. In our engine it doesn't work that way: you are sentenced to only one AT squad. So why not put in a gamble and make the commander have a bit more options, to offset the fact that you can't have a dual capability for your troops in IL2?

I wouldn't include an AT gun for reasons you speak of. You can place one nearby and if you have automatic arty emplacements it would fit in quite nicely with the dug in infantry.

Perfect.
If I might, I just say I mainly agree on your ideas. I use infantry for other purposes and, to me, fits also the way it works right now. I do like the trenches string and also agree some times the infantry should stay standing, but they stay standing when walking and sometimes they walk straight to death, which is also unrealistic to me.
Perhaps they can stay standing for the disembarking delay time and after that, be entrenched.

I guess if we are able to set a disembarkation delay to be the same as entrenchment delay, you would have standing infantry dig in without additional delay. This would be fine with me.

Anyway, both the entrenchment delay and automatic trenches should be made as an option. So we could always choose to play it as it is now by setting delay to 0 and disabling trenches. I am definitely not in favor of reducing the options we have, just adding more useful ones as much as it is possible and acceptable for Mike.

Cheers!

As I stated earlier our research for indirect fire indicated that an artillery shell needed to land within a meter of a trench in order to inflict causalities. As for bombing their are many examples of heavy bombing in which the main effect was to produce rubble for the enemy to hide in while the craters and bombed structure impeded the movement of friendly troops and armor. If we focus to heavily on the destruction of entrenched troops we miss the important effect of bombing and artillery which is that it makes movement and supply nearly impossible and destroyed morale. The problem in game is that a small entrenched force can occupy a location for long periods of time in situations where that seems unrealistic such as when paratroopers are dropped behind your lines. SEOW compensates for that by using the supply as well as the command and control calculations. As I can think of very few cases where close air support for troops assaulting entrenched positions was effective I believe we our exaggerating the problem. A one mission delay in entrenchment would be easy to implement and addresses most of th issues. As far as being able to spot entrenched forces in most cases it is already easier in game than it would have been. An increase in the speed with which overran and encircled entrenched forces surrender could address some of the issues but creates new ones.

Most of the problems we face our a result of the proportionate representation of forces compounded by an accelerated time scale. The game engine functions in real time where one hour is equal to one hour of movement and ground and air units interact on a one to one ratio. SEOW tries to represent extended periods of operations in a few hours of flying and a few ground forces are representative of thousands of troops, armor and supply columns. A campaign designer needs to take into consideration how to best script the campaign so as to maintain the proper atmosphere while providing realistic overall objectives. As it relates to entrenched forces the disconnect between the representation of combat in the SEOW engine and the Game engine is at it's worse when there is not enough time in game to bypass or starve entrenched infantry. The option of running hundreds of missions for a single campaign is not appealing although it would solve the time disconnect problem. The issue of representative numbers cannot be addressed in any way as it is not practical nor desirable to plan thousands of movements. The rules that the campaign designer establishes for the campaign remain the best way to address these issues. Planners must agree to realistically deploy their forces and not "game" the SEOW engine as we so often see. Finding an opponent with the same attitude and expectations will always be a key factor in the enjoyment of a campaign. If we have the option to entrench or not entrench then it is simply a matter of agreeing on the rules. For example in one mission paratroopers may be allowed to be entrenched but you may agree they should not in another.

The "proper" way to run a campaign or design a campaign engine is to create an atmosphere where everyone has fun, winning or losing or even how realistic the campaign is should always be a secondary consideration.