Poll about my USMC OOB rebuild project

[Suhiir]

I'd like to tap the collective wisdom and experience of the community on a question concerning formations.

For most of the last year I've been modifying OOB #13 (USMC) to more "accurately" reflect the USMC combat TO&E, as opposed to the current administrative one.

One of the biggest steps is to allocate support weapons to the platoons and companies. Because unlike the US Army the USMC "on paper" organization is very much an administrative and training matter and does not even remotely reflect their combat TO&E.
Example - Each Rifle Company has a Weapons Platoon that has 60mm mortars, machineguns, and light anti-tank weapons.
On paper this is a separate platoon within the company but never, ever, is it deployed as a combat unit. The mortars are retained at company level as general support and the rest are allocated out to the platoons.
This also applies to the Battalion Weapons Company and a good many of the separate anti-tank, anti-air, etc battalions that exist in a division.

The problem is currently in SPMBT you can't buy one or two of many weapon systems, you have to buy a platoon or company worth. This makes it very difficult to create "real" combat formations.

Now - finally - to my question.

I'm looking at creating probably five (5) formation types for the Rifle Company.
1) Standard "Game Organization" Infantry
2) "Real" organization Infantry (to be used mostly by scenario builders).
3) Bare bones, no support weapons Infantry (for the most part the currently used formations)
4) Motorized "Game" Infantry
5) Mechanized "Game" Infantry

Should I create "Real" instead of "Game" Motorized and Mechanized formations ?
Or should I also create "Real" Motorized and Mechanized formations in addition to the "Game" ones, giving seven (7) formation types ?

**********************************************
Note: Some words used are in quotes (") because they represent my personal opinion. The comments here are in no way to be taken as a criticism of the game design.
**********************************************

[thatguy96]

I'd say since formation space is relatively open in most OOBs, including the USMC one to just go ahead and create all seven. If you've created five, there should be a lot of "copy and paste" potential so the amount of work doesn't seem like prohibitive. You can then go and redo the picklist and decide whether the AI should use "game" or "real" formations, and perhaps even create two separate picklists for people to choose from.

I'm always for more rather than less hehe.

[KraMax]

thatguy96 said:
I'd say since formation space is relatively open in most OOBs, including the USMC one to just go ahead and create all seven. If you've created five, there should be a lot of "copy and paste" potential so the amount of work doesn't seem like prohibitive. You can then go and redo the picklist and decide whether the AI should use "game" or "real" formations, and perhaps even create two separate picklists for people to choose from.

I'm always for more rather than less hehe.

Absolutely with you it agree.

[Suhiir]

Yeah, it's pretty much cut and paste once the initial work is done so the amount of "work" isn't really an issue.

As to the picklists . . .
That's my next "fun" project.

But, before I even start on those I intend to release the new OOB here to let folks take a look at what I've done and laugh at the inevitable half dozen stupid errors and suggest modifications/corrections.

[whdonnelly]

I have to say that I lean towards the real formations. It saves us non-experts the effort of duplicating your research, and makes campaigns easier to create, with a historical feel.

Will

[TLAM_Strike]

Ooorah!

Good to see someone is working on the Marine OOB.

Adding a more realistic structure to the companies would be greatly appreacated, especally as you stated putting the MG units in the indiviual platoons rather than as their own platoon with the mortar. Having just played the 11th MEU campagin that was one of my major gripes about the company formation, every game I had my MG units spread out 1 with each infantry platoon and rallying became a problem at times.

Might I also suggest that the M4 Carbine become more prevelent in the USMC units. Scouts, company leader squads, FOOs, and Force Recon type units should have M4 sprinkled in. The M4 might need to have its range increased slightly since the verson I saw used in the US Army MP units seemed a little on the low side. (I think 7 hexes is about right, just 1 hex under the range of the M16s.)

Also the SEAL units that are bunched in with the Marines need some attention. SEAL units should include satchel charges and other demo gear (Like the SAS units in the UK oob). After all sabotage and demolitions is one of the major missions of the teams. Durrign Vietnam captured AK47s, SKS (commonly PRC Type 56s) carbines. The AK47s and SKSs were used as sterile weapons by the teams, in fact US companies started producing 7.62x39mm ammo. Supplement M1 SMG with the CAR-15 and Command Colt in 66-67. H&R T 223 and M14s could also be found. For their machine guns M249s were also used along with HK21A1 (Seal Team 6 liked these). 308-1 Napalm Grenades and AN-M14 TH3 Thermate incendiaries, and we can�t forget the Claymore mine. It also might be worth looking at giving them a minelet weapon to simulate planting booby traps (Tripwires, C-4 packed flashlights or my favorite AK rounds packed with explosives). If the AI is set not to pick the SEAL units and players remember to turn off the minelayer weapon it wouldn�t be a major problem.