Why won't Militia throw explosive charges?

[PoorOldSpike]

Look, my Russian Militia unit in the house hasn't been in combat yet and is fresh and fullstrength (5) with maximum morale (75), plenty of available shots and has an explosive charge.
A Stug trundles up, but when I order the Militia to attack it, the only option that comes up is the 'Assault" option at suicidal 10% odds!
But they're quite happy to throw their charge at trucks and light AA wagons etc, it's only armoured units that they won't throw at.

[Paul59]

Strange, I can confirm that this happens for me too, but do not know why.

[Paul59]

Okay, a few test scenarios have enabled me to track down this mystery.

The reason why the Militia cannot fire at an Armoured Target is that they have not been given grenades (column AJ) in the Squads.csv file. They have AP Charges, that is why you see the AP icon on their unit card, but no grenades! They are the only unit in the game that has AP charges, but no grenades. This maybe intentional, I don't know what the designers thoughts were on this.

[PoorOldSpike]

The reason why the Militia cannot fire at an Armoured Target is that they have not been given grenades (column AJ) in the Squads.csv file. They have AP Charges, that is why you see the AP icon on their unit card, but no grenades! They are the only unit in the game that has AP charges, but no grenades. This maybe intentional, I don't know what the designers thoughts were on this.

A possible clue is that historically Militia were not regular troops so might have been issued only with a weaker-type of AP charge which was effective only against non-armoured vehicles (as I've seen happen during gameplay).
The Militia stats below might offer a clue but at the moment I can't see one, and in fact some stats seem to muddy the waters even more; for example what on earth does 'AP Attack 15-72' mean?

[Paul59]

The reason why the Militia cannot fire at an Armoured Target is that they have not been given grenades (column AJ) in the Squads.csv file. They have AP Charges, that is why you see the AP icon on their unit card, but no grenades! They are the only unit in the game that has AP charges, but no grenades. This maybe intentional, I don't know what the designers thoughts were on this.

A possible clue is that historically Militia were not regular troops so might have been issued only with a weaker-type of AP charge which was effective only against non-armoured vehicles (as I've seen happen during gameplay).
The Militia stats below might offer a clue but at the moment I can't see one, and in fact some stats seem to muddy the waters even more; for example what on earth does 'AP Attack 15-72' mean?

I really don't know if this is intentional, or an error. Interestingly the Soviet Partisans, another poorly equipped unit, have no AP Charges but do have grenades, and they cannot assault or shoot at armoured targets. I don't know why there would be a difference in equipment and/or training/experience that would justify a difference between the two units.

I always assumed that the infantry's ability to fire at adjacent armoured targets reflected any close range anti armour weapons that they may have in the squad; grenades, molotov cocktails, rifle grenades, improvised bundles of grenades, dog mines (!), panzerfausts (for late war Germans) etc. I don't see why the Militia would not have some of these weapons (but not the Panzerfausts obviously!).

The values that you see "in game" on the unit card are the same values that are entered in the Squads.csv file. The AP Attack values, I believe, are the minimum and maximum attack values against an armoured target that the game uses to determine the result of an attack. I do not know how these values are derived.

There is a Master_Squads spreadsheet in the games Data folder. It seems to be some sort of working sheet, which the designers have used to determine unit values. There is a tab in that which details a comprehensive list of weapons and their data, it includes the AP Attack values, but confusingly they are different to the values that are actually used in game. I only discovered this Master_Squads spreadsheet a couple of days ago, and have not got my head around it yet, so maybe there is more to be learned from it.

[Fluffi]

This is actually also the case with the British Home Guard squads in the Operation Sealion campaign from the first game. Like Soviet Militia, the Home Guard only had 1 AP charge (but no AT Grenades) and typically only used that charge to assault weak-armored vehicles. Similarly, they have rather low morale (70 as opposed to 75 or 100 I believe) and can have up to three expendable attacks when elite (4 if we count the arbitrary reaction fire). Unlike Militia though, the Home Guard have 1 extra man, making it the only official squad in the entire franchise to have a unit size of six men as opposed to five. The way I see it, the Soviet Militia were given similar values that the Home Guard had, but were given more morale and the squad size was reduced to 5 instead of 6.

Also, for whatever reason, the British Sticky bomber from Sea Lion, despite being an infantry unit, has the "clear wreck" action/effect given to it as if it were a vehicle. I presume this is a bug, but historically I'd assume a sticky bomb would still be dangerous regardless of whether the person still has it primed or not.

[Eagletanker]

The reason why the Militia cannot fire at an Armoured Target is that they have not been given grenades (column AJ) in the Squads.csv file. They have AP Charges, that is why you see the AP icon on their unit card, but no grenades! They are the only unit in the game that has AP charges, but no grenades. This maybe intentional, I don't know what the designers thoughts were on this.

A possible clue is that historically Militia were not regular troops so might have been issued only with a weaker-type of AP charge which was effective only against non-armoured vehicles (as I've seen happen during gameplay).
The Militia stats below might offer a clue but at the moment I can't see one, and in fact some stats seem to muddy the waters even more; for example what on earth does 'AP Attack 15-72' mean?

I really don't know if this is intentional, or an error. Interestingly the Soviet Partisans, another poorly equipped unit, have no AP Charges but do have grenades, and they cannot assault or shoot at armoured targets. I don't know why there would be a difference in equipment and/or training/experience that would justify a difference between the two units.

I always assumed that the infantry's ability to fire at adjacent armoured targets reflected any close range anti armour weapons that they may have in the squad; grenades, molotov cocktails, rifle grenades, improvised bundles of grenades, dog mines (!), panzerfausts (for late war Germans) etc. I don't see why the Militia would not have some of these weapons (but not the Panzerfausts obviously!).

I hope I can offer some historical insight on this. Regarding the partisan units not having a AT weapons, I found this passage from the Partisans Companion.

Destroy enemy tanks with hand grenades by throwing them from 25-30 meters distance. The best choice is an anti-tank grenade. Throw it from behind a shelter. Aim at the tracks, drive sprockets, engine hatch cover or top of the turret. If you do not have an anti-tank grenade – throw several grenades (anti-personnel) bundled together beforehand. Make a bundle in this manner. Tie five armed grenades that are on a safe mode together with a strong twine (wire, cable): four grenades should have the handles pointed in the same direction and the fifth – with the handle in opposite direction)

The training manual explains other ways to fight German armour, mainly by using AT rifles and mines. They also have passages on how to make AT barriers and how to assault tanks in CQC. As for the militia, it’s probably representing opolchentsky. These were volunteers who were given weapons that the army could spare, and sent to help defend the roads from Smolensk to Moscow. They were later merged with the red army and given actual training and better equipment. They preformed better than expected. For AT weaponry, they had some homemade bombs and Molotovs if they knew how to make them.

Sources:
Ivan’s war by Catherine Merridale
Third edition of the Partisans Companion

[Paul59]

A possible clue is that historically Militia were not regular troops so might have been issued only with a weaker-type of AP charge which was effective only against non-armoured vehicles (as I've seen happen during gameplay).
The Militia stats below might offer a clue but at the moment I can't see one, and in fact some stats seem to muddy the waters even more; for example what on earth does 'AP Attack 15-72' mean?

I really don't know if this is intentional, or an error. Interestingly the Soviet Partisans, another poorly equipped unit, have no AP Charges but do have grenades, and they cannot assault or shoot at armoured targets. I don't know why there would be a difference in equipment and/or training/experience that would justify a difference between the two units.

I always assumed that the infantry's ability to fire at adjacent armoured targets reflected any close range anti armour weapons that they may have in the squad; grenades, molotov cocktails, rifle grenades, improvised bundles of grenades, dog mines (!), panzerfausts (for late war Germans) etc. I don't see why the Militia would not have some of these weapons (but not the Panzerfausts obviously!).

I hope I can offer some historical insight on this. Regarding the partisan units not having a AT weapons, I found this passage from the Partisans Companion.

Destroy enemy tanks with hand grenades by throwing them from 25-30 meters distance. The best choice is an anti-tank grenade. Throw it from behind a shelter. Aim at the tracks, drive sprockets, engine hatch cover or top of the turret. If you do not have an anti-tank grenade – throw several grenades (anti-personnel) bundled together beforehand. Make a bundle in this manner. Tie five armed grenades that are on a safe mode together with a strong twine (wire, cable): four grenades should have the handles pointed in the same direction and the fifth – with the handle in opposite direction)

The training manual explains other ways to fight German armour, mainly by using AT rifles and mines. They also have passages on how to make AT barriers and how to assault tanks in CQC. As for the militia, it’s probably representing opolchentsky. These were volunteers who were given weapons that the army could spare, and sent to help defend the roads from Smolensk to Moscow. They were later merged with the red army and given actual training and better equipment. They preformed better than expected. For AT weaponry, they had some homemade bombs and Molotovs if they knew how to make them.

Sources:
Ivan’s war by Catherine Merridale
Third edition of the Partisans Companion

Yes of course, but how is that any different to a regular Soviet infantry squad? The only thing I can think of is that regular infantry may have had rifle grenade launchers, that would allow them to attack AFVs from a short distance, but I don't know how widely used rifle grenade launchers were in the Soviet army.

[Paul59]

Also, for whatever reason, the British Sticky bomber from Sea Lion, despite being an infantry unit, has the "clear wreck" action/effect given to it as if it were a vehicle. I presume this is a bug, but historically I'd assume a sticky bomb would still be dangerous regardless of whether the person still has it primed or not.

It might be a bug, or maybe the devs thought that the Sticky Bombers could use their bombs to clear wrecks?

[Fluffi]

Also, for whatever reason, the British Sticky bomber from Sea Lion, despite being an infantry unit, has the "clear wreck" action/effect given to it as if it were a vehicle. I presume this is a bug, but historically I'd assume a sticky bomb would still be dangerous regardless of whether the person still has it primed or not.

It might be a bug, or maybe the devs thought that the Sticky Bombers could use their bombs to clear wrecks?

I would have thought that, but it's when the sticky bomber dies that the "clear wreck" prompt is given to you for vehicles. Infantry can pass through without issue, but vehicles always end up having to use the "clear wreck" action to occupy the tile in which the sticky bomber dies.

[Paul59]

Also, for whatever reason, the British Sticky bomber from Sea Lion, despite being an infantry unit, has the "clear wreck" action/effect given to it as if it were a vehicle. I presume this is a bug, but historically I'd assume a sticky bomb would still be dangerous regardless of whether the person still has it primed or not.

It might be a bug, or maybe the devs thought that the Sticky Bombers could use their bombs to clear wrecks?

I would have thought that, but it's when the sticky bomber dies that the "clear wreck" prompt is given to you for vehicles. Infantry can pass through without issue, but vehicles always end up having to use the "clear wreck" action to occupy the tile in which the sticky bomber dies.

Oh, now I see what you mean, I had misunderstood what you originally wrote.

That definitely seems like a bug to me. I have found what is causing it, in the Sealion Squads.csv file the Sticky Bomber unit has a 1 in the IsVehicle column (column Z). So the game thinks it is a vehicle!

[Eagletanker]

Yes of course, but how is that any different to a regular Soviet infantry squad? The only thing I can think of is that regular infantry may have had rifle grenade launchers, that would allow them to attack AFVs from a short distance, but I don't know how widely used rifle grenade launchers were in the Soviet army.

The difference is in weaponry. Militia before incorporation into the red army were very lightly armed, and usually relying on molotovs and other improvised AT equipment that weren’t very effective against anything that wasn’t very light. This differed from the main red army troops, as they had the excellent PTRS/PTRD along with the VPGS rifle grenade (used in late 41 to 42) and later in the war had the RPG-43 and lend lease & captured AT launchers. Soviet partisans were much the same as they had the RPG 43 at times along with AT rifles. Partisans relied more on trying to prevent armour from reaching the battle rather than destroying it head on.

This translates to the game with the Militia only having AT charges and not grenades. These represent homemade bombs which can destroy anything that’s lighter than a Panzer. The Militia Molotov unit is the real AT firepower the Militia units have, as is historically accurate. Partisans are the opposite. The AT Grenades were usually bundled grenade heads around a single grenade and as such have AT grenades. Like with the militia, the real AT firepower is in the AT rifle unit, as is historically accurate. If you still got questions I will try to answer them.

[Paul59]

Yes of course, but how is that any different to a regular Soviet infantry squad? The only thing I can think of is that regular infantry may have had rifle grenade launchers, that would allow them to attack AFVs from a short distance, but I don't know how widely used rifle grenade launchers were in the Soviet army.

The difference is in weaponry. Militia before incorporation into the red army were very lightly armed, and usually relying on molotovs and other improvised AT equipment that weren’t very effective against anything that wasn’t very light. This differed from the main red army troops, as they had the excellent PTRS/PTRD along with the VPGS rifle grenade (used in late 41 to 42) and later in the war had the RPG-43 and lend lease & captured AT launchers. Soviet partisans were much the same as they had the RPG 43 at times along with AT rifles. Partisans relied more on trying to prevent armour from reaching the battle rather than destroying it head on.

This translates to the game with the Militia only having AT charges and not grenades. These represent homemade bombs which can destroy anything that’s lighter than a Panzer. The Militia Molotov unit is the real AT firepower the Militia units have, as is historically accurate. Partisans are the opposite. The AT Grenades were usually bundled grenade heads around a single grenade and as such have AT grenades. Like with the militia, the real AT firepower is in the AT rifle unit, as is historically accurate. If you still got questions I will try to answer them.

Thanks TankerOne, but that does not tell me anything I did not know already, it also does not explain why the Partisan squad in the game has NO AT ability.

In BA2 a regular Soviet Rifle squad can assault an AFV and also attack it from a range of one tile. A Militia squad can only assault an AFV, and the Partisan squad cannot attack AFVs at all. It is the reason for these differences that myself and PoorOldSpike are trying to understand.

I think we can safely assume that the range of a hand thrown AT grenade (such as the RPG-43) would be little different from the range of a Molotov cocktail, so I would guess that these types of weapons allow a squad to assault an AFV, along with any grenade bundles or grenades stuck into tracks/exhausts etc.

To attack at a range of one tile the squad would need something with a slightly longer range. I would assume that rifle grenades would fall into this category, along with Panzerfausts for the later German infantry types, note that there is no separate Panzerfaust unit in the game so these weapons must be integral to German infantry squads. So if regular Soviet Rifle squads had a rifle grenade launcher that would explain a ranged attack of one tile in the game.

AT Rifles (such as the Soviet PTRS/PTRD) are separate units in BA2, so we can assume that these are not weapons carried by the ordinary infantry squads.

I am happy that all this explains the Militias AT capabilities, but we are left with a problem explaining the Soviet Partisans. You said that they were equipped with more AT weapons than the Militia, and I would agree with that, but the BA2 Partisan squad has no AT ability at all. So it is looking like that may be a bug.


cheers

Paul

[Fluffi]

Yes of course, but how is that any different to a regular Soviet infantry squad? The only thing I can think of is that regular infantry may have had rifle grenade launchers, that would allow them to attack AFVs from a short distance, but I don't know how widely used rifle grenade launchers were in the Soviet army.

The difference is in weaponry. Militia before incorporation into the red army were very lightly armed, and usually relying on molotovs and other improvised AT equipment that weren’t very effective against anything that wasn’t very light. This differed from the main red army troops, as they had the excellent PTRS/PTRD along with the VPGS rifle grenade (used in late 41 to 42) and later in the war had the RPG-43 and lend lease & captured AT launchers. Soviet partisans were much the same as they had the RPG 43 at times along with AT rifles. Partisans relied more on trying to prevent armour from reaching the battle rather than destroying it head on.

This translates to the game with the Militia only having AT charges and not grenades. These represent homemade bombs which can destroy anything that’s lighter than a Panzer. The Militia Molotov unit is the real AT firepower the Militia units have, as is historically accurate. Partisans are the opposite. The AT Grenades were usually bundled grenade heads around a single grenade and as such have AT grenades. Like with the militia, the real AT firepower is in the AT rifle unit, as is historically accurate. If you still got questions I will try to answer them.

Thanks TankerOne, but that does not tell me anything I did not know already, it also does not explain why the Partisan squad in the game has NO AT ability.

In BA2 a regular Soviet Rifle squad can assault an AFV and also attack it from a range of one tile. A Militia squad can only assault an AFV, and the Partisan squad cannot attack AFVs at all. It is the reason for these differences that myself and PoorOldSpike are trying to understand.

I think we can safely assume that the range of a hand thrown AT grenade (such as the RPG-43) would be little different from the range of a Molotov cocktail, so I would guess that these types of weapons allow a squad to assault an AFV, along with any grenade bundles or grenades stuck into tracks/exhausts etc.

To attack at a range of one tile the squad would need something with a slightly longer range. I would assume that rifle grenades would fall into this category, along with Panzerfausts for the later German infantry types, note that there is no separate Panzerfaust unit in the game so these weapons must be integral to German infantry squads. So if regular Soviet Rifle squads had a rifle grenade launcher that would explain a ranged attack of one tile in the game.

AT Rifles (such as the Soviet PTRS/PTRD) are separate units in BA2, so we can assume that these are not weapons carried by the ordinary infantry squads.

I am happy that all this explains the Militias AT capabilities, but we are left with a problem explaining the Soviet Partisans. You said that they were equipped with more AT weapons than the Militia, and I would agree with that, but the BA2 Partisan squad has no AT ability at all. So it is looking like that may be a bug.


cheers

Paul

My best guess for the Partisans having NO AT capability would be that it is meant to differentiate a regular partisan unit from the Partisan Saboteur, who DO have AT charges (at least 2 I think). The way I see it, the standard partisan unit in-game would more or less represent a unit that did not have any Anti-tank capability either because they lacked the materials or proper training to use high-powered explosives, while partisan saboteurs are meant to represent the units that had the materials and experience needed to handle anti-tank weaponry without possibly getting themselves killed. Another way to look at it would be that the regular partisans' main role would be to hinder an enemy force as opposed to outright destroying them, whereas a Saboteur unit would be used somewhat as an ad-hoc sapper team that CAN take out a tank, but not with the same efficiency as that of a regular engineer team.

again, that's just my way of explaining it. It could very well be a bug, but personally I think it was done intentionally to give the players some gameplay variety.

[Paul59]

Yes, that seems like a reasonable explanation to me.