Slitherine

I think this was the reason I chose October 1943 - it is the month the Soviet IS-1 tank came out, the first tank of theirs that could match a Panther. In the game it's available from the 21/10/1943 so I think this is the date I will start the scenario from.

I'm making a small edit to the map. In play-testing I've found that one German unit can get by rail to a station in the Russian half of the map before a Soviet unit can get there. So I'm lengthening one of the rail routes by four hexes.

I was playing the scenario against the computer. Of course, nothing's scripted so the AI enemy were just sitting there. Anyway, the scenario ended after five turns. None of the scenario's victory conditions had been reached and the turn limit not reached so I'm wondering why the scenario ended. Any ideas?

the_iron_duke wrote:Just to be clear, the moisture level setting is best left at zero?

EDIT: Inputting a 0 turns the number red, which I guess is bad. Is it 5 then?

RE-EDIT: No, it's got to be 0 hasn't it.

Hello, I'm back , but I'm running out of answers for some of your questions, as I'm not a very experienced scenario builder, but I'll give it a shot. I'm not sure why you are getting the 'custom string' warning at this point.

I was playing the scenario against the computer. Of course, nothing's scripted so the AI enemy were just sitting there. Anyway, the scenario ended after five turns. None of the scenario's victory conditions had been reached and the turn limit not reached so I'm wondering why the scenario ended. Any ideas?

I do have an idea why your scenario ended: looking at your victory conditions, a victory will now trigger as soon as one player has 20 flags. You want to have this trigger checked only in the last turn. You have currently set the turn range to [1,-1], which means it will check from turn 1 through the last (-1) turn. Change this into [-1,-1], like in my earlier example, this means it will check on the last turn only. Just let me know if it is still giving trouble.

The 'Moisture Level [0,5]', I believe that means that the value has a typical range of 0-5 as used in the stock PzC scenarios.

So typical values are from 0 to 5, but others can be used. '0' means it is dry, basically, the higher the 'wetter' the ground is, which means it will take longer to dry. So if you want a certain scenario to have the first few turns muddy, set it to 10, and with dry weather is should turn dry in a few turns.

I'll have a look at your victory conditions later in more detail, but I'll answer some questions from memory as best as I can.

Turns:

The timescale I set at 100 turns basically as I want the game to end when a player has achieved the objective, namely pushing the opponent off the map. 100 turns I put as an arbitrary figure as I would expect the game to be done and dusted by then and 100 turns is a lot of PBEM rounds. I think having a lower set number of turns would risk the possibility of spoiling a good multiplayer game in full flow.

So these turn settings would be correct for 1 day/1 turn like the basic vanilla Panzer Corps campaign?

Days per turn: 1
Turns per day: 0

Yes, these are the correct settings.

I don't want to script any weather changes and want the season to be the same throughout the scenario.

As for the length and the weather, if you want a turn to last a day, the scenario might run well into december, I think people might be expecting worsening weather the further you get? It would be strange to see a date in late november and still have a lot of sunny weather. You can also set the 'turns per day' to something higher, for example, if you set it to 5, it will take 5 turns to make a day go by.

The date of October 1943 was chosen a bit arbitrarily due to it being roughly the time some units like Panthers and others were getting into circulation. Perhaps "late 1943" would be more accurate. I might make the start date 1st September - I will just need to check that all the units deployed are available to purchase at that date. As I wrote earlier, the aim is to create a balanced and replayable multiplayer game rather than specifically to recreate the Autumn/Winter 1943 Eastern Front conditions per se or even just the seasons in general!

You don't have to worry about the units being available, everything you put on the map can be used, even if it cannot be purchased yet. This is actually a good mechanism to give a player a 'future' unit, without the ability to purchase any more. So if you start somewhere in July, you can just place a JS-1 on the map with the editor, and it can be used and reinforced, but the player has to wait until 21.10.1943 to purchase additional ones. You can also use it to place captured units, like German T-34's, which are otherwise unavailable to buy.

Unit experience:

The default is 0. Any reason to change this?

If you want all newly bought units to have 0 stars, no. If you want freshly purchased troops to already have some experience (for example they represent reserves or transfers from another sector) than you can put in a realistic number here. 1 star = 100, 2 stars = 200, etc.

To add, you mention you want the players to use the forces as deployed, without extra core slots. But is the size of the core equal to the number of deployed units? Playing with these settings might simulate the effect you are trying to achieve. A few examples of what I'm trying to put forward:

Let's say you give a player 10 units, and the core size is 10. This means no extra units can be bought at the start, but as soon as one is detroyed a unit can be bought to replace it.

Let's say you give a player 10 units, and the core size is 12. This means two extra units can be bought right at the start, and destroyed units can be replaced.

If you give a player 10 units, and set the core size to 0, a player cannot buy extra units at the start, and if one of his deployed units is destroyed, he cannot buy another one.

If you give a player 10 units, and set the core size to 5, a player cannot buy extra units at the start, and if one of his deployed units is destroyed, he cannot buy a new one until he has lost 6 units, and from then on he can not have more than 5 units.

I gave these examples because I'm still not entirely sure on how you intend to deal with the tricky subject of replacing units. It's very easy to save up some prestige, sacrifice a damaged unit, and buy a new one instead. But instead, knowing you cannot replace everything you lose can really change how people play.

I really like your proposal of a house rule or gentleman's agreement, and the above doesn't have to be a problem, but let's just say I work a lot with rules and people who like to know how far they can go without technically breaking them, and I can foresee some situations which might cause problems. I don't want to critisize your way of dealing with these issues, you can make whatever you want, it's your game, your rules. But if you want to have house rules, I'm curious on how you will deal with some typical multiplayer issues which are borderline exploits but still fall within your replacement rule. So it might help to think of some good playing house rules, to prevent abuse.

A few examples:

1) a cheap (or damaged) unit is in a useless position (too far away from the front), and you have some prestige to spare. Well, disband it or suicide it on something close by, and repurchase it close to a spot where it will be useful (let's say a city which is threatened to be captured). Should a player repurchase a lost unit where he pleases? It will be very hard to check this, because of the fog of war.

2) the bait-and-switch: a unit is lost, let's say a sFH 150mm artillery. The player immediately upgrades an existing unit to the type of the lost one, say a LeFH 105mm to sFH 150mm artillery, which is a cheap upgrade. He saves some prestige and has effectively lost a cheaper and less effective unit. Similary with 37mm FlaK to 88mm FlaK. Will this be allowed?

3) you mentioned trains taking over cities too fast, how about air transports? Those paratroopers, on a big map, can take over a city, and a turn later it can be used to spawn troops from. It will be difficult to stop, and a player will have to garrison a lot of troops (although that is actually quite realistic!)

I'll try to answer your other questions later, although I'm afraid some things just need to be experimented with for the best results, like the prestige settings. And remember you can give each side different settings if you want to, which you can use to adjust the balance without having to rethink the army structures (which are nicely done, perhaps a touch heavy on the number mobile artillery and a bit light on AAA, but that is just my opinion).

Thanks, ThvN - you are providing some very good advice.

I'm liking the idea of a zero-limit core, with no unit purchases so if a unit's gone it's gone, and have decided to follow this path for the scenario.

So, next is the crucial prestige per turn value. I think it would be important to get the prestige per turn setting right for a 0-limit core game as if incoming prestige were too high then the idea of cautiously preserving units would become too much of an issue - slightly damaged units would be withdrawn from the front line for fear of losing them. So there is a balance to be found between too much prestige and too little prestige where the game doesn't last as long as it might.

If the armies are 13,000 points then to earn half those points (6,500) would take 26 turns at 250 points per turn (a couple of turns less with the captured flags windfall first time round). It would be 43 turns at 150 points per turn (three turns less for captured flags).

I'm not quite sure how long I expect the scenario to go on for - it could be a fast-paced clash where both sides charge at each other and there's heavy fighting all along the front until one army breaks. Or it could be a slower-paced strategic game with defensive strong points held and the seeking of exploiting enemy weak points. Perhaps it might be either against different players or in different games. So it will be best to pick a points per turn value that works for both these eventualities.

Then there is the weather issue. My aim is to try and create a sort of Panzer Corps version of chess. It's been slightly abstracted already in that the map is symmetrical (or reflected and inversed to be more precise) so both sides are facing exactly the same terrain. The combined arms nature of the historical divisional/corps structure is a bit like the various chess pieces with each having different strengths and weaknesses. My main gripe with the Panzer Corps game campaign is its emphasis on tanks which, as well as being ahistorical, reduces the tactical intrigue of considering how to best utilise a combined arms tool-kit.

The rapid military technological development that occured in the arms race during the war meant the dynamic relationships between the different sides' combined arms strengths and weaknesses were constantly changing. I have picked late 1943 as this particular scenario's tactical conundrum.

So my intention is for the the history to serve as a means to an end - as a guide for creating an interesting tactical multiplayer game - rather than an end in itself - that of historical recreation. I feel scripting weather changes would lean more towards historical recreation rather than the Panzer Corps chess I am trying to create. One fear I have of scripting more snow as the game progresses is that it I feel it will favour the side with more infantry, namely the Soviets.

I'm trying to think if there is a way around it by changing the day/turn relationship, but I would like the weather to change every turn rather than have several turns of the same weather. I would even probably do away with a date counter if I could for my abstract purposes.

--------

I've been looking through real panzer division composition lists. Although the composition is fairly standardized in the manner of the panzer division I have used for the scenario, there are occasionally variations. A couple include the additions of an assault gun battalion or a motorcycle battalion. Worth remembering when figuring out the points balance for future scenarios.

---------

I've also been wondering whether to include an extra attached unit for each side - a Soviet horse battalion and a German motorcycle battalion.

Since I am choosing to go down the zero-Core limit route and a destroyed recon cannot be replaced they would act as a back-up if one of the two recon units for each side was destroyed. Of course, they don't have a recon's stop-start movement feature but they each have mobility and three-hex vision. Since the map is quite big they might be useful.

The downside is that it breaks my nice 1 point difference between the two armies and would give the Germans a 26 point advantage. It would be a few points less if I went for a German cavalry but the motorcyclists are cooler.

I've been thinking of other military formations for other scenarios. Here are what I think a late-war German infantry division and panzergrenadier division would look like in game terms.

Infantry division:

4 Wehrmacht infantry

2 10.5 cm leFH 18 (w/ Opel Blitz truck) towed artillery
1 15 cm sFH 18 (w/ Opel Blitz truck) towed artillery

1 7.5 cm Pak 40 (w/ Opel Blitz truck) anti-tank gun

1 Pioniere engineers - I think they'd probably need a vehicle to keep pace with the rest of the division so probably with an Opel Blitz truck or SdKfz 251/1 half-track

I haven't seen them listed within the infantry organisation but I assume there'd also be some anti-air and recon, perhaps organised or attached at corps level.

1 recon
1 anti-air

Panzergrenadier Division:

1 StuH 42 assault gun

2 Panzergrenadier (w/ SdKfz 251/1 half-track)
4 Wehrmacht (w/ Opel Blitz truck)

2 10.5 cm leFH 18 (w/ Opel Blitz truck) towed artillery
1 15 cm sFH 18 (w/ Opel Blitz truck) towed artillery

1 Pioniere (w/ SdKfz 251/1 half-track)

1 Marder/StuG III tank destroyer

1 recon

I haven't seen them listed within the panzergrenadier organisation but I assume there'd also be some anti-air, perhaps organised or attached at corps level.

1 anti-air

I think I will rename the units in the scenario along military lines.

Units in the first German division will begin with a "1.", in the second "2.", the attached units "B." and the aircraft "L."
The "B." is for befestigt or beigefügt which are German words for "attached". My German is not great so if there is a German-speaking reader who know a more appropriate word then let me know. The "L." for aircraft stands for Luftwaffe.

The Soviets will also use "1." and "2." for the two mechanized corps, "P." for the attached units and "V." for the aircraft. Prilagayetsya is Russian for "attached", I am lead to believe. Voyenno-Vozdushnye Sily is the Soviet Air Force.

In the German army, each regiment and non-regimental battalion would have a different number. Battalions within regiments were designated with Roman numerals. The regimental or battalion numbers are somewhat random, although in the scenario I think I will give them numbers sequentially starting from one and alternating between the first two divisions. The attached units and aircraft will be numbered following the divisions.

So the units in the first German panzer division would be named like this:

1. 1/I - Panther A tank
1. 1/II - Panzer IVH tank
1. 3/I - Panzergrenadier 43 (w/ SdKfz 251/1 half-track)
1. 3/II - Wehrmacht Infantry 43 (w/ Opel Blitz truck)
1. 5/I - Wehrmacht Infantry 43 (w/ Opel Blitz truck)
1. 5/II - Wehrmacht Infantry 43 (w/ Opel Blitz truck)
1. 7/I - 15 cm sFH 18 (w/ Opel Blitz truck) towed artillery
1. 7/II - 10.5 cm leFH 18 (w/ Opel Blitz truck) towed artillery
1. 7/III - Wespe self-propelled artillery
1. 9 - SdKfz 232 8Rad recon armoured car
1. 11 - StuG IIIG self-propelled anti-tank
1. 13 - 3.7 cm FlaK 37 (w/ Opel Blitz truck) anti-air
1. 15 - Pioniere 43 (w/ SdKfz 251/1 half-track) engineers

Adds a little historical flavour and helps keep track of the units.

I may amend the German Panzer divisions by degrading the Pioneers from SdKfz 251/1 half-track to Opel Blitz trucks as further reading makes me think this is more realistic. I will likely keep to this system for other armies, reserving half-tracks for panzergrenadier and heavy-weapons infantry units.

If I do this and also attach a Kradschutzen unit and a Soviet cavalry to the respective armies then it changes the points balance to +74 to the Soviets. I can live with such minor differences and will credit any deficits with equivalent extra starting prestige.

Here's a British Armoured Division c. mid 1944:

1 Sherman Mk. I tank
1 Cromwell Mk. VII tank
1 Sherman Firefly tank

1 43 British HW (w/ Bren Carrier)
3 43 British Infantry (w/ Lorry)

1 QF 25 pounder (w/ Quad) towed artillery
1 Sexton self-propelled artillery

1 Achilles self-propelled anti-tank
1 40 mm Bofors anti-aircraft gun (w/ Lorry)

1 Engineer 43 (w/ Bren Carrier)

1 Daimler AC recon

The tanks in British armoured divisions were not uniformly similar between the divisions like the Panzer IV/Panther combo in Panzer Divisions, and so one division could have different tanks than another. This means there's slightly more flexibility in which tank units can be used. The most common tanks of the time were the Sherman and the Cromwell. The superior Sherman Fireflys were only available in smaller numbers but I've, perhaps generously, counted them as a battalion's worth for game purposes. There are a few permutations that can be made though. 2 Shermans and a Cromwell would be another, albeit weaker, option.

The slow Churchill VII heavy tanks were largely used in independent brigades or formations and so are best used as as an attached unit. The powerful Challenger (A30) which saw some limited action could also be an attached unit.

It should also be noted that, in the game, a British Armoured Division has an extra 3rd tank unit, more than the Panzer Division's and Soviet Mechanized Corps' 2 tanks. This is historically accurate as they had 50% more tanks than a Panzer Division. Their tanks are weaker though, except for the Firefly:

Sherman Mk I 384 points
Cromwell Mk. VII tank 422 points
Sherman Firefly tank 601 points

For comparison,

Panther G 674 points
Panzer IVJ 516 points

Also worth noting, is the relatively weak integrated artillery. I believe the British Army used formations called Army Group Royal Artillery (AGRA), medium and heavy artillery formations that were attached at corps-level so they'd be attached units in game terms.

I may restore half-tracks to engineers. German pioniere battalions are about 1/3 mechanized, 2/3 motorised in the cases I'm reading.

EDIT: Have restored half-tracks to all engineers, including Soviets.

I've just thought - can a player gain prestige from destroying enemy units? If so, what are the figures?

Any other ways of gaining prestige apart from capturing flags and from the automated prestige given every turn?

I may be biased, but I'm confident this will be the best Panzer Corps game I will have ever played! It is certainly going to be the multiplayer game I wanted Panzer Corps to be - historical and balanced force compositions against the tactical stylings of a real live opponent. Happy days.

the_iron_duke wrote:I've just thought - can a player gain prestige from destroying enemy units? If so, what are the figures?

Any other ways of gaining prestige apart from capturing flags and from the automated prestige given every turn?

As fair i know the only other prestige gains are scripted events that trigger under certain circumstances which obviously is fully under the designers control and forcing a unit to surrender.

Tarrak wrote:

the_iron_duke wrote:I've just thought - can a player gain prestige from destroying enemy units? If so, what are the figures?

Any other ways of gaining prestige apart from capturing flags and from the automated prestige given every turn?

As fair i know the only other prestige gains are scripted events that trigger under certain circumstances which obviously is fully under the designers control and forcing a unit to surrender.

I ran a quick test scenario to check. No prestige for destroying a unit but a small amount for getting a surrender - 6 for a Russian conscript and 25 for a small tank in the test. It's a tiny amount and surrenders don't happen all that often so I don't think it's something that needs to be factored into the scenario's considerations which is good.

the_iron_duke wrote:I think I will rename the units in the scenario along military lines.

Units in the first German division will begin with a "1.", in the second "2.", the attached units "B." and the aircraft "L."
The "B." is for befestigt or beigefügt which are German words for "attached". My German is not great so if there is a German-speaking reader who know a more appropriate word then let me know. The "L." for aircraft stands for Luftwaffe.

The Soviets will also use "1." and "2." for the two mechanized corps, "P." for the attached units and "V." for the aircraft. Prilagayetsya is Russian for "attached", I am lead to believe. Voyenno-Vozdushnye Sily is the Soviet Air Force.

Adds a little historical flavour and helps keep track of the units.

Hello the_iron_duke, I've been rather busy with work-related activities, so I'm lagging behind a bit. With regards to your proposed language, I speak a little German, and I would lean more towards the verbs 'unterstellen' or 'unterstehen', which denotes being subordinate and is commonly used in military terminology. So, a separate battalion that is transferred and added to a different division is 'unterstellt' to that division, and is subject to ('untersteht') the divisional command. The passives are:

(to be) subordinate - (to have been) subordinated

unterstellen - unterstellt

understehen - unterstanden

You can use the designation 'u.' or 'us.' as abbreviation.

As for the Russian words, I have a very obscure reference for you: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/russia/sovmil-glossary.pdf

I believe that the Soviet military had different types of designations for different types of 'attached' units. But I know very little about the exact designations. As a guess, reading through the manual in the link, I would go for this:
отделить’ = separate
I've seen this abbreviated in Cyrillic as 'oБ' (which would translate as 'ob' or 'ob.' in latin script)

By the way, there are two Soviet airforces: the VVS and the PVO, the last one focuses on homeland defense, and had its own aircraft and was responsible for the AAA. The Germans also had their AAA under separate command; most FlaK units were Luftwaffe units. So that's why you are having difficulty finding out how the AAA was attached to the Army (Heer) units.

The Germans used a number of specialized organizations which were transferred when necessary and used to augment existing units. Not every unit needed a strong reconnaissance (Aufklarung) element, but frontline units could be reinforced with a detachment. I'm struggling to find English sources for you, but you might be able to find some info here, although I'm guessing you already know about it:

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/index.htm
You could also try:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/011_germany/__ge_index.htm

In German, there is this very informative site, I've pointed the link to the Luftwaffe units, note that they even had assault gun detachments! Commonly AAA-regiments were called FlaK-Abteilung (AAA-detachment), and they could be light, heavy or mixed. Since the Soviets also had their AAA units under control of a separate command, you can play around with them a lot. It doesn't make your job easier, though.

And about the German forces being motorized or mechanized, this is a very optimistic scenario, as most weren't. Transportation, especially halftracks but even trucks, were scarce on both sides (a lot of Soviet infantry had to ride along on tanks). And although the Germans finally started manufacturing armoured halftracks quantity during 1943, most units would be very happy just to have a random assortment of trucks.

During 1940-1942, tank production greatly outnumbered the armoured halftracks (just 4500 total during these years). Only during 1943 did the numbers improve, they suddenly managed to build 7000 during this year, and even more in 1944. So it is very tricky to judge how many units would have received them. But there were certainly units that were decently equipped, and it does make for a less frustrating game to have transports for everything.

And if you are worried about turns/day/weather dilemmas, you can just make a day last multiple turns, the weather changes are updated every turn, and not dependant on the calendar days. So you can make 100 turns last a month (or even less), and the weather can still change a 100 times. The calender days are only important for when new equipment gets introduced.

Thanks for the linguistic info - I shall use your suggestions.

Regarding half-tracks, I've generally gone for the theoretical norm or archetype for each army formation both in terms of organisation and equipment used. The theoretical panzer division had it's first infantry battalion in half-tracks (with heavier weapons), so I've gone with that. There were, of course, variations on the ground - I think there was one division that was fully mechanized and there probably others that were all motorised and maybe others not even that.

I'm also trying to apply the same standards to each army. The British army equivalent of the half-track, the Bren Carrier, which also costs 100 points, is the most produced armoured fighting vehicle in history and was pretty ubiquitous. With the British Army list one is even forced to shell out 80 points on Quad transport for a measly 25 Pounder gun.

Engineers are bit less conclusive, hence my earlier indecision. They often seem to use a mix of half-track and truck within the same battalion so one has to choose one or the other. I decided on putting them in a half-track as engineers are high-value infantry and because they're slow - as there's only one per division they might need to quickly and safely move to different parts of the front line, where and whenever their "ignore entrenchment" ability is needed. I'm still thinking on this one, though and haven't definitely made a decision!

Here's a good page on panzer division pioneers:

http://www.wiking.org/The%20German%20Ar ... ompany.pdf

I've come across the websites you mentioned before and they've been useful. wikipedia's an excellent source of information on all armies, with too many pages to list here. Here are some other useful sites:

Lots of armies from different countries:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/organization.asp

German armies:

http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/toe-wo ... -infodata/

http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/944GXAG.pdf
http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/943GXAD.pdf

That last one's got lots of old army documents for lots of armies. I'm not sure how to search within the site so I always find the page I'm looking for through google.

Russian:

http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/941RXAD.PDF (same site as earlier)

http://www.flamesofwar.com/portals/0/do ... sickle.pdf

http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/tank-m ... s-in-wwii/

British:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s6XO ... gn&f=false

U.S.:

http://us4tharmordiv.tripod.com/ArmorTO.htm

I have half-tracks and engineers on the brain. My current thinking is that U.S. engineers shall have M3 half-tracks as that seems to be the case historically. I am thinking of putting British engineers in lorries. Maybe the Soviet engineers back in trucks. So that just leaves the Germans and I'm undecided on them.

Concerning British Armoured Divisions, I'm thinking that a more "standard" or average lineup would be two Sherman Mk Is and one Cromwell. I believe the divisions may often been given similar vehicles throughout the division for ease of supply of spare parts so a division might have had Shermans or Cromwells. I think if you put British tanks in a pot and boiled them up and tried to condense them into a single division you'd get two Shermans and a Cromwell. If using multiple British divisions in a scenario then one could perhaps use one as all Cromwells and another as two Shermans and a Firefly.

Some thoughts on German armoured cars. Here are some statistics for numbers produced:

SdKfz 232 8Rad - ?
SdKfz. 8Rad 233 - 109
234/1 - 200
234/2 - 101
Luchs - 100
Panzer II - ?

I can't find the numbers built for the SdKfz 232 8Rad but I think it was widely used and so that is the recon chosen for this scenario. Deciding what to use for the mid '44 NW Europe scenario is a bit more problematic. I've read that the 232 and 233 ceased production in 1943 as they were superceded by the 'Puma' (234/2). Pumas weren't produced in that great a number, though. Maybe 234/1 is the best option.

I'm working on a U.S. Armored Division. All three artillery battalions are self-propelled. It also seems all infantry are mechanised with M3 half-tracks. U.S. Infantry are comparatively cheap in themselves, so this is quite a luxury they get. There doesn't seem to be a way to fit in a HW battalion - it's just three regular infantry and an engineer. The US engineer unit may possibly be the most powerful infantry unit in the game, though.

Here is a mid '44 US Armored Division.

It is quite difficult to pick which Sherman tanks to go for as there are so many versions of it and many are not represented in the game, including some widely produced versions. This page has a lot of detailed information:

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html#M4A1(76)W

The regular M4 Sherman is quite old, first seen in February 1942. The M4A1, also old, has a slow speed of only 4. The M4A3 is not produced in huge numbers but the M4A2 and M4A4, which were made in bigger numbers are not in the game. The "E2" versions were Jumbo Shermans and not made in big numbers. The "wet" (W) 76mm versions were made in 1944 and are a lot more powerful and added to the many existing ranks of Shermans. Since the US Armoured divisions have three battalions, unlike a Panzer Division's two I would be inclined to only use one of the powerful 76mm (W) Shermans, if at all.

So I am down to three tank configurations:

3 x M4 Sherman or
3 x M4A3 or
2 x M4A3, 1 x M4A1(76)W

As for the rest of the division:

3 US Infantry 43 (w/ M3 Halftrack)

1 US Engineers 43 (w/ M3 Halftrack)

3 M7 Priest self-propelled artillery

1 M8 Greyhound recon

1 M16 MGMC self-propelled anti-air

1 M18 Hellcat self-propelled anti-tank

They are a much more mechanized army than the Germans or British and have no towing trucks at all.