Slitherine

Opinion question, especially for Horst and other sticklers for true representation of order of battle in the OoB game.

WWII US Infantry Regiments comprised 3 battalions in a "triangularized" configuration -- two active in combat and the other resting (resupply or reorganizing after combat) or in reserve.

Each battalion comprised 3 rifle companies and 1 heavy weapons company (comprising two machine gun platoons and a mortar platoon). The heavy weapons company was often distributed as machine gun platoons to all battalions, but the combined Mortar platoons were often (if not usually) directly controlled by Regiment and placed where needed the most.
(reference see https://www.trailblazersww2.org/history ... ucture.htm)
Question -- How to represent an infantry regiment in OoB?
If OoB units were scaled to Battalion-sized units, Would one fairly represent a Regiment as:
3 Infantry OoB units and 1 Heavy Infantry OoB unit (representing the three numbered battalions (1st-3rd) and the reinforcing heavy weapons assets organic to each but controlled by Regiment), or
2 Infantry battalions and 1 Heavy infantry battalion representing the 3 numbered Battalions.

Just wondering what the opinions were out there.

conboy

I'm using 2 regular inf and one heavy inf. My heavy inf and engineer units require a transport, so this additionally pumps up their CP +1. As every infantry regiment comes with a supply train carring all the stuff and ammo, same like with towed guns, and engineers can't carry ponton bridges on their shoulders either, this is a fairly historical balance.

A simplified organization is like this can work with most nations ignoring all the many changes over years:
2x inf
1x hvy. inf + forced transport
1x towed at-gun with forced transport
1x infantry gun with forced transport (not all nations got these though or isn't in the game yet)

As most infantry division come with their added artillery regiment (Soviets even had two regs in 41 at start!) each inf-reg additionally gets a default artillery unit. That's typical a 105mm one, but 25-pdr for Brits, or 76mm (2x 76mm + 1x 122mm) for Soviets.

Then I add all the divisional support stuff that can vary some for each antion if available.
1x snipers
1x lunge miners
1x engineers with forced transport
1x light recon vehicle
1x light AA gun, rather towed but can vary with nations.
Some divisions come with heavy artillery that is additional added as single unit.
There are also sometimes added tank battalions to infantry divisions. It can get really complex if you research more closer for each nation and year.
I've also added a new type of Scouts unit to the game as I lack 2-cp inf units after my forced transport rule.

The advantage of such small organisation is that a player can also easily play with such core. I tend to start purchasing one inf-reg and add all the other mentioned units later during campaigns.
So much about infantry divisions. It gets more complicated with tank brigades.

Horst,
That's what I've come across. So your opinion is the infantry regiment battalions (only the infantry, not including other elements (engineers, AT, etc.)) should be represented by 2 Infantry and 1 Heavy Infantry (trucked) in OoB.

Thanks!

conboy

Yep, I see the heavy weapon/machinegun/mortar company attached to one of the three inf-battalions. This is basically also the leader/HQ unit of the regiment. Three regular inf plus one heavy inf doesn’t fit so well into the three main-units for three battalions per regiment scheme. You can also form a nice defensive formation with only three units, with the heavy one spearheading and the single AT-gun defending all three behind.

Horst, quite so! I am fully coming around to your point of view: two infantry and one heavy infantry as the Regimental core and then allocate the supporting units to the regiments. Some units were assigned to/from Division (arty, some engineers, recon, ordnance, etc).

I am going to use that basic scheme of 2 Inf, 1 Hvy Inf going forward.

thanks again,

conboy