Issue 1: If 120 men, representing both mortars and machineguns, and fire as indirect fire units, how is fire calculated?
Issue 2: What is proper assault strength for such units?
Issue 3: Might it be be better to have them as things, in two seperate units, not men? That way they would be unable to ferry across rivers.
Issue 4: Why have them at all?
Glenn,
Of the two John Egan Bulge games posted on your unofficial Panzer Campaigns website, which I did most of the oob work on, the first is most purely mine. I was troubled about too many Germans getting over the Our river, with mgs and mortars, but I think three "mixed" companies per batalion is best for playability.
If you add a lt tank troop to US cav sqdns,,,then an m8,,,Then you must detail All batalions, of all types. This causes seperate unit fatigue problems. This also causes Army Group Commanders to be mucking around in batalion tactics, which would be some levels lower than Patton's ideal. (Wargames can go lower,,,not That low.)
I have always liked your solution for tanks in panzer regiments.
Does a unit have to be a batalion, which divides into three to get the combine/breakdown benefit when combined? Can it be a company, with three platoons? While certain batalion commanders were understandably upset at loss of control, I dont think that their companies, assigned to regiments suffered a deliterious effect for it. They got better, using good combined arms tactics.
Warren