Realism Versus Playability

We play a lot of RTS games at Dog Company, and they're my favorite kind of what my wife calls a time suck. The issue's been raised a few times, but I know a lot of people don't believe a realistic playstyle leads to rewards in such games. My experience is based on my force structure in games. Granted, I'll take liberties in some cases, but I like to have a realistic and well-ordered army/regiment/company/squad at my disposal.

Usually I'd post a relevant screenshot, but I don't have any right now. So here's me about to die in Dead Island.

I'll start with examples from Company of Heroes. If you're not familiar with it, you should be ashamed with yourself. Go out and buy it blindly, play it, then come back and read this. Players go into battles and generally have a force up to the size of a company in the field, with basic units ranging from rifle squads to individual units. It scales well and a good player can have a strong small force counter a weaker larger one if they know what they're doing. Now mind you, I don't normally play the vanilla game and I'm not a competitive player, so before you go on about how important your first three units and early game micromanagement is, hear me out.

We normally play Blitzkrieg Mod, which increases damage and lowers defense values for units. This makes a well placed squad or machine gun devastating, and a planned defensive line something you can't just rush a pile of veteran units into. I've held positions against enemy onslaught for far longer than I had any right to with a good old fashioned US Army weapons platoon entrenched in the right spots (Three 81mm mortars and two .30 Cal MMGs with some obstacles in the kill zone) and I've broken through heavily defended positions with a well orchestrated combined arms push with a motorized rifle platoon and tank platoon (Four halftracks loaded with grenadiers, four Panzer IVs, and some halftracks loaded with heavy mortars and light guns)

I'll normally lead my US Army game with a rifle platoon. I boil that down to three six-man squads (The squad sizes are set by the game, or they'd be larger) with BARs and rifle grenades as I can afford to equip them. They're flexible, they allow me to form rifle lines and flanking teams, and it fits the three-squad organization the US Army used. From there I'll deploy a weapons or rifle platoon as needed, but if I pick an infantry commander (The game uses up to three specializations per faction. The US have Infantry, Armor, and Airborne. Good teams pick a mix to synergize and make up for another player's short comings and to play on their strengths. I normally play Infantry Doctrine) I'll build up my Rifle Company as per US Army TOE from 1944. It's not a seamless replication, but it scales well and works. Three Rifle Platoons bristling with BARs and grenades allow me the flexibility to take and hold ground, assault through objectives, and respond to enemy advances effectively. The last platoon, my Weapons Platoon, is usually kept busy strong pointing a part of the map where they generally soak up a nice amount of mortar and howitzer fire and cut down a large number of enemy forces attempting to move through.

Most players I talk and play with don't do anything of the sort. They'll form ad hoc groups of units to fit whatever situation as needed. I enjoy an added amount of realism, however, and I find it effective. I've been told it's constricting, pointless, ineffective, and a myriad of other things. If it's stupid and it works, it isn't stupid. If anything, there's something incredibly commendable when you can take old organizational structures and use them in a semi-related medium and find success.

Yes, normally I'll need to mix things up a bit. Say if I'm expecting enemy armor to arrive soon, I'll deploy a light AT platoon with a few 57mm guns. I rationalize this as attached units to my company from regimental assets. It works. I won't always have the strength to deal with a full German tank company, but I can slow them down and buy time.

In Wargame: European Escalation, I mainly utilize two decks. I crafted them from old TOEs I found normally consisting of an armored company and a mechanized infantry company. My US deck is an Armored Regimental Cavalry Troop organization mixed with a mechanized infantry company. Fairly standard stuff, but it's all US. Many players I face mix nations in their decks to good effect, but I don't like that kind of thing. I like watching Sheridans roll up to shore up a line of air assault infantry holding off an enemy attack. Yes, the French infantry might have a higher rate of fire or some such idea, but there's something comforting about seeing M2 Bradleys rolling in alongside a dismounted rifle platoon.

I also tend to use my armor as a counterattacking force instead of as a wrecking ball. The advent of ATGMs and LAWs makes armored attacks risky. I'll often see players throw a pile of tanks at my positions only to have them chewed up by missiles and my inevitable counterattack. I also tend to conceal my artillery until the last moment for a surprise bombardment. I don't quite understand why players don't take a page from some military manuals and instead throw in the units with the highest numbers under certain values and realize that what you do isn't as important as what you have.

For me, keeping to realistic organizations in games is more about comfort than any sort of effectiveness, but my tactics, taken to whatever degree from old SOPs, probably lend more to success than my organization. I just can't take the idea that realistic organization makes you a weak player seriously. I've fought and won against players with those views, but if anything can be said, it's that we underestimate the games we play and the versatility of the tactics and organizations of the past.