Basic Unit Movement

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

Forces can only move at 1/3rd the historical pace.

Why don't the developers just allow scenario designers to edit all the values? If I want to triple movement points, why not let me? If I break my own scenario, that's my problem.

As far as movement allowance is concerned, you now can make the adjustments necessary. The "Force Movement Bias" limits have been expanded so that all scale combinations can be brought up/down to the nominal values.

Of course, there are a few residual issues that haven't yet been addressed, so that some of the extreme combinations still aren't correct (fractional movement points, supply cost of movement, hex conversion costs, etc.).

[Fungwu]

People are arguing and calling each other names over my post! YES! Mission accomplished.

[Adam Rinkleff]

So play 'Battletech.'

Love it or leave it! What a healthy attitude... [8|]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Be careful what you assume to be "blindingly obvious". That tends to be code for "I haven't tried it yet".

Alternatively, it can mean 'a belief I intend to maintain even though it's logically indefensible.'

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

People are arguing and calling each other names over my post! YES! Mission accomplished.

I wonder if one could devise an automated program that could generate posts that had that effect. Sow dissension and cause flame-wars across the internet...

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

And, at 25km/hex the defense of the front might be one division-sized unit with a depth of one hex. At 5km/hex it would be about 15 battalion-sized units at a depth of 5 hexes (to be equivalent). The defense will tend to be about the same.

We've got 25 hexes and 15 units (of which perhaps 10 can hold a hex). Obviously, the line isn't going to be 5 hexes deep.

Anyway, at 25km/hex you'll need a gap 75km wide in order to move without ZOC penalties. At 5km/hex, you'll need a gap 15km wide. At a proper turn length, you won't be able to push 100km into the enemy rear the same turn as you make such a gap.

Note that I've got some practical experience with this. My "Kaiserschlacht 1918" scenario was designed at 2.5km/hex and 5km/hex - both with the exact same time scale. Both work about the same. If anything, the offensive is tougher at 2.5km/hex.

What's the turn length?

Be careful what you assume to be "blindingly obvious". That tends to be code for "I haven't tried it yet".

I have tried it- in your scenarios among other things.

But I can imagine where 1 MP units could be workable.

See Colin's point.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

People are arguing and calling each other names over my post! YES! Mission accomplished.

I have adjectives for Bob (intelligent, inventive, often mistaken, unbelievably stubborn). I wouldn't say they're names.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
We've got 25 hexes and 15 units (of which perhaps 10 can hold a hex). Obviously, the line isn't going to be 5 hexes deep.

There won't be a unit in every hex, but it will have significant depth. 60% of the hexes will be defended.

Anyway, at 25km/hex you'll need a gap 75km wide in order to move without ZOC penalties. At 5km/hex, you'll need a gap 15km wide. At a proper turn length, you won't be able to push 100km into the enemy rear the same turn as you make such a gap.

Instead of ZOCs you'll have actual units that would have to be cleared. Hardly "blindingly obvious" that it would be easier - especially in light of my counter example of "Kaiserschlacht 1918".

What's the turn length?

Whole-day turns in both cases.

I have tried it- in your scenarios among other things.

Then how could you make such an erroneous claim?

See Colin's point.

?? What point?

Regardless, I was thinking of subjects that primarily concerned air or naval actions.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Whole-day turns in both cases.

Not exactly at extreme scale combinations, then. Movement rates can't get particularly high in either scenario.

Then how could you make such an erroneous claim?

Because in CFNA the movement rates are so high that motorised units can swing very rapidly through enemy forces which remain paralysed until after the action is complete.

Regardless, I was thinking of subjects that primarily concerned air or naval actions.

Ah- so scenarios outside the scope of TOAW.

[Fungwu]

ORIGINAL: Fungwu
How does that one horse team pull 200 cannons at once? All I can think of is maybe they are as big as those giant elephants from the lord of the rings.

Answer: Don't make that unit in your scenarios. Porter squads can be used to achieve lower movement rates.

Anyway, no-one ever said how many horses were in a "team"....

Well what if I make a unit with 200 cannons and 200 horses, and 199 horses get killed, should that last horse really be able to pull all of the cannons at once? Even if say 50 horses get killed, shouldn't 50 cannons be left behind if the unit moves?

Also the same problem exists if you use trucks instead of horse teams, but I guess no one ever said how many trucks were in a "truck" right?


"I wonder if one could devise an automated program that could generate posts that had that effect. Sow dissension and cause flame-wars across the internet... "

Thank you sir, I now have a purpose in life...

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I have adjectives for Bob (intelligent, inventive, often mistaken, unbelievably stubborn). I wouldn't say they're names.

Translation: I disagree with Ben from time to time.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Instead of ZOCs you'll have actual units that would have to be cleared. Hardly "blindingly obvious" that it would be easier - especially in light of my counter example of "Kaiserschlacht 1918".

I want to add to this: There will be the same 10 combat rounds in each case. So you'll have 10 rounds to destroy that one division-sized unit, and those same 10 rounds to plow through 15 units deployed in depth. And there are issues with hex conversion. That will be much more debilitating at 5km/hex than at 25km/hex. Extra recon can address it somewhat, but combat losses and supply/readiness drops will undo that.

It really is debatable which situation will be better or worse for the defenders.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Not exactly at extreme scale combinations, then. Movement rates can't get particularly high in either scenario.

They are definitely higher in the 2.5km version than in the 5km version. Yet it had no impact on the results. It's a clear counter example.

Because in CFNA the movement rates are so high that motorised units can swing very rapidly through enemy forces which remain paralysed until after the action is complete.

As would a 25km/hex, division-scale simulation. CFNA really is explosive - as was the historical desert war. That explains why CFNA works pretty well.

Ah- so scenarios outside the scope of TOAW.

The 50km/hex, 6-hour turn environment is, by definition, within the scope of TOAW. What would anyone use that environment for but to focus on some naval and/or air subject? And, if so, wouldn't they want historical movement allowances?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

Well what if I make a unit with 200 cannons and 200 horses, and 199 horses get killed, should that last horse really be able to pull all of the cannons at once?

Fortunately, this will never happen unless you have loads of replacements for artillery but none for horse teams.

In your other example, 200 guns could be pulled more slowly by 150 teams (try it, it is slower than 200 teams), presumably by having six horses instead of eight on each gun, or whatever.

Also the same problem exists if you use trucks instead of horse teams, but I guess no one ever said how many trucks were in a "truck" right?

Actually this is truer than you meant. In TOAW 200-300 trucks is plenty for a division. A 1940 US infantry division had over 1,000 trucks and numerous other vehicles- and the infantry were expected to walk. The TOAW truck is a tool for changing the movement rate of the divisions. It's not one actual truck.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They are definitely higher in the 2.5km version than in the 5km version. Yet it had no impact on the results. It's a clear counter example.

But as I've said, you're still operating with TOAW's norms because the move rates never get that high.

As would a 25km/hex, division-scale simulation. CFNA really is explosive - as was the historical desert war. That explains why CFNA works pretty well.

Sure- except that the British player can do just the same thing.

The 50km/hex, 6-hour turn environment is, by definition, within the scope of TOAW.

In about the same way that I could use my wheeled office chair as a road vehicle. You'd get much better performance from a different approach.

What would anyone use that environment for but to focus on some naval and/or air subject? And, if so, wouldn't they want historical movement allowances?

It seems a moot point, as everything else will be wrong as well, due to problems with other parts of TOAW.

[Fungwu]

"TOAW truck is a tool for changing the movement rate of the divisions. It's not one actual truck"

Huh? So divisions have phantom trucks that only exist in the 7th dimension? Man, you blew my mind.[X(]

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

"TOAW truck is a tool for changing the movement rate of the divisions. It's not one actual truck"

Huh? So divisions have phantom trucks that only exist in the 7th dimension? Man, you blew my mind.[X(]

It's true, though. You have to design the rest of the unit first, then add in just enough transport to give the "right" result.

Dunno why things were designed this way (something to do with behavior on the defense?), and I've never been sure how it squares with traffic congestion. Eg in a France 40 scenario I'd want German infantry divisions to be relatively clumsy formations on the move, with long road-clogging waggon trains, major obstacles to panzer formations if allowed to get in front of them. But I'm not sure if they will actually behave that way, if they're designed with just enough transports to give the right mobility.

Anyway, it's one of those things which should be talked about in the manual, but isn't. IIRC, it actually took quite a while before scenario designers twigged to it, back in the day.

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: Szilard

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

"TOAW truck is a tool for changing the movement rate of the divisions. It's not one actual truck"

Huh? So divisions have phantom trucks that only exist in the 7th dimension? Man, you blew my mind.[X(]

It's true, though. You have to design the rest of the unit first, then add in just enough transport to give the "right" result.

Dunno why things were designed this way (something to do with behavior on the defense?), and I've never been sure how it squares with traffic congestion. Eg in a France 40 scenario I'd want German infantry divisions to be relatively clumsy formations on the move, with long road-clogging waggon trains, major obstacles to panzer formations if allowed to get in front of them. But I'm not sure if they will actually behave that way, if they're designed with just enough transports to give the right mobility.

(And unit weights, for sea transport - could be wrong but from things I've tinkered with it seems very difficult to arrange sea transport levels which will work reasonably; if you set it at the "right" level for so many waggon-transport inf divisions, it will be way below the level you'd expect for armored divisions, and so on.)

Anyway, it's one of those things which should be talked about in the manual, but isn't. IIRC, it actually took quite a while before scenario designers twigged to it, back in the day.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
As would a 25km/hex, division-scale simulation. CFNA really is explosive - as was the historical desert war. That explains why CFNA works pretty well.

Sure- except that the British player can do just the same thing.

As did his historical counterpart in O'Connor's Raid, Crusader, and El Alamein. It was a see-saw campaign.

And, note that at least one designer out there thought CFNA was too stodgy. He took my map and redesigned the forces at the Regimental scale. Got rid of a lot of the sand terrain too, just to speed things up. This scenario went on to become part of the TOAW III scenario collection. It's called "Rommel in North Africa 1941-42".

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Szilard

Dunno why things were designed this way

I'd say it's because a lot of the trucks in the TO&E aren't moving anything which appears in the unit. Hauling supplies a lot of the time, moving wounded, field kitchen, etc.

(something to do with behavior on the defense?), and I've never been sure how it squares with traffic congestion. Eg in a France 40 scenario I'd want German infantry divisions to be relatively clumsy formations on the move, with long road-clogging waggon trains, major obstacles to panzer formations if allowed to get in front of them. But I'm not sure if they will actually behave that way, if they're designed with just enough transports to give the right mobility.

In this case I'd advise putting vast numbers of horse teams in the artillery units.

Anyway, it's one of those things which should be talked about in the manual, but isn't. IIRC, it actually took quite a while before scenario designers twigged to it, back in the day.

Well, the system changed between Volume I and COW. In Volume I, you needed about three times as many trucks (still less than in real life, though)