TOAW IV features

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Lobster
It sounds like you are saying it should be an equipment/man limit. That would be a hairy concept indeed. While equipment does have volume I don't think it has anything to do with how much space it takes up since a two man team and a 204mm howitzer have the same volume of 999. Perhaps the limit in TOAW is related more to command control than overcrowding.

I don't really understand what you meant ("a two man team and a 204mm howitzer have the same volume of 999") but actually the concept is not very hairy at all, it is pretty simple, although as I said it is not perfect. It is certainly better than an arbitrary number of units of indeterminate size (division, battalion, company? Doesn't matter).

I don't think that having stacking for command and control reasons makes much sense either--all of the units could be from the same unit. If the point is to limit span of control, that is a worthy aim but surely there is a better way to do it than stacking rules.

If you look at the equipment editor every unit has a volume. A howitzer's volume is 999. A two man teams volume is 999. A Pz Kpfw IVD has a volume of 27. Having done some mucking about in programs I would say the 999 has little to no effect on how much space those units consume. So a howitzer and a two man team have the same effect on space even though one is much larger than the other. I further assume that this has a bearing on how much rail these units consume.

So to base unit stacking limits on how much space a unit takes would be difficult because you would have to use the dimensions of each and every piece of equipment. Further, deployed equipment may take up more or less space than undeployed equipment. Thus the difficulty in programming stacking based on how much space everything takes. Do you use the deployed status? Do you use the undeployed status? A unit using road movement takes up more linear space but since it's undeployed may or may not take up more total space depending on what the unit consists of.

Regarding command and control. Does anyone ever use units all from the same parent formation in the same hex? If you have ten units in a hex from ten different formations you would have ten different C&C sources. Cooperation could become a problem even if all of these units were set on free cooperation. This is not an assumption, this is a fact. History proves this time and again. Even a division with nine different battalions can have C&C problems. This is why the Soviets weren't so good in 41 and 42 while the Germans were.

So, having blathered all of that how would you restrict stacking? [;)]

[Lobster]

I'm probably answering my own question here but...

Each army has a SOP for how much frontage a unit should be responsible for either on the offense or on the defense. Obviously there are times when this was ignored because of the situation. But, if the scenario designer could have control of stacking limits this could be modeled in a scenario and any time these numbers are violated a penalty could be imposed as it is now. Bob had it right when he mentioned hex scale. And he said smaller units would cause a problem but if you could use unit equivalents then you could take care of most of that.

[Meyer1]

19.1.1 Equipment Density
Up to nine units may be grouped in any particular location, but
in many cases this is a bad idea. Each location has a specific al-
lowed Equipment Density:

50 + 2 x Scenario physical scale 2

Code: Select all

Scale 		Allowed Density
 2.5km/hex 	68
 5km/hex 	100
 10km/hex        250

Any location with more than the allowed number of Vehicles
or Horse Teams suffers from traffic jams (increased movement
costs to enter). Any location with more than the allowed number
of “active defender” equipment suffers from increased losses in
the Event of combat.

--------------------------------



So what the number on the right means? Number of team horses or trucks?

The only problem I see here, is that, as far as I know, these supply penalties are not represented in the supply number that you see in the hex.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I'm probably answering my own question here but...

Each army has a SOP for how much frontage a unit should be responsible for either on the offense or on the defense. Obviously there are times when this was ignored because of the situation. But, if the scenario designer could have control of stacking limits this could be modeled in a scenario and any time these numbers are violated a penalty could be imposed as it is now. Bob had it right when he mentioned hex scale. And he said smaller units would cause a problem but if you could use unit equivalents then you could take care of most of that.

So, I'm back at my idea that maybe it would be better to have no stacking limit whatsoever? Supply and combat penalties should put a limit to the player.
Of course, in reality armies couldn't move an unlimited number of units over the same road simultaneously, but you could do it in the game if you move one unit at a time. That's another issue that allow overstacking, among other problems. So, maybe that's one reason to keep the limit, but again, shouldn't be counter-related.

[Meyer1]

Of course, in reality armies couldn't move an unlimited number of units over the same road simultaneously, but you could do it in the game if you move one unit at a time.

Just a thought: wonder if the BTS thingie could solve this, if applied to movement on roads.

[larryfulkerson]

Just a thought: wonder if the BTS thingie could solve this, if applied to movement on roads.

The BTS system depends on the movement points the attacking unit had when it attacked, so yeah it would
have an impact IF there's been a battle on that path.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

19.1.1 Equipment Density
Up to nine units may be grouped in any particular location, but
in many cases this is a bad idea. Each location has a specific al-
lowed Equipment Density:

50 + 2 x Scenario physical scale 2

Code: Select all

Scale 		Allowed Density
 2.5km/hex 	68
 5km/hex 	100
 10km/hex        250

Any location with more than the allowed number of Vehicles
or Horse Teams suffers from traffic jams (increased movement
costs to enter). Any location with more than the allowed number
of “active defender” equipment suffers from increased losses in
the Event of combat.

--------------------------------



So what the number on the right means? Number of team horses or trucks?

For traffic jams it represents vehicles (counting horse teams as vehicles).

For combat it represents active equipment.

The only problem I see here, is that, as far as I know, these supply penalties are not represented in the supply number that you see in the hex.

Of course they are. Traffic penalties affect the movement point cost to the target hex for the supply path.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

Of course, in reality armies couldn't move an unlimited number of units over the same road simultaneously, but you could do it in the game if you move one unit at a time.

I see that as a non-problem. If you do the math you can move a huge number of vehicles down a road - absent traffic jams.

At 20 mph with 50 feet between vehicles it works out to 2,000 per hour. At 6-hours per turn that's 12,000 vehicles. At full-weeks per turn it's 336,000. That's about all the vehicles the Germans had in Barbarossa.

It's traffic jams that clog roads. And that is already modeled.

[larryfulkerson]

50 + 2 x Scenario physical scale 2

I think you mean 50 + 2 X (( scenario physical scale ) times (scenario physical scale))

edit:
Why is the 2.5km/hex not 62.5 instead of 68?

Code: Select all

 Scale         Allowed Density
 2.5km/hex       68
 5km/hex          100
 10km/hex        250
 

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



For traffic jams it represents vehicles (counting horse teams as vehicles).

For combat it represents active equipment.

Thanks.

Of course they are. Traffic penalties affect the movement point cost to the target hex for the supply path.

Yeah just re-checked with another scenario and you are correct.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

50 + 2 x Scenario physical scale 2

I think you mean 50 + 2 X (( scenario physical scale ) times (scenario physical scale))

edit:
Why is the 2.5km/hex not 62.5 instead of 68?

Code: Select all

 Scale         Allowed Density
 2.5km/hex       68
 5km/hex          100
 10km/hex        250
 

Larry I just did copy&paste from the manual, page 68, the "2" after the scale is the exponent.. did not paste well here.

Edit: and yes, you are right. Should be 62.5 [:)]

[larryfulkerson]

the "2" after the scale is the exponent..

That's why I wrote it as
( scenario physical scale ) times (scenario physical scale)

pretty nifty huh?

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



I see that as a non-problem. If you do the math you can move a huge number of vehicles down a road - absent traffic jams.

At 20 mph with 50 feet between vehicles it works out to 2,000 per hour. At 6-hours per turn that's 12,000 vehicles. At full-weeks per turn it's 336,000. That's about all the vehicles the Germans had in Barbarossa.

This is wildly optimistic. Fist of all, for WW2 scenarios, figures I've seen for march speed are 15-20km/h for motorized elements, and even less for tracked vehicles. Interval between vehicles varied, but I think usually were bigger than 20 meters (wider for day marches, closer for night ones). Besides, road curves, accidents, breakdowns would take the avg. speed down. This alone would change the calculation, but it's only the beginning of the problem.
Columns did not march non-stop for hours and days, they have to stop frequently to perform maintenance, and to rest/resupply. Usually 30min-1hour for every 2-4 hours of march.
BTW: the figure usually quoted for Barbarossa is 650,000 motor vehicles plus 600,000 horses.

Now, an example of what can be achieved in the game (check screenshot):

I could move the middle Pz-Division for that road and ending at the final of the movement. The other 2 could do the same, passing for the same hex that the middle one, and ending in the same hex, or other adjacent. Using the stacking limits, I could move 27 Panzer Divisions for the same hex at the same moment, heck actually I could use all the adjacent hexes I may end up moving 50 or more divisions for that hex.
Considering the scenario scale (1day/10km), in an interval of 3 hours and a half, we have 50 armoured divisions using the same road. Yeah, I see it as a problem, even if consider that the "road" in the hex it's a abstraction and not just one road.
Also, the "abstracted" supply traffic should be take in account, that should clog the roads even further.

It's traffic jams that clog roads. And that is already modeled.

Well, only partially, for this very issue that I'm raising, with the result that traffic jams are a non-issue in the game.

[Lobster]

I have seen games where each successive unit would have an increased penalty for entering a hex a previous unit had entered. Not sure if TOAW could handle that. The programming would probably make it prohibitive.

I also see no problem with how it is now. Your first example of three divisions is the only reasonable example and three divisions could easily move down the same road in the same half or full week time period without a traffic problem. The problem wouldn't be the congestion. It would be the beating the road and minor bridges would take. The others are unlikely or highly unlikely.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Lobster



I also see no problem with how it is now. Your first example of three divisions is the only reasonable example and three divisions could easily move down the same road in the same half or full week time period without a traffic problem.

Is not a week or half week, it's 2 movement of points of 14, in a 1day-turn scale, hence the 3.5 hours I said. I see it as a problem even with only three divisions.
But this is just leaving the imagination running wild, I know we are getting the 3.5 patch plus a new interface/graphics, and I'm happy with it.
Also I think that the forum could use more activity [:)]

[Lobster]

Ah, one day and 10km hexes. Probably half week at 10km per hex would be more appropriate. Still, at one day I see your concerns. If I were making a scenario at 10km per hex the turns would be half week or full week. If I wanted one day turns the units would be regiment or smaller at 5km or 2.5km per hex.

Dunno, maybe modify BTS so it can be used for movement?

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Lobster


Dunno, maybe modify BTS so it can be used for movement?

I was thinking in a road time stamp aka RTS™ [:D], where each road (or hex?) would have a movement capacity that is filled each time a unit uses it, and that would be clear at the finish of each round, such as I think is the case with the BTS.
But I don't know, perhaps that would result in too many numbers in the map, and maybe we should move to WEGO or accept the limitations of the IGOUGO.

[larryfulkerson]

...maybe modify BTS so it can be used for movement?

Wow, what a thought. Wouldn't that be cool. It would probably be a bear to program and tweak it to get it working 'right'.
I'm putting 'right' in quotes because I can envision the posts to a thread dedicated to debating what constitutes 'right'.
It might be a good start to round up some hard data from somewhere to have a realistic target to shoot at, at least.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
So to base unit stacking limits on how much space a unit takes would be difficult because you would have to use the dimensions of each and every piece of equipment. Further, deployed equipment may take up more or less space than undeployed equipment. Thus the difficulty in programming stacking based on how much space everything takes. Do you use the deployed status? Do you use the undeployed status? A unit using road movement takes up more linear space but since it's undeployed may or may not take up more total space depending on what the unit consists of.

Surely you don't need to dimension every piece of equipment or worry about the other convolutions you raise to improve on the stacking mechanism--the point is that the more "stuff" there is in a unit, the more "stacking space" it occupies--no one is asking for the level of detail you suggest is necessary. And yes, PzC also includes a lower stacking limit for road movement.

An arbitrary number of units of indeterminate size really doesn't make any sense at all--as others have mentioned, as least the scenario designer should be able to change the number based on the hex and unit scale.

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Regarding command and control. Does anyone ever use units all from the same parent formation in the same hex? If you have ten units in a hex from ten different formations you would have ten different C&C sources. Cooperation could become a problem even if all of these units were set on free cooperation. This is not an assumption, this is a fact.

Of course units stacked together could be from the same or different units--but in any event stacking is the wrong mechanism to deal with command and control issues--you should rely on combat and/or supply penalties for units from different parent units stacked together, etc. to discourage people from stacking "foreign" units together in the first place.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



I see that as a non-problem. If you do the math you can move a huge number of vehicles down a road - absent traffic jams.

At 20 mph with 50 feet between vehicles it works out to 2,000 per hour. At 6-hours per turn that's 12,000 vehicles. At full-weeks per turn it's 336,000. That's about all the vehicles the Germans had in Barbarossa.

This is wildly optimistic. Fist of all, for WW2 scenarios, figures I've seen for march speed are 15-20km/h for motorized elements, and even less for tracked vehicles. Interval between vehicles varied, but I think usually were bigger than 20 meters (wider for day marches, closer for night ones). Besides, road curves, accidents, breakdowns would take the avg. speed down.

I would guess that the figures you're quoting pertained to moving through enemy territory - with the tanks unlimbered. In that circumstance, TOAW imposes hex-conversion costs. At a minimum, those costs will expend half the unit's movement allowance. That's far more than adequate to accommodate the issue you raise.

The only circumstance where this might still be an issue would be moving behind your own lines, through your pre-converted grid. In those cases, tanks usually moved limbered - lifted on trucks. That allows faster movement with far less breakdown. You are also moving in much greater confidence from enemy attack.

This alone would change the calculation, but it's only the beginning of the problem.
Columns did not march non-stop for hours and days, they have to stop frequently to perform maintenance, and to rest/resupply. Usually 30min-1hour for every 2-4 hours of march.

I wasn't talking about the capacity of the units - but rather the capacity of the road itself. While the units might have to pull over and rest/refit, the road would be in continuous use. That very duty cycle would allow multiple units to use the road as if they were fewer units - especially if they are just sharing an intersection, and then spreading out to different end locations. Furthermore, under emergency conditions, both lanes of the road could be commandeered in the same direction for a bit - doubling capacity.

You can fiddle with the figures a bit, but it still turns out to be a huge number - far greater than normal usage.

BTW: the figure usually quoted for Barbarossa is 650,000 motor vehicles plus 600,000 horses.

Sources vary, and they have to be put into context. My source said 322,000 motor vehicles crossed the border in June. Maybe your figures were for the entire campaign? Regardless, most of the vehicles would be in the rear areas, strung out in supply lines. I doubt there were ever even 100,000 front-line vehicles at any one time in Barbarossa.

Now, an example of what can be achieved in the game (check screenshot):

I could move the middle Pz-Division for that road and ending at the final of the movement. The other 2 could do the same, passing for the same hex that the middle one, and ending in the same hex, or other adjacent. Using the stacking limits, I could move 27 Panzer Divisions for the same hex at the same moment, heck actually I could use all the adjacent hexes I may end up moving 50 or more divisions for that hex.
Considering the scenario scale (1day/10km), in an interval of 3 hours and a half, we have 50 armoured divisions using the same road. Yeah, I see it as a problem, even if consider that the "road" in the hex it's a abstraction and not just one road.
Also, the "abstracted" supply traffic should be take in account, that should clog the roads even further.

Let's start with the fact that the units in that case violate the stacking limits for 10km hexes (250 vehicles). A panzer division would probably be modeled with from 400 to 500 front-line vehicles. So, regiments would be more appropriate for this scale. Regiments are going to be incurring stacking penalties if they move through each other - again, adequate for the issue if that occurs. Even without that, three panzer divisions only amount to about 1500 front-line vehicles - easily within the 3 1/2 hour capacity of the road. The extreme examples you give are absurd, of course - and would have incurred plenty of stacking penalties regardless.