Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  56 57 [58] 59 60   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/26/2011 8:50:07 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
I think that more broadly, in TOAW we face a dilemma.

We want a system that is manageable in its complexity, and that yet reflects the imponderables and unknowns and subtleties and variations of actual warfare. Actually, no two hills are exactly the same, but...

So when we come to an apparent shortcoming, we shouldn't just rush to 'fix' it. After all, it's a lot easier to notice problems than it is to remedy them. The crunch isn't a shortage of marching orders for Ralph Tricky. Plenty of time to consider what we want...

One aspect is defining the precise range of the problem. Did this always happen? Did it ever happen? Kind of like I notice this recurring urge to create some sort of 'uber-fortified' hex. Well, these things weren't all that common, and as a rule, they didn't stand anyway. So I think we might well wind up further off the mark if we made it possible to make them than we are now.

Another aspect is how well can we address this issue, and how much work will be needed? See volume based supply. A praiseworthy cause, and I've banged the drum louder than most -- but a quick fix? That it won't be.

Conversely -- well, see my latest brainstorm about restricting ships guns to the coastal hex. Seems to fairly well sum it up -- or at least move closer to reality than the current situation. Might also be fairly easy to program -- couldn't say for sure.

Finally, the issue has to be considered in context. See the 'bridges don't take a random amount of time to fix -- that's ridiculous.' Well, it's true in the real world, but in TOAW...

The program reduces all blown bridges to a single quantity -- and in doing so, does indeed essentially make the length of time required to fix them a random quantity. It could be almost anything. You can't say 'all blown bridges will take 1200 engineering troops a day and a half to fix.' It could easily be a hundredth of that. It could easily be a matter of no one's going to do much of anything for three weeks because the pile driver won't be here until then, and until we have a pile driver, that bridge can't be fixed.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/26/2011 8:52:13 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1711
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/26/2011 8:56:51 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
Perhaps TOAW is best viewed as series of admittedly excessive generalizations about the infinite complexity and variation of what happens and has happened in warfare over the course of the twentieth century.

So it's not really a matter of 'fixing' things so much as of looking at the generalizations and deciding if they can be improved, or if it would be worth throwing in yet another qualification.


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1712
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/27/2011 5:37:50 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7222
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

2. I don't see a particular need for yet another level of entrenchment. It wouldn't actually hurt, but...

Mainly, I'd just like to see it take longer to reach that final level, ...


That's what another level of entrenchment would achieve. It does seem that going from x2 to x4, to x8 is disjointed. If there was a x6 level...

quote:

and I would like the status to be more promptly heritable. Units do relieve each other in fortified lines -- and a week after taking over a sector, the new unit isn't still struggling to reach 'entrenched' status. It jumps all the way to fortified in about a day, I would think.


Hard to do. First, suppose the original unit is still in the hex. How does the game know that it's really going to leave? Or, suppose the original unit has left. How does the game know it wasn't 20 turns ago, even with enemy occupation inbetween? And are the units identical? Battalion leaves and Division moves in, etc. It's already the case for Fortified Line, of course. Perhaps that should suffice.

quote:

3. I think people are missing a key point on the 'bridges' thing. Given the information that TOAW provides, bridge repair is indeed a crapshoot. 'Blown bridge' and no other information -- you indeed don't know how long it will take to fix. I suppose you could have it 'blow' with some random level of damage you could ascertain and then assign engineers to accordingly, but really...


Thing is, if the Engineering level is 100%, it isn't random at all. Which makes me assume that the real rationale for making it random for smaller amounts was convienience, not simulation of unknowns about bridges.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1713
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/27/2011 8:14:36 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

2. I don't see a particular need for yet another level of entrenchment. It wouldn't actually hurt, but...

Mainly, I'd just like to see it take longer to reach that final level, ...


That's what another level of entrenchment would achieve. It does seem that going from x2 to x4, to x8 is disjointed. If there was a x6 level...


Well, sure. That wouldn't do any harm. However, I was thinking that 'okay, achieving defending status is a matter of getting 'set' and might take a well-trained unit a few hours. 'Entrenched' means everyone has a proper hole and the command post actually has a dugout of sorts. That's a day, what with this and that. A proper trench system is more like a month.

It's easy enough to set up an algorithm that slows as it approaches 100%. I should think this would be fairly doable.

quote:



quote:

and I would like the status to be more promptly heritable. Units do relieve each other in fortified lines -- and a week after taking over a sector, the new unit isn't still struggling to reach 'entrenched' status. It jumps all the way to fortified in about a day, I would think.


Hard to do. First, suppose the original unit is still in the hex. How does the game know that it's really going to leave?


That doesn't really matter. Have at it. Have two battalions manning that stretch of trench.
quote:



Or, suppose the original unit has left. How does the game know it wasn't 20 turns ago, even with enemy occupation inbetween?


The enemy occupation is a bit of a problem, and unmanned fortifications will deteriorate -- see Tobruk by June 1942, but I still don't see this as an overwhelming problem. One would have a mechanism that in certain rare cases would have a somewhat questionable effect.

Of course, if you wanted to have unmanned fortifications or fortifications that have changed hands automatically revert to a lower level, that would okay too -- in fact, it's not a bad idea. Certainly one of the problems that stymied World War One attackers was that it was hard to promptly adopt what the enemy had dug -- what with no communication trenches across no mans land and everything facing the wrong way, and all the instructions in German.

But it wouldn't be essential. An inability to do this is not a reason to refrain from making a change that would still be a net improvement.
quote:



And are the units identical? Battalion leaves and Division moves in, etc.


Nu? What's wrong with a battalion digging positions intended for a division to occupy? In fact, if you have some labor battalions, now you have an authentic use for them.

You've got a point -- but generally, a unit isn't confined to making a system that is only large enough for itself. It's perfectly capable of making enough room for any friends that might want to come help out when the actual fireworks start.

quote:



It's already the case for Fortified Line, of course. Perhaps that should suffice.
quote:



Is it? A unit can move into fortified line and promptly achieve fortified status? I'm suspicious. In any case, can you dig 'fortified line'?


quote:

3. I think people are missing a key point on the 'bridges' thing. Given the information that TOAW provides, bridge repair is indeed a crapshoot. 'Blown bridge' and no other information -- you indeed don't know how long it will take to fix. I suppose you could have it 'blow' with some random level of damage you could ascertain and then assign engineers to accordingly, but really...


Thing is, if the Engineering level is 100%, it isn't random at all. Which makes me assume that the real rationale for making it random for smaller amounts was convienience, not simulation of unknowns about bridges.


Perhaps. However, motives don't matter. Given the complete lack of any detail that TOAW provides about the 'bridge' in question, how long it is going to take to fix is indeed a crapshoot. To return to the mechanic metaphor, maybe he doesn't want to give you a figure for fixing your car because he intends to rob you blind.

Could be. It still remains true that absent further information, he really has no way of knowing.

What wouldn't be accurate is some sort of formula that 'all blown bridges take exactly 1000 man hours to fix.' Obviously, that's quite untrue, and no, you can't send an engineering battalion along with your spearhead and figure it'll be able to fix each blown bridge it comes to in exactly one hour.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/27/2011 8:27:26 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1714
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/27/2011 8:24:03 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
On a related topic.

There was the 'destructible roads' fight. I forget the details of that, but considerable fireworks, as I recall.

I still think all roads should be destructible, but yet another way of looking at it occurred to me.

The Germans retreating through Italy did an especially thorough job in this respect. Every bridge -- even those far too small to show up on a TOAW map, got wrecked, the road itself mined, culverts blown in, and in one place in Sicily, 150 feet of cliffside road literally dropped into the sea.

Perhaps roads should at least be 'destructible' in hills and/or other rough terrain. Once they are in hills, they do indeed become very destructible. I was looking at a picture of some army engineers fixing a bridge. Yeah, it's a 'bridge' -- that's about twenty feet long. It's not going to be on any TOAW map. Problem is, it spans a gully that's about forty feet deep. That's the sort of thing that's going to be everywhere if the terrain is rugged enough.

There are only two ways of simulating it. 'Rivers' in every single hex, or destructible roads.

_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1715
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/28/2011 4:51:15 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7222
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

However, I was thinking that 'okay, achieving defending status is a matter of getting 'set' and might take a well-trained unit a few hours. 'Entrenched' means everyone has a proper hole and the command post actually has a dugout of sorts. That's a day, what with this and that. A proper trench system is more like a month.


I don't know that "Fortified Deployment" is a proper trench system. That would be "Fortified Line" terrain. Rather, it's just being dug in to the point that the unit itself gets a x8 benefit.

quote:

It's easy enough to set up an algorithm that slows as it approaches 100%. I should think this would be fairly doable.


For sure it seems too swift now, since the same effort to dig into Entrenched deployment only got it another x2, while Fortified gets another x4. So, at a minimum, it should take two steps to get to Fortified. Then X effort would return Y results at each step. But perhaps there should be diminishing returns, so that it takes more than X effort to get Y results at higher and higher levels. But I don't know that for sure and certainly don't know just what the rate of diminishment should be.

quote:

That doesn't really matter. Have at it. Have two battalions manning that stretch of trench.


I completely disagree. The original unit only dug a defense for itself. That's why a battalion can dig in as fast as a corps. If the original unit is going to stay then the new unit has to start from scratch. Otherwise, imagine the abuse that would ensue. One unit digs in then eight more get to Fortified automatically. Why would any useful unit ever waste time digging in?

quote:

The enemy occupation is a bit of a problem, and unmanned fortifications will deteriorate -- see Tobruk by June 1942, but I still don't see this as an overwhelming problem. One would have a mechanism that in certain rare cases would have a somewhat questionable effect.


It's worse than that. The entrenchment level may have been made for a front in a completely different orientation, as well.

quote:

Of course, if you wanted to have unmanned fortifications or fortifications that have changed hands automatically revert to a lower level, that would okay too -- in fact, it's not a bad idea. Certainly one of the problems that stymied World War One attackers was that it was hard to promptly adopt what the enemy had dug -- what with no communication trenches across no mans land and everything facing the wrong way, and all the instructions in German.


Enemy occupation decreases the entrenchment level already. It's a good thing - provided that entrenchment level continues to affect entrenchment chances.

quote:

But it wouldn't be essential. An inability to do this is not a reason to refrain from making a change that would still be a net improvement.


Actually what you're suggesting isn't essential. The way it works now is about right, if the hex is unoccuppied. The entrenchment level benefits the unit in digging in, but doesn't guarantee any level.

quote:

Nu? What's wrong with a battalion digging positions intended for a division to occupy? In fact, if you have some labor battalions, now you have an authentic use for them.

You've got a point -- but generally, a unit isn't confined to making a system that is only large enough for itself. It's perfectly capable of making enough room for any friends that might want to come help out when the actual fireworks start.


The battalion has only dug a defense for a battalion. The Corps needs a defense for a Corps. Again, This would be abused ridiculusly. Why dig in a Corps if a battalion can do it for it?

The only way this could be safely effected would be if both the old (Fortified) and new (Mobile) units were in the same hex and "swapped" deployments. And there would have to be some sort of check of their TO&E for sufficient similarity. Too much work for too little benefit.

quote:

Is it? A unit can move into fortified line and promptly achieve fortified status? I'm suspicious. In any case, can you dig 'fortified line'?


Move into a Fortified Line hex and you're in a Fortified Line hex. You can't create Fortified Line yet, but that sounds like a better use of resources addressing that.

quote:

What wouldn't be accurate is some sort of formula that 'all blown bridges take exactly 1000 man hours to fix.' Obviously, that's quite untrue, and no, you can't send an engineering battalion along with your spearhead and figure it'll be able to fix each blown bridge it comes to in exactly one hour.


But, again, if the unit has 100% engineering, then that's exactly what you know. There is no random aspect whatsoever. And, think if you have one unit with 100% engineering and four bridges to repair. They'll be repaired in exactly four turns. Now suppose you have four engineers with 25% engineering each and those same four bridges. You've got the same amount of assets applied to the same task. It should still take four turns to repair them all.

Well, currently it does - on average. And the more bridges get repaired in the game the closer that average will get to equivalent. That's why I don't see an issue with the way it is now. But, it wouldn't be wrong if it kept count of repair stages.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 8/28/2011 4:54:51 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1716
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/28/2011 7:24:18 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

However, I was thinking that 'okay, achieving defending status is a matter of getting 'set' and might take a well-trained unit a few hours. 'Entrenched' means everyone has a proper hole and the command post actually has a dugout of sorts. That's a day, what with this and that. A proper trench system is more like a month.


I don't know that "Fortified Deployment" is a proper trench system. That would be "Fortified Line" terrain. Rather, it's just being dug in to the point that the unit itself gets a x8 benefit.

quote:

It's easy enough to set up an algorithm that slows as it approaches 100%. I should think this would be fairly doable.


For sure it seems too swift now, since the same effort to dig into Entrenched deployment only got it another x2, while Fortified gets another x4. So, at a minimum, it should take two steps to get to Fortified. Then X effort would return Y results at each step. But perhaps there should be diminishing returns, so that it takes more than X effort to get Y results at higher and higher levels. But I don't know that for sure and certainly don't know just what the rate of diminishment should be.


You seem to be understanding what I am getting at. A minimal level of digging in -- defending status -- can be achieved in a matter of hours. It's as much a matter of not being hit while forming up or in march order as anything. Really full entrenchment can take months, depending on conditions. One should be able to hop to 'x2' simply by stopping and doing it. 'x8' should take quite a while.
quote:



quote:

That doesn't really matter. Have at it. Have two battalions manning that stretch of trench.


I completely disagree. The original unit only dug a defense for itself.


Notta necessarily. Lines are commonly prepared in advance -- and prepared for considerably larger forces than those digging them.
quote:



That's why a battalion can dig in as fast as a corps. If the original unit is going to stay then the new unit has to start from scratch. Otherwise, imagine the abuse that would ensue. One unit digs in then eight more get to Fortified automatically. Why would any useful unit ever waste time digging in?


Well, first, you'd have to set aside 'diggers' to make the line. Secondly, you'd have to know where it was going to go. These were real-life considerations, and forces both benefitted from looking ahead -- as when the Germans withdrew to the Hindenberg Line in 1917 -- and suffered from not looking ahead -- as when the Germans never could fall back to a properly prepared line in 1943.

I also think that there's a tendency to 'fort worship.' That is to say, historical evidence notwithstanding, people keep acting as if super-elaborate structures such as the Maginot Line were markedly more impenetrable than what would be built by any motivated unit holding the same ground for a few months.

I don't think so. The Germans started preparing their winter line in Italy in October 1943 and the Allies were fully up to it a month later. It held for seven months. Conversely, given a month with an adequate and undistracted force, the Germans were able to reduce Sevastopol.

Then too, a good deal of your argument is hinging on 'battalions and corps.' Well, having such a wide spread in unit size is bad design in the first place, and really, one should be talking about battalions and brigades, and really, battalions do prepare positions that can be readily reinforced to brigade strength.

However, you are right that some piss-ant AT unit shouldn't be able to prepare a line for a whole brigade -- or should take an awful long time to do it. It might be necessary to elaborate the digging in formulas in some way to account for the size of the entrenching unit versus the size of the hex. Obviously, in -- say, a five km hex -- a battalion of a dozen AT guns can fortify itself quite nicely without necessarily having made accommodation for two infantry battalions as well.
quote:



quote:

The enemy occupation is a bit of a problem, and unmanned fortifications will deteriorate -- see Tobruk by June 1942, but I still don't see this as an overwhelming problem. One would have a mechanism that in certain rare cases would have a somewhat questionable effect.


It's worse than that. The entrenchment level may have been made for a front in a completely different orientation, as well.


Indeed. However, in TOAW we have to take the average of these things. Allied units in 1918 were able to take some advantage of Hindenberg Line fortifications, though -- just not full advantage. A fine hole is a fine hole when it comes to sheltering from an artillery barrage.
quote:



quote:

Of course, if you wanted to have unmanned fortifications or fortifications that have changed hands automatically revert to a lower level, that would okay too -- in fact, it's not a bad idea. Certainly one of the problems that stymied World War One attackers was that it was hard to promptly adopt what the enemy had dug -- what with no communication trenches across no mans land and everything facing the wrong way, and all the instructions in German.


Enemy occupation decreases the entrenchment level already. It's a good thing - provided that entrenchment level continues to affect entrenchment chances.

quote:

But it wouldn't be essential. An inability to do this is not a reason to refrain from making a change that would still be a net improvement.


Actually what you're suggesting isn't essential. The way it works now is about right, if the hex is unoccuppied. The entrenchment level benefits the unit in digging in, but doesn't guarantee any level.


But there you are. In the real world, positions are often prepared in advance by relatively small forces and then occupied by larger ones. The failure to do this is one of the things that made German generals complain in 1943.
quote:



quote:

Nu? What's wrong with a battalion digging positions intended for a division to occupy? In fact, if you have some labor battalions, now you have an authentic use for them.

You've got a point -- but generally, a unit isn't confined to making a system that is only large enough for itself. It's perfectly capable of making enough room for any friends that might want to come help out when the actual fireworks start.


The battalion has only dug a defense for a battalion. The Corps needs a defense for a Corps. Again, This would be abused ridiculusly. Why dig in a Corps if a battalion can do it for it?


I think both ends of this have already been covered.
quote:



The only way this could be safely effected would be if both the old (Fortified) and new (Mobile) units were in the same hex and "swapped" deployments. And there would have to be some sort of check of their TO&E for sufficient similarity. Too much work for too little benefit.


I think you only say 'too much work for too little benefit' because you haven't considered just how widely what happens in TOAW diverges from historical reality.

One of the things that makes it harder to hold a line in TOAW than it is in reality is that units can't move in and immediately assume the fortified deployment of the previous defender. Your infantry regiment has been hammered down to a 1-3. In the real world, if there's a fresh regiment, it can move in and relieve the 1-3, immediately becoming fortified in its stead. In TOAW, the new unit is going to be caught in at best entrenched status. While catching units at the precise moment of relief was an excellent tactic, it was considerably harder to do in reality than it is in TOAW -- and that's one of the reasons lines are harder to hold in TOAW than they were in reality.

It's actually one place where TOAW really falls down. One should be able to cling fairly well to a line, then have to fall back to a new one. Actually, one just gets rather slowly and indeterminately driven back, since there is no such ability to immediately inherit the fortifications occupied by the previous defender. What happens in real life is more like what happened in Italy, where the Germans were finally pounded out of the Winter Line, then were neither able to nor attempted to make a serious stand until they had fallen back to the Gothic Line. We could be better simulate this if it was both more time-consuming to reach fortified status and if such a status was more readily heritable.

There's also no particular need that the defenders be identical in size. 'Intelligence reports indicated that only one battalion was in ______. Actually, the Germans had moved in three additional battalions, and there were now four battalions in _________.'

This aspect of your argument takes on overwhelming validity only when there is an extreme difference in the size of the units, which is (a) bad design, and (b) in some cases at least posits that somehow your ant unit has indeed been holding the line by itself all this while.

Your point about a unit only preparing accommodations for itself has some validity, but fails on two points. First, it may well have prepared rooms for additional guests, and secondly, assuming it was actually trying to comprehensively defend the position, there should be trenches, strongpoints, etc covering the entire frontage, and those can simply be occupied in greater strength.
quote:



quote:

Is it? A unit can move into fortified line and promptly achieve fortified status? I'm suspicious. In any case, can you dig 'fortified line'?


Move into a Fortified Line hex and you're in a Fortified Line hex. You can't create Fortified Line yet, but that sounds like a better use of resources addressing that.

quote:

What wouldn't be accurate is some sort of formula that 'all blown bridges take exactly 1000 man hours to fix.' Obviously, that's quite untrue, and no, you can't send an engineering battalion along with your spearhead and figure it'll be able to fix each blown bridge it comes to in exactly one hour.


But, again, if the unit has 100% engineering, then that's exactly what you know. There is no random aspect whatsoever. And, think if you have one unit with 100% engineering and four bridges to repair. They'll be repaired in exactly four turns. Now suppose you have four engineers with 25% engineering each and those same four bridges. You've got the same amount of assets applied to the same task. It should still take four turns to repair them all.


Well, at a certain point you do know. After all, that's more or less what goes on with these disaster relief projects. They go in with enough to deal with whatever they might find. Send along enough bridging men and material to span anything that's in the region, and you should be able to fix whatever's been blown up.

However, I'm not arguing that the current system is perfect. Merely that one that trades this for some set formula might not be an improvement. Your average divisional engineering battalion is liable to run into some unanticipated challenges along the way. 'But there were no...' is a common discovery in the history of military campaigns.
quote:



Well, currently it does - on average. And the more bridges get repaired in the game the closer that average will get to equivalent. That's why I don't see an issue with the way it is now. But, it wouldn't be wrong if it kept count of repair stages.


We don't seem to be arguing about much, then. 'Repair stages' might be okay. At least you would know when to expect that this thing will be fixed -- which is something that would become apparent once somebody had actually shown up to look at the damage and phoned back to find out what parts were in stock. Once you've actually let the mechanic look at your car, he has a better idea of when you can expect to have it back.

I've usually found the unpredictability of bridge repair to only occasionally get out of hand, so I can't say I see it as the most pressing issue, but it wouldn't hurt if the problem got defined as soon as an engineering unit actually started on the job. Essentially, the program would decide whether the 'blown bridge' was a matter of someone having torn up the floorboards or of somebody having dynamited both piers on the Golden Gate Bridge once but only once work had started.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/28/2011 8:08:21 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1717
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/28/2011 8:15:31 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
Perhaps ant units lacking a certain number of active defenders proportionate to hex size shouldn't be able to fortify by themselves.

Consider a unit of a dozen AT guns in a 5 km wide hex. If it's there alone, it's going to be in trouble if an attacker comes along. Regardless of how well the pieces have been dug in, in most situations they can be flanked and driven out.

Conversely, if the unit is of adequate size, then it can indeed (eventually) prepare strongpoints, trenches, dugouts, etc that will cover the entire frontage and be adequate for a considerably larger force than itself -- and in a decent army that sees the least likelihood of a serious enemy attack, presumably will.

On the one hand, I don't see the default position -- what we have currently -- as ideal, or even really adequate. On the other hand, it seems readily susceptible to improvement.

I'd say that as one moves up the scale of entrenched status to 'fortified' three things should start happening:

the status should become more inheritable

the rate of improvement should slow

the rate of improvement should become more dependent on the ratio of total active defenders digging to the size of the hex (note that all the diggers would need to be summed, or one brigade would be able to do more work than three battalions).

In other words, an AT battalion can promptly deploy -- but it's going to take an infantry battalion working for several weeks to make a fully fortified 5 km hex. Once that status is reached, though, additional units can move into that hex and promptly assume fortified status.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/28/2011 8:34:26 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1718
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: Entrenchment rates - 8/30/2011 2:15:33 AM   
governato

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

Just chiming in: I have just finished designing a large scale scenario for TOAWIII that includes all the European front (it usesa modified Europe Aflame map).
I had to lower the Entrenchment Rate (edit/deployment/set entrenchment rates) to 66% to get more realistic withdrawals of corps/army sized units.
I noticed that with the Entrenchment rate set at 100% it was hard to get an historical Operation Bagration as the Axis would be able to fall back and dig in too quickly and effectively. I have not done any extensive tests, but with it set at 66%, it takes longer for large units to get to fortified status.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1719
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: Entrenchment rates - 9/28/2011 10:58:39 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 484
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Netherlands
Status: offline
I had the following request for the next updat / wishlist

Namely that units with Guerrilla symbol can transported by helicopter


_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
The CrazyDutch

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 1720
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 9/28/2011 8:11:54 PM   
josant

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 3/14/2007
From: Spain
Status: offline
I would like to be included in future versions the Galix/Shtora systems of the Leclerc, T-90 and T-80 Tanks.

Those systems have:

1. A bank of forward firing grenade launchers or dischargers mounted on either side of the turret, which can fire grenades dispensing an aerosol smoke screen opaque to infrared light
2. and only in the sthora system Two infrared lights, one on each side of the main gun,
continuously emit coded pulsed-infrared jamming when an incoming ATGM has been detected.

In toaw it can be modeled adding a new flag like the type of armor(composite, laminate, reactive) to the different equipment systems of the database and modify the source code, so that when one of these equipment (Tank, IFV...) is attacked by an ATGM or Helicopter (or if is more easy to modify the source code when is attacked by a HEAT weapon), who have Targeting++++, Targeting+++, or Targeting++ this value is decreased to the most simplest Targeting+ due to interference of these systems.

< Message edited by josant -- 9/28/2011 8:13:20 PM >

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 1721
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/2/2011 2:28:54 PM   
mfr

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 2/14/2002
Status: offline
I suggest a "rally to" or a "move to" command whereby all elements of a formation can automatically move to the HQ's location. Their moves would be subject to all the penalties and restrictions that are imposed by manual moves of course.
This would relieve the overall commander (player) of the administrative burden that is more properly handled by a staff.

(in reply to josant)
Post #: 1722
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/2/2011 8:07:43 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
Here's one.  Since it also offers hope of marginally expanding the market for TOAW, it may be worth implementing.  One can't really produce a perfect replica of most board war games in TOAW.  They have too many specialized rules, etc.  But no need to give up hope...

The simplest way for me to explain the idea is to quote a post I made elsewhere:

"...It's just that as noted elsewhere, Ben and I were playing Caucasus Campaign, and I finished it up after he left.

Point is, in that period it was occupying about half the dining room table, and the other residents of Chez Wright were growing restive.

So I got to thinking.  Wouldn't it be convenient if all these games had a 'semi-computer' analog.  The computer would essentially just provide a display -- you would just remove and relocate units as you saw fit.  It'd at least get the game off the dining room table.

Then came inspiration.  No reason at all TOAW couldn't be used this way.  Just use the editor mode.  In fact...

Take Caucasus Campaign.  The map can be done -- everything there can be represented one way or another in TOAW.  Counters can be given a lot of the right values by adding rifle squads and trucks as needed (value highlights are an exception).

So I've got my map, and got all the units.  I 'take' the German turn one by rolling the dice and relocating the units.  I save the edit and mail it off to Ben.  I suppose since I'm the only one with a physical copy of the game, he'll have to trust me to draw his random units, and of course we both have to trust each other to roll the dice, but essentially...

TOAW should be able to be used to play most board war games by e-mail."



So TOAW can be used to play a wide range of board war games by e-mail.  If options were added to alter the values displayed on the tiles at will, display three values, highlight some, etc. its utility in this respect would increase still further -- and I imagine with relatively little programming effort.  Fer a real Cadillac, throw in a 'die roll' function with the moving player having to specify what the die roll pertains to before 'rolling.'


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to mfr)
Post #: 1723
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/2/2011 8:36:43 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2845
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: mfr

I suggest a "rally to" or a "move to" command whereby all elements of a formation can automatically move to the HQ's location. Their moves would be subject to all the penalties and restrictions that are imposed by manual moves of course.
This would relieve the overall commander (player) of the administrative burden that is more properly handled by a staff.



Have you looked into the 'PO Assist' feature ?

(in reply to mfr)
Post #: 1724
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/2/2011 8:40:00 PM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 408
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Here's one.  Since it also offers hope of marginally expanding the market for TOAW, it may be worth implementing.  One can't really produce a perfect replica of most board war games in TOAW.  They have too many specialized rules, etc.  But no need to give up hope...

The simplest way for me to explain the idea is to quote a post I made elsewhere:

"...It's just that as noted elsewhere, Ben and I were playing Caucasus Campaign, and I finished it up after he left.

Point is, in that period it was occupying about half the dining room table, and the other residents of Chez Wright were growing restive.

So I got to thinking.  Wouldn't it be convenient if all these games had a 'semi-computer' analog.  The computer would essentially just provide a display -- you would just remove and relocate units as you saw fit.  It'd at least get the game off the dining room table.

Then came inspiration.  No reason at all TOAW couldn't be used this way.  Just use the editor mode.  In fact...

Take Caucasus Campaign.  The map can be done -- everything there can be represented one way or another in TOAW.  Counters can be given a lot of the right values by adding rifle squads and trucks as needed (value highlights are an exception).

So I've got my map, and got all the units.  I 'take' the German turn one by rolling the dice and relocating the units.  I save the edit and mail it off to Ben.  I suppose since I'm the only one with a physical copy of the game, he'll have to trust me to draw his random units, and of course we both have to trust each other to roll the dice, but essentially...

TOAW should be able to be used to play most board war games by e-mail."



So TOAW can be used to play a wide range of board war games by e-mail.  If options were added to alter the values displayed on the tiles at will, display three values, highlight some, etc. its utility in this respect would increase still further -- and I imagine with relatively little programming effort.  Fer a real Cadillac, throw in a 'die roll' function with the moving player having to specify what the die roll pertains to before 'rolling.'



That's called VASSAL, and the Caucasus Campaign module is already there. (Funnily, VASSAL belongs to Matrix...)

TOAW development is in the same status as Combined Arms, either you're happy with what you have, or move on.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1725
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/2/2011 11:43:08 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima



That's called VASSAL, and the Caucasus Campaign module is already there. (Funnily, VASSAL belongs to Matrix...)

TOAW development is in the same status as Combined Arms, either you're happy with what you have, or move on.



Embarrassing. I really am behind the times.

As to TOAW, that may be true, but it's frustrating. I'm not aware of anything to move on to. Add that I suspect some of the tweaks we've been getting lately seem to be ill-considered; they may actually make things slightly worse.


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 1726
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/3/2011 9:29:52 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1355
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
Speaking about... what use is a wishlist if there's an advanced FOW clouding any feeback or update regarding 3.5?

Just a thought...

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1727
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/3/2011 9:40:17 AM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 408
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima



That's called VASSAL, and the Caucasus Campaign module is already there. (Funnily, VASSAL belongs to Matrix...)

TOAW development is in the same status as Combined Arms, either you're happy with what you have, or move on.



Embarrassing. I really am behind the times.

As to TOAW, that may be true, but it's frustrating. I'm not aware of anything to move on to. Add that I suspect some of the tweaks we've been getting lately seem to be ill-considered; they may actually make things slightly worse.



You just gave your own answer, move back to boardgaming. VASSAL solves your requirement for live or pbem gameplay, there's enough solitaire games these days to keep the solitaire player busy for a long time, and if you do not like something in the rules just tweak. Heck, I can grab OCS's supply model, implement it on the Caucasus Campaign, and for a variant bring in extra units from any other game. It's that easy, nobody to debate it with until the end of times.

That's what I did and I do not regret it.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1728
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/3/2011 3:03:09 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2845
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
quote:

... I can grab OCS's supply model, implement it on the Caucasus Campaign ...


I don't know anything about the systems you are talking about, so I have to ask : Can you grab V4V's supply model and implement it on a TOAW scenario ?

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 1729
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/3/2011 3:15:17 PM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 408
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

... I can grab OCS's supply model, implement it on the Caucasus Campaign ...


I don't know anything about the systems you are talking about, so I have to ask : Can you grab V4V's supply model and implement it on a TOAW scenario ?


I was talking about how flexible boardgames are.

What you suggest could be done if Matrix so choose to, but it would be a major exercise and quite frankly there would be no money in it, unless they could market it as TOAW 4 and sell it for $1000000. Like I said before TOAW is what it is and that's what it will be.

(At some point we should be realistic. How long did it took for a single patch to be done? How long do you think would take for Matrix to pull something major as a full overhaul of the supply system? They had nearly 10 years to do combined arms for example. Matrix is good at marketing, not developing. That's why they get guys like Panther, SSG, and the likes. It's when they try to do what they do not do best, like develop, that they get in trouble.)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1730
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/3/2011 8:08:26 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7222
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

(At some point we should be realistic. How long did it took for a single patch to be done? How long do you think would take for Matrix to pull something major as a full overhaul of the supply system? They had nearly 10 years to do combined arms for example. Matrix is good at marketing, not developing. That's why they get guys like Panther, SSG, and the likes. It's when they try to do what they do not do best, like develop, that they get in trouble.)


I certainly agree we should be realistic. But I hardly think you can blame some shortcoming of Matrix. The problem is the subject itself. It's a micro-niche market. If we had a staff of a dozen full-time programmers there's no limit on what we could do. But we don't even have one full-time programmer. We have a tiny fraction of one programmer.

So the progress is slow - and not even steady, at that.

Now, if Matrix really was good at marketing...

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 1731
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/3/2011 8:16:19 PM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 408
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

(At some point we should be realistic. How long did it took for a single patch to be done? How long do you think would take for Matrix to pull something major as a full overhaul of the supply system? They had nearly 10 years to do combined arms for example. Matrix is good at marketing, not developing. That's why they get guys like Panther, SSG, and the likes. It's when they try to do what they do not do best, like develop, that they get in trouble.)


I certainly agree we should be realistic. But I hardly think you can blame some shortcoming of Matrix. The problem is the subject itself. It's a micro-niche market. If we had a staff of a dozen full-time programmers there's no limit on what we could do. But we don't even have one full-time programmer. We have a tiny fraction of one programmer.

So the progress is slow - and not even steady, at that.

Now, if Matrix really was good at marketing...


We may do a Colin - Curtis thing here and discuss minutia until we reach no conclusion, and loose sight of the bigger matters in discussion, but since I'm neither of you, I'll say this, whatever the reason the fact is it's not going to happen. And that is the fact.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1732
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/3/2011 9:03:04 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7222
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

We may do a Colin - Curtis thing here and discuss minutia until we reach no conclusion, and loose sight of the bigger matters in discussion, ...


Are you just going to sit there and take that, Colin?

quote:

...but since I'm neither of you, I'll say this, whatever the reason the fact is it's not going to happen. And that is the fact.


Then you know more than I do.

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 1733
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/3/2011 10:03:49 PM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 408
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...

quote:

...but since I'm neither of you, I'll say this, whatever the reason the fact is it's not going to happen. And that is the fact.


Then you know more than I do.


Feel free to prove me wrong. Tell us the date the release with the new supply system will be available.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1734
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/3/2011 10:53:00 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7222
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...

quote:

...but since I'm neither of you, I'll say this, whatever the reason the fact is it's not going to happen. And that is the fact.


Then you know more than I do.


Feel free to prove me wrong. Tell us the date the release with the new supply system will be available.


Since I don't know when the next hurricane will hit Houston that must prove it will never happen. That's great news!

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 1735
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/3/2011 11:24:28 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2845
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
quote:

I was talking about how flexible boardgames are.


Ah, ok, I misunderstood.

quote:

How long do you think would take for Matrix to pull something major as a full overhaul of the supply system?


I'm in no hurry, I've got plenty of time (I hope). Battleships and Federal Projects take time, too. And, when it comes time to redo the supply system, I hope you are still around, too.


(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 1736
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/4/2011 4:38:11 AM   
mfr

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 2/14/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


quote:

ORIGINAL: mfr

I suggest a "rally to" or a "move to" command whereby all elements of a formation can automatically move to the HQ's location. Their moves would be subject to all the penalties and restrictions that are imposed by manual moves of course.
This would relieve the overall commander (player) of the administrative burden that is more properly handled by a staff.



Have you looked into the 'PO Assist' feature ?

I have not. I need to become familiar with that. But I understand it does not work with PBEM games.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1737
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/4/2011 9:27:46 AM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 408
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...

Since I don't know when the next hurricane will hit Houston that must prove it will never happen. That's great news!


Not sure in the context of hurricanes (BTW, throwing the discussion in a tangent might work but probably only with kids, it's disrespectful between adults), but in the context of TOAW means you guys have no project for the development of it, which is fine, because it's what I've been saying all along, to deny my claims all you managed was to discuss hurricanes, which shows a lot.

Might we now talk about sandy beaches, or are beaches too much on topic since they exist as a terrain in TOAW?

< Message edited by jmlima -- 12/4/2011 9:29:39 AM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1738
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/4/2011 5:01:17 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7222
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...

Since I don't know when the next hurricane will hit Houston that must prove it will never happen. That's great news!


Not sure in the context of hurricanes (BTW, throwing the discussion in a tangent might work but probably only with kids, it's disrespectful between adults), but in the context of TOAW means you guys have no project for the development of it, which is fine, because it's what I've been saying all along, to deny my claims all you managed was to discuss hurricanes, which shows a lot.

Might we now talk about sandy beaches, or are beaches too much on topic since they exist as a terrain in TOAW?


The point was that your argument had about as much basis as someone claiming no hurricane will ever hit Houston again - just because we can't predict exactly when one will. Did you really need to have that explained to you?

I don't know how far and how fast TOAW's further development will be. But I'm sure you don't either. There most certainly are intentions for plenty of developments, though.

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 1739
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist: - 12/4/2011 5:27:20 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2845
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
quote:

But I understand it does not work with PBEM games.


I don't Pbem so I did not know that PO Assist wasn't available. I suggest that you look in the 'Player Options' menu to see if 'Show PO Assist buttons' is available.

(in reply to mfr)
Post #: 1740
Page:   <<   < prev  56 57 [58] 59 60   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  56 57 [58] 59 60   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.148