Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch

 
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 >> TOAW III Support >> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/23/2011 4:44:44 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
When will engineers have an effect on fortified or entrenched units? This seems to be a persistant oversight.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 91
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/23/2011 8:06:27 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



...And there's another factor not mentioned yet. Under earlier versions terrain had no impact on the chance of forcing the defender to retreat. It was as easy to dislodge a unit from a Fortified Line hex as it was from a Clear hex. And that fact probably accounted for most captures of Fortified Line hexes in the past. That's been changed in 3.4. Units are much less likely to retreat from such hexes now. So you actually have to battle them out of their pillboxes the hard way.


I don't actually disagree with this -- depending on how it pans out in practice, sounds good.

However, note that no fortress in World War Two actually withstood assault.

They all fell if someone made it their business to take them. Even Tobruk is more or less the exception that proves the rule, as Rommel was never able to muster really adequate forces for an assault in 1941. Sevastopol, Tarawa, Singapore, Corrigidor -- they all fell once the enemy was able to mount a properly prepared assault. Mellenthin's memoirs recount the German operations against the Maginot Line in June 1940 -- and conclude that those forts, too, could have been taken had there been the need.

Equally to the point, even World War One offensives often 'worked' to some extent. The defender could be and often was knocked out of his fortified belt. The problem tended to be that the attackers then found themselves occupying positions pointed the wrong way, with no means of bringing adequate supplies up across the devastation of no man's land, and no way of arranging artillery support, given the technology of the time.

So the erstwhile defender could usually counterattack and regain the ground lost.

I mention this because I often see posts concerned with jacking the defensive impact of fortifications higher still. Given the historical record, that's a dubious project. If one was able to create untakable hexes in TOAW, it wouldn't be very accurate.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/23/2011 8:57:22 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 #: 92
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/23/2011 8:07:55 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

When will engineers have an effect on fortified or entrenched units? This seems to be a persistant oversight.


As far as I know, engineers do accelerate the speed at which one entrenches. What exactly did you want?


_____________________________

"...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 Panama)
Post #: 93
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/23/2011 9:25:15 PM   
Carolus Rex

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 8/15/2011
Status: offline
I have sure noticed that it is hard to make a defender retreat from a fortified hex. I have a question regarding the defensive lines, since many hexes in Götterdammung havent got fortied lines in all directions, how does the game handle this? My experience is that even if attacking from a direction where no lines exist, the defence is realy tough.
And what if attacking from several directions, both cross fortlines and not. Is there different calculations in the same battle?

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 94
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/23/2011 10:15:03 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2770
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
Its my understanding that any Fortification tile within a hex provides protection for all sides. So you can put one on all six hexsides or one on only one hexside and get the same benefits. This doesn't negate the effect of attacking from a flanking position though.

To the engineer question, Engineer Squads have the same Anti-Personel value as Assault Squads, so they do have a greater effect than other squads when assaulting positions. Also, designers can put special equipment like bazookas, flamethrowers or heavy mg's into the engineer units. So the icon may not have an effect, but the equipment does.

(in reply to Carolus Rex)
Post #: 95
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/23/2011 11:22:54 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

When will engineers have an effect on fortified or entrenched units? This seems to be a persistant oversight.


As far as I know, engineers do accelerate the speed at which one entrenches. What exactly did you want?





Good joke.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 96
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/23/2011 11:27:20 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Its my understanding that any Fortification tile within a hex provides protection for all sides. So you can put one on all six hexsides or one on only one hexside and get the same benefits. This doesn't negate the effect of attacking from a flanking position though.

To the engineer question, Engineer Squads have the same Anti-Personel value as Assault Squads, so they do have a greater effect than other squads when assaulting positions. Also, designers can put special equipment like bazookas, flamethrowers or heavy mg's into the engineer units. So the icon may not have an effect, but the equipment does.


Yes, they can act like an infantry squad. And you can make up for a huge oversight by messing with the stats in the database. That last should be a standard answer for all things concering units I guess. But I would rather see them unentrench units like heavy artillery. I'm probably just pissing in the wind.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 97
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 2:40:17 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
Part of the problem is that there are all kinds of engineers.

There are engineers who spend their time fixing bridges -- and never see combat. There were units like the Italian guastatori -- who were essentially heavily armed assault troops. There were engineers equipped with special mine-clearing vehicles. There are engineers who lay mines, engineers that set up water purification systems...

In reality, sometimes these functions overlap. Sometimes they don't. But we've just got the 'engineer' squad. It's as if we had a 'dog' counter. Never mind that there are sight hounds, scent hounds, hunting dogs, guard dogs, fighting dogs, lap dogs...we've just got 'dog.' Sort of a labrador retriever-pekinese-pit bull cross.

Point is 'engineers' shouldn't be able to or not be able to do anything at all. That would depend on the engineer in question.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/24/2011 2:46:15 AM >


_____________________________

"...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 Panama)
Post #: 98
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 2:56:00 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

When will engineers have an effect on fortified or entrenched units? This seems to be a persistant oversight.


As far as I know, engineers do accelerate the speed at which one entrenches. What exactly did you want?





Good joke.


? I was just thinking of the special ability of engineers to affect the entrenchment of one's own forces.

I'm not really sure there's a need for them to have some special ability to assist in assaults on fortified positions. That strikes me as one of those 'improvements' that might leave things as skewed after as they were before -- only in the opposite direction. You're baffled by Fort Colin -- until you bring up your engineer battalion. Then it falls.

Maybe. It would depend on the specifics of the situation and the specifics of the units involved.

For what it's worth, I did slug through Glatz's Stalingrad books. I don't recall any special effort to bring up engineers. Paulus did eventually strip the engineer battalions from many of his divisions that weren't involved in the fighting in the city -- but simply because he needed more infantry, not because the engineers were going to bring anything special to the task.


_____________________________

"...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 Panama)
Post #: 99
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 8:30:59 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Good to know combat engineers were never used by anyone.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 100
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 10:34:41 AM   
polarenper


Posts: 350
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Currently in Kiev
Status: offline
Didn't the Germans bring a whole lot of pioneers to Stalingrad around x-mas time? Or would they count as assault troops rather than engineers?

_____________________________

السلام عليكم

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 101
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 3:44:02 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Combat engineers are assault troops. But with specialized equipment you won't find with a 'normal' unit. That equipment is meant to be used against dug in or fortified positions. But then since Colin says no one ever used them that must be wrong.

Read this wiki article and you'll see engineers in TOAW are only allowed to do half to two thirds their job. Slackers all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_engineering

BTW. In the Army everyone is a grunt first. Everything else secondary.

< Message edited by Panama -- 8/24/2011 4:00:24 PM >

(in reply to polarenper)
Post #: 102
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 4:30:42 PM   
polarenper


Posts: 350
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Currently in Kiev
Status: offline
Thanks for the link. Food for thought.

_____________________________

السلام عليكم

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 103
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 4:44:29 PM   
Carolus Rex

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 8/15/2011
Status: offline
As beeing Engr officer I am not realy unpartial, but I think the Engr ops is not simulated very well in the game. Some suggestions that I think should improve the game (without beeing completely revulationary)
1. Bridge Ops, having built several hundred bridges i know that luck has noting to do with it. The percentige rate should be accumulative so if trying several times you finaly reach 100 % and the building is a sure thing (realy frustrating to have to count on luck when planning your advance across an important bridge.
2. It should not be able to reach Fortified level unless an engr unit is present, all units can prepare a defence, but to get Fortified need engr support (extensive minefield, concrete bunkers ..)
3. To demolish a bridge, the unit should need to contain engr squads.

We do a lot of other stuff, bot all cant be simulated in TOAW, the changes abowe should make the engr somewhat more usefull in some of their main duties.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 104
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 7:08:05 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper

Didn't the Germans bring a whole lot of pioneers to Stalingrad around x-mas time? Or would they count as assault troops rather than engineers?


They brought them there -- but Glantz at least paints it simply as an expedient. They were the only remaining source for more combat infantry in Sixth Army.


_____________________________

"...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 polarenper)
Post #: 105
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 7:17:06 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carolus Rex

As beeing Engr officer I am not realy unpartial, but I think the Engr ops is not simulated very well in the game. Some suggestions that I think should improve the game (without beeing completely revulationary)
1. Bridge Ops, having built several hundred bridges i know that luck has noting to do with it. The percentige rate should be accumulative so if trying several times you finaly reach 100 % and the building is a sure thing (realy frustrating to have to count on luck when planning your advance across an important bridge.
2. It should not be able to reach Fortified level unless an engr unit is present, all units can prepare a defence, but to get Fortified need engr support (extensive minefield, concrete bunkers ..)
3. To demolish a bridge, the unit should need to contain engr squads.

We do a lot of other stuff, bot all cant be simulated in TOAW, the changes abowe should make the engr somewhat more usefull in some of their main duties.


Well, the 'luck' thing can be seen as a poor substitute for the immense variation in the structures all summed up as a generic 'bridge.'

After all, given structure (a) and resource pool (b), you could probably guarantee you'd have a lane open in an hour. Given structure (x) and resource pool (y) you might not care to promise anything in under a month.

Absent multiple types of bridges, multiple sets of local resources, and multiple levels of equipment and expertise for engineer units, the 'luck' is a poor substitute.

For what it's worth, enemies have traditionally managed to unpleasantly surprise with how fast they get bridges back into operation. So from the perspective of higher command, bridge repair is a bit of an imponderable. Something like the Bridge at Remagen was physically a matter of a bridge not having been blown in time -- but as far as OKH was concerned, it was a matter of the Allies having a bridge across the Rhine sooner than expected.

You're right -- but one can also take the position that TOAW is an operational level game, and from the point of view of the front commander, it is a matter of uncertainly just how soon his guys will be able to have that bridge up and running once he's captured its site. For one thing, how thoroughly the enemy will have managed to wreck it won't be known until it is taken.


_____________________________

"...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 Carolus Rex)
Post #: 106
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 7:17:48 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carolus Rex

As beeing Engr officer I am not realy unpartial, but I think the Engr ops is not simulated very well in the game. Some suggestions that I think should improve the game (without beeing completely revulationary)
1. Bridge Ops, having built several hundred bridges i know that luck has noting to do with it. The percentige rate should be accumulative so if trying several times you finaly reach 100 % and the building is a sure thing (realy frustrating to have to count on luck when planning your advance across an important bridge.
2. It should not be able to reach Fortified level unless an engr unit is present, all units can prepare a defence, but to get Fortified need engr support (extensive minefield, concrete bunkers ..)
3. To demolish a bridge, the unit should need to contain engr squads.

We do a lot of other stuff, bot all cant be simulated in TOAW, the changes abowe should make the engr somewhat more usefull in some of their main duties.


1. Yes. Repairing a bridge is not a roll of dice. It is an organized operation with a positive result by people who know what they are doing. Length of turn should have much to do with it. One day turn not so easy to fix. One week turn, positive result is more possible. I like the cumulative idea.
2. Yes. No line division is capable of fortified positions. It takes specialized materials and equipment. And lots of it.
3. Yes. Hans from the farm has no idea how to place explosives to destroy a bridge unless he had the training. He didn't get that training in a few weeks of infantry school.

Too bad engineers can't build pontoon bridges and then leave it there with just a few squads to maintain it.

Someone needs to read up on combat engineers. These guys do more things than you think.

(in reply to Carolus Rex)
Post #: 107
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 7:28:31 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Combat engineers are assault troops. But with specialized equipment you won't find with a 'normal' unit. That equipment is meant to be used against dug in or fortified positions. But then since Colin says no one ever used them that must be wrong.


I didn't say that. I'm merely unconvinced that in general they have a radically different effect on the situation from the operational point of view than a similar quantity of ordinary infantry.

Put it this way. We could sweat blood to make engineers able to have an enhanced combat value against fortified hexes only. But would that really improve the game all that much, and wouldn't it introduce other anomalies as units that were in fact strictly construction engineers became lions of the battlefield?

Take the Australian pioneer battalions in Exporter. Well, these were 'engineers' in the sense that they fixed bridges and improved roads. What's more, in the pinch, they were thrown into the line against the French. However, once there they were merely sincere but somewhat underequipped and undertrained light infantry.

As is, they are merely the ordinary TOAW engineers and the situation's not so bad. But make them your elite assault engineers and they won't go into the line at a pinch. They'll be leading the assault on the forts outside Damascus.

It's not an inherently bad idea to somehow change how engineers function on the battlefield. However, (a) the problem isn't a particularly acute one, and (b) we'd need to start by creating five-six kinds of 'engineers' -- and in an ideal world, come up with a way of assigning more than one of the various possible attributes to a given squad. After all, presumably there are plenty of engineers that are both able to clear mines and have a good idea how to go about fixing a bridge.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/24/2011 7:51:32 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 Panama)
Post #: 108
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 7:33:12 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama



2. Yes. No line division is capable of fortified positions. It takes specialized materials and equipment. And lots of it.


I don't know about that. Ordinary infantry divisions routinely build bunkers, dig trenches, etc. They might need help for such monsters as the Hindenberg Line, but they can get to what is summarized as 'fortified' status more or less on their own. Give even an infantry battalion a month to get itself dug in, and it'll be pretty hard to dig out.

A 'line division' contains most of the services you seem to want. It has its signalers burying their telephone lines -- and its engineer battalion helping with the trickier bits. It can indeed get to 'fortified' status all on its own.

What's more, even for the most 'fortified' of fortified positions, much or most of what isn't needed isn't a army-level engineer regiment showing up and saying 'how can I help' -- but simply shipments of barbed wire, mines, power tools, etc. You won't be able to simulate the presence or absence of that by adding more complex engineers.

Finally, I'll repeat something. Engineers do accelerate the rate at which one can dig in. Here, I really don't see much of a problem. The sort of detailing you're talking about is absent throughout the system.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/24/2011 7:37:53 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 Panama)
Post #: 109
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 7:50:12 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama



1. Yes. Repairing a bridge is not a roll of dice.


Yeah -- but ultimately, nothing is. Know enough about about the elements going into any situation, and theoretically, the outcome can be predicted ahead of time.

A battle isn't 'a roll of the dice.' Neither is the weather. Both are merely extremely complex processes with so many unknowns that the we can't predict the outcome. However, in theory, it could be predicted.

A 'roll of the dice' isn't a roll of the dice. Know enough about the starting position of the dice, the strength and movements of the thrower, and the condition of the table, and it could be predicted what numbers will come up.

A bridge is not inherently different from this. It's merely that in reality we can ascertain enough of the variables to safely predict the approximate outcome.

However, we're not in reality. We're in TOAW -- and those variables can't be known in TOAW. The game just has generic 'bridge.' It tells us nothing about how solid the surrounding ground is, where the nearest source of structural steel or heavy timber is, etc, etc. So bridge repair is handled with a 'roll of the dice.' Like combat outcomes. Not that either one really is.

In TOAW, we have a generic 'bridge' that is either blown, or not blown. That's all we know.

Our military engineer says that fixing a bridge isn't a matter of chance -- that he can tell you within 10% or so how long it will take.

Indeed he can -- but that's because he can see the bridge, knows what resources he has, and knows exactly to what extent he is expected to fix it.

Now, ask him how long it will take to fix a bridge -- if he can't see it, if we won't tell him what materials are available, if we won't even tell him whether we want it 'fixed' so that an infantry battalion can pass over in single file or we were figuring on a stream of Tiger I's going one way while empty trucks came back the other way. For that matter, we won't tell him whether his 'engineers' are World War One Serbians or 2011 US Army.

Gee -- he'd kind of have to guess, wouldn't he? Might take five hours -- might take a month. Kinda like it is now in TOAW.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/24/2011 11:24:42 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 Panama)
Post #: 110
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 7:56:37 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
As the situation stands, we actually already have three kinds of 'engineers.'

We have rail repair squads that repair rails, ferry squads that permit river crossings, and 'engineer squads' that fix bridges and accelerate the rate of entrenchment.

Somewhat arbitrarily, the last are active defenders with a good combat value, but the first two aren't. We also have no way of 'destroying' or 'repairing' roads (this is often a matter of emplanting or removing mines), no means of restoring or destroying ports and airstrips, and there are probably some other holes as well.



_____________________________

"...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 #: 111
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 8:04:44 PM   
polarenper


Posts: 350
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Currently in Kiev
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


What's more, even for the most 'fortified' of fortified positions, much or most of what isn't needed isn't a army-level engineer regiment showing up and saying 'how can I help' -- but simply shipments of barbed wire, mines, power tools, etc. You won't be able to simulate the presence or absence of that by adding more complex engineers.





So it all comes back to that discussion about supplies!


_____________________________

السلام عليكم

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 112
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 11:18:36 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


What's more, even for the most 'fortified' of fortified positions, much or most of what isn't needed isn't a army-level engineer regiment showing up and saying 'how can I help' -- but simply shipments of barbed wire, mines, power tools, etc. You won't be able to simulate the presence or absence of that by adding more complex engineers.





So it all comes back to that discussion about supplies!



You could say that. I was thinking about this in a more general way.

TOAW is made up of a series of gross over-simplifications. Take a 'port.' What's that? Depending on the context, it could be anything from a somewhat sheltered roadstead and a reasonably firm beach to Antwerp in full swing -- and it's capacity could be anything from a few tons of crated supplies a day plus all the riflemen that can be ferried ashore to a full armored division in 24 hours if you've let them know you're coming -- or somewhere in between.

So what's involved in building it -- or destroying it? That kinda depends...

Similarly with fortifications. Obviously, units become 'fortified' with little more than some mines and barbed wire, some logs, and a whole lot of shovel time. 'Fortifications' can also mean reinforced concrete, observation ports, subterranean galleries, etc.

So what impact should engineers have, and which 'engineers' are people talking about?

It varies. There may be a generic 'hill' in TOAW, but there ain't no such animal in the real world. Just a whole series of situations, each bearing some similarities to others, but each also peculiar to itself in some way.

When one reads about combat operations, there are constant special cases. It's obviously hopeless to try to cover all of these in TOAW -- and it's even a bad idea to try.

Sometimes I get the feeling people notice some one element or situation and just immediately ask 'how should the system be changed to reflect this?'

Maybe it shouldn't be changed at all. Maybe the system is actually better tuned for the more general run of cases, and it can more or less passably handle the special case, so put the time and effort into changing something else.

People sometimes seem to never look at the big picture. So they say 'engineers should have some unique ability to help in assaults on fortified positions.' Should they? Witness my example of the Australian pioneers in Syria. I mean, these guys performed credibly, but specially equipped assault troops they were not.

I'm not saying that some special type of 'assault engineer' would go amiss. But just give this special ability to all engineering squads, and make it especially effective on all fortified hexes? You might improve matters for the cases you're considering, but it might just skew the system further, overall. After all, now I'll be bringing up my poor civil engineers and railway workers from Sydney to assault those hill forts outside Damascus. After all, they never knew it when they were signing up, but now they're specially equipped and trained, elite assault troops.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/24/2011 11:25:51 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 polarenper)
Post #: 113
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/24/2011 11:29:47 PM   
polarenper


Posts: 350
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Currently in Kiev
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'm not saying that some special type of 'assault engineer' would go amiss. But just give this special ability to all engineering squads, and make it especially effective on all fortified hexes? You might improve matters for the cases you're considering, but it might just skew the system further, overall. After all, now I'll be bringing up my poor civil engineers and railway workers from Sydney to assault those hill forts outside Damascus. After all, they never knew it when they were signing up, but now they're specially equipped and trained, elite assault troops.



I'd like that too. But, we have something called assault squads. Isn't that a kind of assault engineer? At least that's what I've taken them for.

Anyway, i realize that engineers speed up the process of entrenching already, but i would still agree that engineers (the construction variety) should be required in order to reach the "F" deployment.

It strikes me that what i'm really after here is the ability to construct the fortified terrain as i go. I love my monster scenarios...

_____________________________

السلام عليكم

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 114
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/25/2011 1:16:02 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'm not saying that some special type of 'assault engineer' would go amiss. But just give this special ability to all engineering squads, and make it especially effective on all fortified hexes? You might improve matters for the cases you're considering, but it might just skew the system further, overall. After all, now I'll be bringing up my poor civil engineers and railway workers from Sydney to assault those hill forts outside Damascus. After all, they never knew it when they were signing up, but now they're specially equipped and trained, elite assault troops.



I'd like that too. But, we have something called assault squads. Isn't that a kind of assault engineer? At least that's what I've taken them for.

Anyway, i realize that engineers speed up the process of entrenching already, but i would still agree that engineers (the construction variety) should be required in order to reach the "F" deployment.

It strikes me that what i'm really after here is the ability to construct the fortified terrain as i go. I love my monster scenarios...


You can build fortified lines. The current engineers will do it pretty good.

At least that used to be the case. I distinctly recall doing just this in a Crimea scenario.

The main problem I see is that it still takes time to move into a fortified line.

It shouldn't. Perhaps units could be able to relatively promptly (one full day-equivalent of movement?) be able to assume fortified status if the hex was already fully fortified.

That could work pretty well. For example, the British retreating from the initial onslaught of the Kaiserschlacht were chagrined to find that the trenches of the 'main battle line' of their newly assumed positions had merely been turfed out -- that is to say, the construction battalions had only turned over the top six inches or so of sod to indicate where the trenches should go.

Not fully fortified. Surprise, surprise...


_____________________________

"...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 polarenper)
Post #: 115
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/25/2011 3:13:48 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Combat engineers are assault troops. But with specialized equipment you won't find with a 'normal' unit. That equipment is meant to be used against dug in or fortified positions. But then since Colin says no one ever used them that must be wrong.


I didn't say that. I'm merely unconvinced that in general they have a radically different effect on the situation from the operational point of view than a similar quantity of ordinary infantry.

Put it this way. We could sweat blood to make engineers able to have an enhanced combat value against fortified hexes only. But would that really improve the game all that much, and wouldn't it introduce other anomalies as units that were in fact strictly construction engineers became lions of the battlefield?

Take the Australian pioneer battalions in Exporter. Well, these were 'engineers' in the sense that they fixed bridges and improved roads. What's more, in the pinch, they were thrown into the line against the French. However, once there they were merely sincere but somewhat underequipped and undertrained light infantry.

As is, they are merely the ordinary TOAW engineers and the situation's not so bad. But make them your elite assault engineers and they won't go into the line at a pinch. They'll be leading the assault on the forts outside Damascus.

It's not an inherently bad idea to somehow change how engineers function on the battlefield. However, (a) the problem isn't a particularly acute one, and (b) we'd need to start by creating five-six kinds of 'engineers' -- and in an ideal world, come up with a way of assigning more than one of the various possible attributes to a given squad. After all, presumably there are plenty of engineers that are both able to clear mines and have a good idea how to go about fixing a bridge.



All of these things are subject to the decisions of the scenario designer. All engineers have to be the same. No different than other units in the game.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 116
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/25/2011 3:16:01 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama



2. Yes. No line division is capable of fortified positions. It takes specialized materials and equipment. And lots of it.


I don't know about that. Ordinary infantry divisions routinely build bunkers, dig trenches, etc. They might need help for such monsters as the Hindenberg Line, but they can get to what is summarized as 'fortified' status more or less on their own. Give even an infantry battalion a month to get itself dug in, and it'll be pretty hard to dig out.

A 'line division' contains most of the services you seem to want. It has its signalers burying their telephone lines -- and its engineer battalion helping with the trickier bits. It can indeed get to 'fortified' status all on its own.

What's more, even for the most 'fortified' of fortified positions, much or most of what isn't needed isn't a army-level engineer regiment showing up and saying 'how can I help' -- but simply shipments of barbed wire, mines, power tools, etc. You won't be able to simulate the presence or absence of that by adding more complex engineers.

Finally, I'll repeat something. Engineers do accelerate the rate at which one can dig in. Here, I really don't see much of a problem. The sort of detailing you're talking about is absent throughout the system.



This in not true. Your run of the mill infantry division does not have the capability nor the carrying capacity to have everything needed to fortify. They can entrench and even improve a position. Anything beyond that and they need help.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 117
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/25/2011 3:18:37 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama



1. Yes. Repairing a bridge is not a roll of dice.


Yeah -- but ultimately, nothing is. Know enough about about the elements going into any situation, and theoretically, the outcome can be predicted ahead of time.

A battle isn't 'a roll of the dice.' Neither is the weather. Both are merely extremely complex processes with so many unknowns that the we can't predict the outcome. However, in theory, it could be predicted.

A 'roll of the dice' isn't a roll of the dice. Know enough about the starting position of the dice, the strength and movements of the thrower, and the condition of the table, and it could be predicted what numbers will come up.

A bridge is not inherently different from this. It's merely that in reality we can ascertain enough of the variables to safely predict the approximate outcome.

However, we're not in reality. We're in TOAW -- and those variables can't be known in TOAW. The game just has generic 'bridge.' It tells us nothing about how solid the surrounding ground is, where the nearest source of structural steel or heavy timber is, etc, etc. So bridge repair is handled with a 'roll of the dice.' Like combat outcomes. Not that either one really is.

In TOAW, we have a generic 'bridge' that is either blown, or not blown. That's all we know.

Our military engineer says that fixing a bridge isn't a matter of chance -- that he can tell you within 10% or so how long it will take.

Indeed he can -- but that's because he can see the bridge, knows what resources he has, and knows exactly to what extent he is expected to fix it.

Now, ask him how long it will take to fix a bridge -- if he can't see it, if we won't tell him what materials are available, if we won't even tell him whether we want it 'fixed' so that an infantry battalion can pass over in single file or we were figuring on a stream of Tiger I's going one way while empty trucks came back the other way. For that matter, we won't tell him whether his 'engineers' are World War One Serbians or 2011 US Army.

Gee -- he'd kind of have to guess, wouldn't he? Might take five hours -- might take a month. Kinda like it is now in TOAW.



I'm not real sure what your saying. What do you mean can't see it? If he's there to fix it he can certainly see it.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 118
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/25/2011 3:25:18 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Engineers having an effect on fortifications is missing. It needs to be fixed. There are volumes of situations of engineers aiding assaults on fortified positions. That is undeniable unless military history is simply ignored. Nothing more than unentrenching in the same manner heavy artillery would is all that is needed. The rest is up to the scenario designer. I see things said as though the person playing the scenario is doing the design as he plays the game. This is rhetoric, not fact. The scenario designer can decide what engineer unit is comprised of what kind of engineers. Muddying the waters is a weak defense.

Meh. Probably wasting everyone's time anyway with this.

< Message edited by Panama -- 8/25/2011 3:56:52 AM >

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 119
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/25/2011 4:15:05 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama



1. Yes. Repairing a bridge is not a roll of dice.


Yeah -- but ultimately, nothing is. Know enough about about the elements going into any situation, and theoretically, the outcome can be predicted ahead of time.

A battle isn't 'a roll of the dice.' Neither is the weather. Both are merely extremely complex processes with so many unknowns that the we can't predict the outcome. However, in theory, it could be predicted.

A 'roll of the dice' isn't a roll of the dice. Know enough about the starting position of the dice, the strength and movements of the thrower, and the condition of the table, and it could be predicted what numbers will come up.

A bridge is not inherently different from this. It's merely that in reality we can ascertain enough of the variables to safely predict the approximate outcome.

However, we're not in reality. We're in TOAW -- and those variables can't be known in TOAW. The game just has generic 'bridge.' It tells us nothing about how solid the surrounding ground is, where the nearest source of structural steel or heavy timber is, etc, etc. So bridge repair is handled with a 'roll of the dice.' Like combat outcomes. Not that either one really is.

In TOAW, we have a generic 'bridge' that is either blown, or not blown. That's all we know.

Our military engineer says that fixing a bridge isn't a matter of chance -- that he can tell you within 10% or so how long it will take.

Indeed he can -- but that's because he can see the bridge, knows what resources he has, and knows exactly to what extent he is expected to fix it.

Now, ask him how long it will take to fix a bridge -- if he can't see it, if we won't tell him what materials are available, if we won't even tell him whether we want it 'fixed' so that an infantry battalion can pass over in single file or we were figuring on a stream of Tiger I's going one way while empty trucks came back the other way. For that matter, we won't tell him whether his 'engineers' are World War One Serbians or 2011 US Army.

Gee -- he'd kind of have to guess, wouldn't he? Might take five hours -- might take a month. Kinda like it is now in TOAW.



I'm not real sure what your saying. What do you mean can't see it? If he's there to fix it he can certainly see it.


He can't see it in TOAW -- and neither can the program.

It's just a blown bridge. Extent of damage unknown. Availability of materials unknown. Setting unknown. Extent of repairs needed unknown.

He can no more predict how long it would take to fix than the program does now.


_____________________________

"...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 Panama)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> TOAW III Support >> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   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

0.146