Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: TOAW IV features

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> RE: TOAW IV features Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/18/2015 8:22:46 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2585
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

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


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

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


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

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

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

So, having blathered all of that how would you restrict stacking?

< Message edited by Lobster -- 9/18/2015 9:23:53 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 121
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/18/2015 8:30:10 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2585
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online
I'm probably answering my own question here but...

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

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 122
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/18/2015 8:32:38 PM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 876
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline
19.1.1 Equipment Density
Up to nine units may be grouped in any particular location, but
in many cases this is a bad idea. Each location has a specific al-
lowed Equipment Density:

50 + 2 x Scenario physical scale 2

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


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

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



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

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

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 123
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/18/2015 8:41:39 PM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 876
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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

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


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

< Message edited by Meyer1 -- 9/18/2015 9:44:47 PM >

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 124
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/18/2015 8:46:08 PM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 876
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline
quote:

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


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

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 125
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/18/2015 8:58:11 PM   
larryfulkerson

 

Posts: 37654
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: online
quote:

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

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

_____________________________

Apparently there are three levels of brain activity. Level 1 is the lowest level - the amount of concentration required to, say, delete emails or serve in congress.
- Bruce Cameron

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 126
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/18/2015 9:18:22 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11251
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

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

50 + 2 x Scenario physical scale 2

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


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

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



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


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

For combat it represents active equipment.

quote:

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


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

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 127
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/18/2015 9:32:20 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11251
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

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


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

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

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

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 128
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/18/2015 10:17:54 PM   
larryfulkerson

 

Posts: 37654
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: online
quote:

50 + 2 x Scenario physical scale 2

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

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

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


< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 9/18/2015 11:23:33 PM >


_____________________________

Apparently there are three levels of brain activity. Level 1 is the lowest level - the amount of concentration required to, say, delete emails or serve in congress.
- Bruce Cameron

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 129
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/18/2015 10:55:30 PM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 876
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



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

For combat it represents active equipment.


Thanks.




quote:



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


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

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 130
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/18/2015 10:58:12 PM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 876
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

50 + 2 x Scenario physical scale 2

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

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

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



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

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

< Message edited by Meyer1 -- 9/19/2015 12:08:30 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 131
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/18/2015 11:07:56 PM   
larryfulkerson

 

Posts: 37654
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: online
quote:

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

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

pretty nifty huh?

_____________________________

Apparently there are three levels of brain activity. Level 1 is the lowest level - the amount of concentration required to, say, delete emails or serve in congress.
- Bruce Cameron

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 132
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/19/2015 1:35:21 AM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 876
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



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

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


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

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

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


quote:

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


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





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Meyer1 -- 9/19/2015 2:42:17 AM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 133
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/19/2015 2:01:59 AM   
Lobster


Posts: 2585
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online
I have seen games where each successive unit would have an increased penalty for entering a hex a previous unit had entered. Not sure if TOAW could handle that. The programming would probably make it prohibitive.

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


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 134
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/19/2015 2:08:36 AM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 876
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster



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



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

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 135
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/19/2015 3:21:01 AM   
Lobster


Posts: 2585
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online
Ah, one day and 10km hexes. Probably half week at 10km per hex would be more appropriate. Still, at one day I see your concerns. If I were making a scenario at 10km per hex the turns would be half week or full week. If I wanted one day turns the units would be regiment or smaller at 5km or 2.5km per hex.

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

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 136
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/19/2015 3:29:42 AM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 876
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


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


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

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 137
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/19/2015 3:30:58 AM   
larryfulkerson

 

Posts: 37654
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: online
quote:

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

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

_____________________________

Apparently there are three levels of brain activity. Level 1 is the lowest level - the amount of concentration required to, say, delete emails or serve in congress.
- Bruce Cameron

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 138
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/19/2015 5:53:57 AM   
76mm


Posts: 3536
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

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


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

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

quote:

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

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

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 139
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/19/2015 2:13:02 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11251
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



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

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


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


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

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

quote:

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


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

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

quote:

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


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

quote:

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

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


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

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 9/19/2015 3:28:12 PM >


_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 140
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/20/2015 5:51:30 AM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 876
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



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


Actually, the only difference between a march where no enemy contact is expected, and one where there is, is that in the latter an "advance guard" is formed, and in the first case the wheeled vehicles are sent ahead to the next stop instead of travelling alongside the tracked elements.

quote:

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

I wouldn't say "usually". The Germans had early in the war in their "Leichte" Divisions, the "Panzer-Abteilung (Verlastet)" with the Pz.I and II transported on trucks, but that was the exception, and this is also dependant on road conditions.
Also, in TOAW, a unit could be moving over recently converted "friendly" hexes, well behind enemy lines. You won't see the tanks over trucks in those cases.
Anyway this is a moot point, because the tanks over trucks-thing is not modeled in the game, so we have to assume that all armoured movement happens over tracks or trains.

Usually, if available, units moved longer distance by rail, if they're moving by wheel/track you could assume that they're relatively close to the front, interested in not being noticed, and since we are in war, subject to air attack. Even without those threats the speed of the column would remain the same, because that's a technical question and not a tactical one.
Anyway , if in the example above, the units have to pay 2mp per hex because of hex conversion, yeah the problem is smaller but not completely solved.

quote:


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

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


Sorry, I disagree completely. There's no way that you would see two units using the same road with one advancing when the other stops. That's a recipe for disaster. I would say that for an "emergency" what changes are the interval between vehicles. But, again, I don't think those "emergency marches" occurred, armies had normal and "forced" marches, the latter with fewer stops.
But, again, since we don't have two march speeds in the game (actually that would be nice) we have to use the most common type.
I don't have a problems with the intersections, other than that's when traffic jams were very likely.



quote:


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


yeah well, don't worry about that, was just a side note. Not gonna look now for that number, but I have one fresh in my mind for re-reading KH Frieser book of the 1940 campaign (great one BTW), where it says that Gruppe Kleist alone had over 41,000 vehicles. Also great traffic jam story there



quote:

Let's start with the fact that the units in that case violate the stacking limits for 10km hexes (250 vehicles). A panzer division would probably be modeled with from 400 to 500 front-line vehicles. So, regiments would be more appropriate for this scale. Regiments are going to be incurring stacking penalties if they move through each other - again, adequate for the issue if that occurs.

Yeah, with two divisions in one hex you get the red light here. The thing is, and my whole point, is that if you move one unit at a time you pay no penalty.
quote:

Even without that, three panzer divisions only amount to about 1500 front-line vehicles - easily within the 3 1/2 hour capacity of the road
.
More like 4000 total vehicles per division, I don't think we have to make a distinction between front-line and the others, to calculate how clogged a road should be.

quote:

The extreme examples you give are absurd, of course - and would have incurred plenty of stacking penalties regardless.


Yeah is a little extreme but not that rare, f.e. you could see something like that in the highway of AGC in the eastern front scenarios...



< Message edited by Meyer1 -- 9/20/2015 7:47:34 AM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 141
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/20/2015 8:19:16 AM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 876
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline
Perhaps this problem is better understood with some river crossings as examples (though is the same thing with the roads), that are historically realistic and could affect some scenarios deeply: take a look at the ss: after capture that highlighted bridge (well actualy the Germans own it here), and clearing the other side from the soviets, I could move an entire 2.Panzergruppe plus the 4.Armee over the Bug in one day or less. (this is DNO, 10km-half week)

Another example, and a decisive river crossing like the one over the Meuse at Sedan. Put a unit with major ferry ability over the river, and move the whole Gruppe Kleist in a few hours.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 142
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/20/2015 8:55:58 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 8408
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
quote:

KH Frieser book of the 1940 campaign (great one BTW), where it says that Gruppe Kleist alone had over 41,000 vehicles. Also great traffic jam story there


Yes, over 200km all the way back to the Rhine. I understand the concern with the 'free' movement over roads that pass thru terrain in which motorized movement would not normally take place, but I think the traffic woes are represented in the traffic penalties, aren't they ? If the hex scale and unit sizes are proper, we get serious movement issues like in Autumn Fog and Nach Frankreich [sorry, those are two that come promptly to my mind].

In your above screenshot it looks like you might get 9 regiments across in 8 hours [one round in a half week turn], and if you could totally clear one hex per round and successfully move up 9 more regiments, that would be ... 12 divisions in one day? in the best of circumstances, not two armies. I say this because the other side is enemy occupied, so you can't move freely. Even if you remove all the enemy units, you still couldn't move two entire armies across in the turn - stacking and movement penalties would kill that. Or maybe I drank too much tonight

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 143
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/20/2015 9:09:06 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 8408
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
I have not read all of these posts on the matter, but has a solution been suggested ? I would think that if this were seen as being an issue in a scenario, that the designer could do something.

Autumn Fog uses restricted bridging capabilities, see this thread : http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2315141&mpage=1&key=?

Nach Frankreich uses a staggered deployment of units. For example, Kleist's units arrive on map as they historically reached their arrival point.

And in the screen shot below, the US Third Army's offensive in Lorraine in 1944 experienced serious movement restrictions over the Moselle, represented here by Rail Lines so that movement is restricted by the Rail Cap.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 144
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/20/2015 2:46:13 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2585
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online
First of all the bridge you use as an example didn't even exist in 1941 and I can't even find one there as late as 1955. But to get to your point. The maps in TOAW show only part of the road network. There are many more roads than you can see on the TOAW map. In areas where the terrain is restricted what is on the map may fairly represent the actual road net but not in all cases.

This is a 1940 German topo map of the area of the game map you have shown. Each grid is 10 kilometers. There are a plethora of minor roads. This is true of most of Europe including European Russia. They may be crappy roads but they are roads none the less. Because of this it would be incredibly difficult to determine how much can move where how fast.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lobster -- 9/20/2015 3:53:37 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 145
RE: TOAW IV features - 9/20/2015 11:15:02 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11251
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

Actually, the only difference between a march where no enemy contact is expected, and one where there is, is that in the latter an "advance guard" is formed, and in the first case the wheeled vehicles are sent ahead to the next stop instead of travelling alongside the tracked elements.


Of course there’s more difference than that. You have to carefully recon as you go to avoid ambush (not to mention mines) as you move, and you have to have the tanks unlimbered.

Regardless, the issue is that, in TOAW, movement through enemy territory comes with large conversion costs – minimum of half the unit’s movement allowance. That’s far more than enough of a penalty to account for any issues associated with such movement. That’s the bottom line: unless you’ve got hard evidence that units move too quickly through enemy territory, this is a non-issue. And here’s a hint: you won’t. If anything it’s the reverse.

quote:

I wouldn't say "usually". The Germans had early in the war in their "Leichte" Divisions, the "Panzer-Abteilung (Verlastet)" with the Pz.I and II transported on trucks, but that was the exception, and this is also dependant on road conditions.


The Germans definitely could move PzIII’s by truck. Regardless, this isn’t “1941 Germany Art of War”. The game handles more than a century of warfare (hey, that would be a good title!). Everybody moves tanks by truck whenever they can for good reasons: Fuel consumption, breakdown rate, and speed.

quote:

Also, in TOAW, a unit could be moving over recently converted "friendly" hexes, well behind enemy lines. You won't see the tanks over trucks in those cases.


All units moving through those hexes pay the conversion costs. Only in locations converted prior to the current turn can they avoid it.

quote:

Anyway this is a moot point, because the tanks over trucks-thing is not modeled in the game, so we have to assume that all armoured movement happens over tracks or trains.


There are two modes of movement: Through friendly hexes and through enemy hexes. They have very different rates. Perfectly reasonable to assume the former movement is limbered.

quote:

Sorry, I disagree completely. There's no way that you would see two units using the same road with one advancing when the other stops. That's a recipe for disaster.


Nonsense. Only idiots would stop a Corps to wait for a regiment to take a siesta. The unit just moves to the side of the road and lets other units pass. Obviously motorized units have to be able to pass foot units – they don’t get mixed up in the process. Are you seriously suggesting that units shouldn’t be able to move through another friendly on a road?

quote:

I would say that for an "emergency" what changes are the interval between vehicles. But, again, I don't think those "emergency marches" occurred, armies had normal and "forced" marches, the latter with fewer stops.


I didn’t mention “emergency marches”. I said that in an emergency they could use both lanes of the road for the same direction. That would double the capacity of the road.

quote:

More like 4000 total vehicles per division, I don't think we have to make a distinction between front-line and the others, to calculate how clogged a road should be.


Of course we have to make the distinction!! Only the front-line equipment is with the unit (or even modeled in the unit in TOAW). The bulk of the rest of the vehicles are strung out far in the rear, in the supply chain.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 146
RE: TOAW IV features - 10/16/2015 7:55:10 PM   
Jakers123

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 10/16/2015
From: Dnepropetrovsk
Status: offline
Don't know where to ask, so I'll try here, I am a more or less a new player of Toaw 3, the latest patch, and I was wondering how much will Toaw 4 be different from it? Would it be a whole different game, with hopefully new graphics (I think I read somewhere that it will be in 3d, can't find where) , bigger resolution and so on or will it just be a bunch of small changes and fixes that only experienced players would notice?

Here are some of the things that I, as a person who recently started playing toaw really struggled with, 1. probably the thing that I dislike the most about Toaw 3 is the fact that graphics look unacceptably bad for a 21.st century game, even for a strategy, when I say that I am talking about the resolution which is painfully small, the terrain also looks bad because of it, there is some idiotic stereotype that you can either have good graphics, but not a good strategy or vice versa, bs, if toaw got a better resolution and new, more detailed textures, it would already look way, way better. 2. Layout is really, really bad. Strategies more or less are supposed to be hard, but because of this layout, where you have a ton of buttons that at first all look the same it is really hard for a new player to understand what's going on, even though its not, the fact there is no real tutorial also doesn't help, there is the tutorial scenario where you open a pdf. or something outside the game, but...why? Why not just create a small, simple tutorial level inside the game and change the awful layout and put buttons that aren't really needed to a drop down list or something like a majority of games do, for example there are some 4, maybe even more buttons that are about ,,show next unit/formation", why? Who needs that button when they can simply click all units on the map? It is just making noncomplicated things complicated. 3. Is weapon penetration considered? If not, it should be. The editor is a horror to figure out, again, a drop down menu of some sort would solve the problem. 4. there isn't a custom map maker where you could import real maps, so many scenarios that you can download have awful looking maps that aren't even slightly realistic, an awesome thing would be if you could import real maps and have invisible pixels on top of the map that would determine what kind of a terrain is it, so in the editor you'd for example find a part of the real map that is mountainous, then you would place there a ,,mountain brush" , and when you go with your units there, you would have the mountain effects, but you wouldn't see the low resolution pixels, but instead a detailed real map you imported.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 147
RE: TOAW IV features - 10/17/2015 12:32:52 AM   
larryfulkerson

 

Posts: 37654
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: online
quote:

probably the thing that I dislike the most about Toaw 3 is the fact that graphics look unacceptably bad for a 21.st century game,

I concur, +1

_____________________________

Apparently there are three levels of brain activity. Level 1 is the lowest level - the amount of concentration required to, say, delete emails or serve in congress.
- Bruce Cameron

(in reply to Jakers123)
Post #: 148
RE: TOAW IV features - 10/17/2015 2:18:08 AM   
Lobster


Posts: 2585
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakers123

Don't know where to ask, so I'll try here, I am a more or less a new player of Toaw 3, the latest patch, and I was wondering how much will Toaw 4 be different from it? Would it be a whole different game, with hopefully new graphics (I think I read somewhere that it will be in 3d, can't find where) , bigger resolution and so on or will it just be a bunch of small changes and fixes that only experienced players would notice?

Here are some of the things that I, as a person who recently started playing toaw really struggled with, 1. probably the thing that I dislike the most about Toaw 3 is the fact that graphics look unacceptably bad for a 21.st century game, even for a strategy, when I say that I am talking about the resolution which is painfully small, the terrain also looks bad because of it, there is some idiotic stereotype that you can either have good graphics, but not a good strategy or vice versa, bs, if toaw got a better resolution and new, more detailed textures, it would already look way, way better. 2. Layout is really, really bad. Strategies more or less are supposed to be hard, but because of this layout, where you have a ton of buttons that at first all look the same it is really hard for a new player to understand what's going on, even though its not, the fact there is no real tutorial also doesn't help, there is the tutorial scenario where you open a pdf. or something outside the game, but...why? Why not just create a small, simple tutorial level inside the game and change the awful layout and put buttons that aren't really needed to a drop down list or something like a majority of games do, for example there are some 4, maybe even more buttons that are about ,,show next unit/formation", why? Who needs that button when they can simply click all units on the map? It is just making noncomplicated things complicated. 3. Is weapon penetration considered? If not, it should be. The editor is a horror to figure out, again, a drop down menu of some sort would solve the problem. 4. there isn't a custom map maker where you could import real maps, so many scenarios that you can download have awful looking maps that aren't even slightly realistic, an awesome thing would be if you could import real maps and have invisible pixels on top of the map that would determine what kind of a terrain is it, so in the editor you'd for example find a part of the real map that is mountainous, then you would place there a ,,mountain brush" , and when you go with your units there, you would have the mountain effects, but you wouldn't see the low resolution pixels, but instead a detailed real map you imported.


Whether or not the graphics look bad is fairly subjective. What would your idea of acceptable graphics be for a '21st century' game? When you speak of what you would like to see can you give examples of what games are acceptable to you?

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to Jakers123)
Post #: 149
RE: TOAW IV features - 10/17/2015 3:16:50 AM   
larryfulkerson

 

Posts: 37654
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: online
War in the East and War in the West come to mind.

_____________________________

Apparently there are three levels of brain activity. Level 1 is the lowest level - the amount of concentration required to, say, delete emails or serve in congress.
- Bruce Cameron

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> RE: TOAW IV features Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.160