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: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy

 
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: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/7/2018 4:03:54 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4353
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

In "Game 2" you wanted them to wait until after the combats were complete - presumably to exploit those combats. Since they waited until the combats were complete before moving, those points spent waiting were lost.




Uhhmm no. I open the turn and wish to start by exploring the most exciting part of the map. The AAA units are not going to exploit anything. Rather, in a slow turn I might move them first and in an exciting turn I might move them last.

BTW, thank you for confirming my findings. I have mentioned this before with no response form anybody. it should be written in large letters in the manual.


As to the discussion of air units, it does seem strange that a 6 hour air mission does not take any time whereas a 6 hour ground battle effects the movement points of units that never moved into the battle hex!
.



(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 61
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/7/2018 7:09:02 AM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Me: Why the bomb runs do not consume rounds?
Bob: Because planes hoover over a battlefield. That's what B52 did in Afghanistan.
Me: But we are talking FITE and He111 and B17
Bob: B52 did it in Afghanistan and Norm served in Air Force (he knows better).
Me: It was not possible and did not happened in IIWW and B52 were not hoovering above a battlefield (but above whole country). Could you give examples from IIWW.
Bob: Again, you were the source of that example. No one mentioned B-17s till you did. Nevertheless, they were used to bomb troops multiple times in Normandy. They famously created the breach that started the Cobra operation.

At last you've got me. I have no clue what are you talking about.

The facts:
+in IIWW CAS was not done by medium nor by heavy bombers
+B52 were not hoovering over a battlefield but over Afghanistan (so the whole country and even abroad)
+B52 range is over 14.000 km whereas B17 was 3.400 km and HE111 mere 1.900 km. Do the math
+to call-in an air strike (not CAS) on an enemy position required a lot of processing and time
+the bombardments you are referring to were preplanned and not related to a battlefield and no planes were "hoovering". From the airfield to the targeted whereabouts, drop the payload, go home. No one was dropping bombs en masse during an assault. Still many bomb runs went amiss and thousands friendly casualties occured (not on a battlefield).

Two separate issues:
1. CAS - close air support provided by light bombers or attack planes like P47 or Stukas.
2. Bombing runs by medium and heavy bombers by the likes of Ju88 or Wellingtons.

The first were happening in close cooperation (support was actually called in by the unit) between forces and were actually on battlefield actions.
The latter were mostly Air Force ops and planned on a higher level (Army). During the bombing runs no fighting was done because of a danger to own troops. There were no comms between bombers and ground units (whereas they were for CAS). Therefore the bombing run on a hex should put a Time Stamp on it at it did consume time. Untill the bombing was done no movement was performed.

Thanks for posting the table. Much easier to discuss.
We are talking about a simulation of actions in time (a turn) on artificial piece of land (a hex). The layer of complexity derives from the unique concept of separating movements from combat. One is measured with MPs the other with combat rounds. The old school was separating the turn into phases. There was also a pulse system which was a kind of a hybrid of the old system and what is present in TAOW.
The issue of point in time in space is crucial. Hex based games creat issues that do not exist in reality (which is continuous and not hexed). The discussed planning issue is a direct effect of the chosen mechanics.

In the example you have provided if I'm reading the table correctly, the effect is the following. The Yanks were eliminated in round 4 because they were blocked by the units which could only block them in round 9. Hence the burning of all rounds. But if the unit was eliminated in round 4 how a unit could have blocked in round 9? And if the Cinfederate units could not have blocked by round 4 then why the Yanks were eliminated by round 4.
To me makes absolutely no sense.

Another example is when you first move units and then execute combat actions. The reatret paths are blocked by units which nominally not arrived yet when the unit was to retreat (consecutive fight, so a second engagement with already retreated unit). I will post examples next week once I get back home.

As to the roads we've miscommunicated. Yes the roads are passable but at the given moment only X amount of men and equipment can use it. When moving a stack it does not take into account what is moved first but the "weight" of the stack. This is an example of averaging. To be more explanatory on the example. If a combat unit moves as a unit (say a 2 ID, some tanks, artillery etc) it spreads over miles (it might be 15-20 miles). If the column moves as one then there are consequences. Certain units are in front, certain in the middle and at the rear. And for the movement the column occupies the road making it much harder for other units to pass. Also if you had tanks at the rear it takes quite some time to move them to the spearhead. I'm just pointing to lack of coherent approach.

Maybe there could be a trick of having battle stamps but with no penalties to the movement. In the end it is all so artificial that it makes little sense.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 62
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/7/2018 3:23:01 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11286
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Bob: Again, you were the source of that example. No one mentioned B-17s till you did. Nevertheless, they were used to bomb troops multiple times in Normandy. They famously created the breach that started the Cobra operation.

At last you've got me. I have no clue what are you talking about.


Seriously? You have no clue that Bomber Command was borrowed for use in Cobra - that Panzer Lehr was practically annihilated by that bombing, creating the breach?

Just take my word for it: they did. And, even though those bombers had to fly for hours from their bases in England to get to Panzer Lehr, the bombardment kicked off right on time - no time stamp!! That's because the planners of Cobra knew it would take hours for them to get there and therefore launched them early enough so that they made it there right on time.

Now, could TOAW require players to handle that early launching to make their operations kick off on time? Sure it could. But why would anyone want that? Instead TOAW abstracts it so that players don't have to deal with it - and that's a good thing.

quote:

The facts:
+in IIWW CAS was not done by medium nor by heavy bombers


Heavies were definitely used to bombard troops multiple times in Normandy. You're wrong about mediums. But it doesn't make any difference. The fact is that bombing missions do not need to consider flight times from base. That is correctly abstracted out. That's true for all classes of aircraft.

quote:

+B52 were not hoovering over a battlefield but over Afghanistan (so the whole country and even abroad)


Yes they were. Right over the Taliban's heads - so that they dared not crawl out of their caves.

quote:

+B52 range is over 14.000 km whereas B17 was 3.400 km and HE111 mere 1.900 km. Do the math


And your point is?

quote:

+to call-in an air strike (not CAS) on an enemy position required a lot of processing and time


So does coordinating all ground assaulters and all artillery support. All of that is correctly handled under the table in TOAW. They didn't wait till everyone was in position and then say "Hey, we should plan something!" Everything would be planned in advance as the forces were getting into position.

quote:

+the bombardments you are referring to were preplanned and not related to a battlefield and no planes were "hoovering". From the airfield to the targeted whereabouts, drop the payload, go home. No one was dropping bombs en masse during an assault.


All assaults are "pre-planned". That's how planes can be on target in synch with the ground assaulters without delaying them.

quote:

Two separate issues:
1. CAS - close air support provided by light bombers or attack planes like P47 or Stukas.
2. Bombing runs by medium and heavy bombers by the likes of Ju88 or Wellingtons.

The first were happening in close cooperation (support was actually called in by the unit) between forces and were actually on battlefield actions.
The latter were mostly Air Force ops and planned on a higher level (Army). During the bombing runs no fighting was done because of a danger to own troops. There were no comms between bombers and ground units (whereas they were for CAS). Therefore the bombing run on a hex should put a Time Stamp on it at it did consume time. Untill the bombing was done no movement was performed.


In my France 1944 scenario I have a house rule for use of Bomber Command: It can only be used for bombardments. It can't be assigned to assaults.

quote:

Thanks for posting the table. Much easier to discuss.
We are talking about a simulation of actions in time (a turn) on artificial piece of land (a hex). The layer of complexity derives from the unique concept of separating movements from combat. One is measured with MPs the other with combat rounds.


MPs convert to rounds. Just divide the MPs remaining by starting MPs to get the round the unit is on.

quote:

In the example you have provided if I'm reading the table correctly, the effect is the following. The Yanks were eliminated in round 4 because they were blocked by the units which could only block them in round 9. Hence the burning of all rounds. But if the unit was eliminated in round 4 how a unit could have blocked in round 9? And if the Cinfederate units could not have blocked by round 4 then why the Yanks were eliminated by round 4.
To me makes absolutely no sense.


They were eliminated in round 9. It doesn't matter what the table says. Round 4 is just when they gave up and tried to flee. They weren't eliminated until the blockers arrived. The victors control the battlefield and can dictate just when the defeated losers are actually pushed into the hands of the blockers.

quote:

As to the roads we've miscommunicated. Yes the roads are passable but at the given moment only X amount of men and equipment can use it. When moving a stack it does not take into account what is moved first but the "weight" of the stack. This is an example of averaging. To be more explanatory on the example. If a combat unit moves as a unit (say a 2 ID, some tanks, artillery etc) it spreads over miles (it might be 15-20 miles). If the column moves as one then there are consequences. Certain units are in front, certain in the middle and at the rear. And for the movement the column occupies the road making it much harder for other units to pass. Also if you had tanks at the rear it takes quite some time to move them to the spearhead. I'm just pointing to lack of coherent approach.

Maybe there could be a trick of having battle stamps but with no penalties to the movement. In the end it is all so artificial that it makes little sense.


I don't care how many times you repeat this nonsense it's pure garbage. The overwhelming majority of roads have plenty of space for foot units to move out of the way of vehicles yet still continue to march. There is no need for TOAW to address anything here.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 63
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/7/2018 3:26:41 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11286
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fred98

Rather, in a slow turn I might move them first and in an exciting turn I might move them last.


Well, from now on, move them first - no matter how excited you are.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 64
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/7/2018 3:27:54 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2660
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fred98

Rather, in a slow turn I might move them first and in an exciting turn I might move them last.


Well, from now on, move them first - no matter how excited you are.




_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

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

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 65
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/8/2018 8:20:25 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Bob
Go educate yourself. CAS is a close air support. What you are describing is not. Normal level bombardment happened all over the war. CAS was on call support that did not required planning like the use of B17 during Cobra which were not hoovering over Normandy for crying out loud!
And the attack on very weak PzLehr (ca. 2.000 men incl 450 green Paras and less than 40 tanks) was also concluded by fighter bombers and B25 (medium bombers).
It did not went tip top, resulted in loads of friendly casualties and in some way limited the further use of strategic/heavy bombers for close bombardment.

I'm just fed up with your ignorance on CAS so lets stop it as it will get us nowhere.

What do you mean ignore the table? Either it is a ****e or an evidence. It cannot be both.

Am I to understand that routed unit fleeing from a small territory of land did not ever manage the distance before the flanking units arrived? 'Cause this is poor nonsense.

Again discussion went dry. Time Stamps solve some issues, causing some other issues. It's just game's limitation. Hope to live to see a better solution.




(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 66
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/9/2018 1:20:26 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11286
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Bob
Go educate yourself.


Don't be a child and resort to insults. Be an adult and stick to the facts.

quote:

CAS is a close air support. What you are describing is not.


I didn't say it was CAS. I did say B-17s were used to bombard troops in Normandy. And they were.

quote:

Normal level bombardment happened all over the war. CAS was on call support that did not required planning like the use of B17 during Cobra which were not hoovering over Normandy for crying out loud!


I forget how many times I've said this already but I'll say it again: YOU were the one who inserted B-17s into this topic. Not me.

Nevertheless, their bombardment of Panzer Lehr clearly shows that air units don't insert a Time Stamp when they attack. They are used in synch with the ground operations by being launched well in advance of the kickoff. That's true for all types of aircraft - including those that are used for CAS. Once in position their operation is not much different from artillery support. It's not that hard to use it. Think of the film "A Bridge Too Far": The CAS is called in by purple smoke grenades fired into the Germans via mortars. Easy. And in the film "Black Hawk Down": The CAS is called in by an electronic beacon thrown into the enemy position.

quote:

And the attack on very weak PzLehr (ca. 2.000 men incl 450 green Paras and less than 40 tanks) was also concluded by fighter bombers and B25 (medium bombers).


And those fighter bombers and medium bombers didn't delay Cobra either.

quote:

I'm just fed up with your ignorance on CAS so lets stop it as it will get us nowhere.


Again, try behaving like an adult. Stick to the facts.

quote:

What do you mean ignore the table? Either it is a ****e or an evidence. It cannot be both.


The Combat Chart is about 3,000 lines of code (I know, I wrote it). It's cutting edge and this is a niche market. If you expect perfection from it you're being naive. Just assume that when it says the defenders were blocked from retreating, the Elimination rounds will be inaccurate.

quote:

Am I to understand that routed unit fleeing from a small territory of land did not ever manage the distance before the flanking units arrived? 'Cause this is poor nonsense.


The attackers have complete control over their forces and can hold back the last hurrah that tips the defenders into rout till the blockers arrive. Don't think of the battle hex as a hex. Think of it as a huge tactical battlefield. Lots of stuff can happen in there.

The bottom line is that, in older versions, the blockers wouldn't delay anything. Now they do. It's a good thing.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 67
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/9/2018 12:23:58 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Bob I did not insulted you. You were talking nonsense. Sorry but there is no way of having conversation where one side is missing the basics. You trying to use B17 preplanned level bombing as an example for CAS mission is one of examples.
I'm prone to error but I'm also prone to accept the fact or my own errors.
The initial question was about why a bombardment does not consume a round (so preplanned level bombardment of a hex) and why it is allowed to attach a heavy bomber to an assault in FITE2. As you used an example of B52 in Afghanistan maybe it should be me questioning your integrity on it. In an armor werefare of IIWW you also use arguments from nowdays?

You wanna an informed conversation please give a straight answer to the followimg question: where heavy bombers (like B17 or HE111) used in IIWW as CAS (with examples)?

Well I finally understand your emotional approach to the subject. You were involved. Nothing wrong with it, just make it harder for you not to be involved.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 68
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/9/2018 2:49:25 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2660
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Bob I did not insulted you. You were talking nonsense. Sorry but there is no way of having conversation where one side is missing the basics. You trying to use B17 preplanned level bombing as an example for CAS mission is one of examples.
I'm prone to error but I'm also prone to accept the fact or my own errors.
The initial question was about why a bombardment does not consume a round (so preplanned level bombardment of a hex) and why it is allowed to attach a heavy bomber to an assault in FITE2. As you used an example of B52 in Afghanistan maybe it should be me questioning your integrity on it. In an armor werefare of IIWW you also use arguments from nowdays?

You wanna an informed conversation please give a straight answer to the followimg question: where heavy bombers (like B17 or HE111) used in IIWW as CAS (with examples)?

Well I finally understand your emotional approach to the subject. You were involved. Nothing wrong with it, just make it harder for you not to be involved.









Attachment (1)

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

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

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 69
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/9/2018 4:08:20 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11286
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Bob I did not insulted you.


That's exactly what ad hominem attacks are. Best to avoid personal comments altogether.

quote:

You trying to use B17 preplanned level bombing as an example for CAS mission is one of examples.


That is a false statement. Again, you were the one who introduced B-17s into this subject line, not me.

What I have said was that they were used to bombard troops in Normandy. And they were. I even went so far as to say that in my France 1944 scenario I have a House Rule that they are only to be used for bombardment. And it would be incorrect to apply a time stamp penalty for the distance they flew to get to Normandy. That is correctly factored out by the real-life planners in charge of the operation launching them far enough in advance.

quote:

The initial question was about why a bombardment does not consume a round (so preplanned level bombardment of a hex)


And I have repeatedly answered that: The planes are sent to the target far enough in advance to arrive on target just when they are needed. That operational planning is abstracted out of TOAW so that players don't have to deal with it. That's a good thing. That applies to level bombing as well as planes that will be made available for CAS.

quote:

and why it is allowed to attach a heavy bomber to an assault in FITE2.


That's up to the designers of FITE2.

quote:

As you used an example of B52 in Afghanistan maybe it should be me questioning your integrity on it. In an armor werefare of IIWW you also use arguments from nowdays?


Well, TOAW covers both WW II and Afghanistan.

quote:

You wanna an informed conversation please give a straight answer to the followimg question: where heavy bombers (like B17 or HE111) used in IIWW as CAS (with examples)?


I'm not going to be able to do that. I don't have every detail of every air mission of WW II stored in my head. But that doesn't mean it isn't possible. There is nothing mechanical about heavy bombers that prevents them from responding to requests for support. It's just that there are usually better options available and the heavies are tasked with more strategic tasks.

quote:

Well I finally understand your emotional approach to the subject. You were involved. Nothing wrong with it, just make it harder for you not to be involved.


I'm not being emotional. I'm being rational. How about you just sticking to the facts and leave the personal comments out of this?

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 70
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/9/2018 9:20:52 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Bob let's get back to square one. Personal things aside. If you felt offended then I apologize was not my intention.

I'm IIWW geek and I'm only referring to IIWW tactics and ops.

In older versions of TOAW, after all combats were completed the round advanced to the round of the LONGEST combat. This was a problem called "turn burn". In TOAW IV, after all combats are completed the round advances to the round of the MEDIAN combat. This can potentially greatly reduce "turn burn". But it means that some combat hexes will be out of time with the current round. Time Stamps address that, specifically. The reduction in "turn burn" is a good thing, and Time Stamps are essential for that to work. They are also used to address the possible time machine effects of overruns. That's all they are intended to do, and they do it quite well.

I think this by itself makes in general sense and is a good feature.

My problem is not however general but relates to the scale. Playing Normandy or Market Garden (any medium to small sized scenario where a turn equals to a day or less) I have little problem with Time Stamps.
When I play large scenarios where turns are days the issue I'm having is that the events related to TS are not scaled properly and thus the TS becomes a burden. Bob correct me if I'm wrong but if a single small unit will be overrun but still running there seems not to be any calculation to take into account its size. So a 30 pts or 2 pts strong overrun unit being blocked by late units will burn the highest amount of rounds possible, right?

In my opinion because of the scale it makes little difference when the combat have occurred since it is not time linear. I don't know if it possible but I'd put the effect only for rounds counting with no movement restrictions on the hex.

PS. I forgot to mention one strange thing that happened twice recently.
Situation: FITE2 played as Germans.
1) Had 3-4 rounds of battles which ended up in rounds 5-6.
2) Another round of battles commenced (but not consuming all rounds) and after it the rounds clock was back on round 5.
3) It actually was back to round 5 for the next battles (where I was able to execute combat within rounds 5-6).
Is this a bug? And if so how can I report this (it's absolutely random and only happened 2 times in past month or so)?


On the CAS and pre-planned air support.
As defined by the Air Force:
Pre-planed air support is air support in accordance with a program, planned in advance of operations.
CAS is an air action (...) that are in a close proximity of to friendly forces and that detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces.

However CAS are not pre-planned but so to speak "on-demand" where there is a need to support the advancing forces. The problem with your argumentation is that in IIWW there was no direct comms between ground forces and heavy planes. This was developed (to different extent between armies) for CAS bombers only which did not required pre-plannig as the planes were assigned to the ground forces. Heavies were not assigned but were used in pre-planned operations (and that required substantial amount of time). My point here is that if you use heavy bombers on enemy force or a city you should burn some rounds to simulate that delay.

German General Helmut Mahlke:
“Target description by telephone, based on maps, was used. This of course causes quite a bit of delay, which was not acceptable for a quick operation. Beginning in France, therefore, a special organization was set up. A Stuka UHF wireless set was mounted in a tank of the Panzer Force involved in the main battle. Luftwaffe UHF operators in these tanks participated in the main ground attacks, as close as possible to the commander of the Panzer Force. Where this system was in operation, the Stuka unit was directed overhead and got exact targeting by wireless. In addition, the ground troops would shoot colored flares near the target.”
Read more: http://www.simhq.com/_air9/air_276c.html#ixzz5ZEBKlF2K


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 71
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/10/2018 12:13:26 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11286
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

My problem is not however general but relates to the scale. Playing Normandy or Market Garden (any medium to small sized scenario where a turn equals to a day or less) I have little problem with Time Stamps.
When I play large scenarios where turns are days the issue I'm having is that the events related to TS are not scaled properly and thus the TS becomes a burden. Bob correct me if I'm wrong but if a single small unit will be overrun but still running there seems not to be any calculation to take into account its size. So a 30 pts or 2 pts strong overrun unit being blocked by late units will burn the highest amount of rounds possible, right?


If the unit is being overrun, then it is not defending anymore. It has decided to run - unless it doesn't have a retreat path. In that case it surrenders. Surrendering takes the same amount of time regardless the size of the unit.

quote:

In my opinion because of the scale it makes little difference when the combat have occurred since it is not time linear. I don't know if it possible but I'd put the effect only for rounds counting with no movement restrictions on the hex.


That's incomprehensible.

quote:

PS. I forgot to mention one strange thing that happened twice recently.
Situation: FITE2 played as Germans.
1) Had 3-4 rounds of battles which ended up in rounds 5-6.
2) Another round of battles commenced (but not consuming all rounds) and after it the rounds clock was back on round 5.
3) It actually was back to round 5 for the next battles (where I was able to execute combat within rounds 5-6).
Is this a bug? And if so how can I report this (it's absolutely random and only happened 2 times in past month or so)?


You'll have to provide more information. Screen shots of what you observed.

quote:

On the CAS and pre-planned air support.
As defined by the Air Force:
Pre-planed air support is air support in accordance with a program, planned in advance of operations.
CAS is an air action (...) that are in a close proximity of to friendly forces and that detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces.

However CAS are not pre-planned but so to speak "on-demand" where there is a need to support the advancing forces.


But the area that they are supporting IS pre-planned. So, there is no time stamp needed for the flight time to the target.

quote:

The problem with your argumentation is that in IIWW there was no direct comms between ground forces and heavy planes. This was developed (to different extent between armies) for CAS bombers only which did not required pre-plannig as the planes were assigned to the ground forces. Heavies were not assigned but were used in pre-planned operations (and that required substantial amount of time). My point here is that if you use heavy bombers on enemy force or a city you should burn some rounds to simulate that delay.


There is no general rule for radios in aircraft. TOAW can't have that built into it. And if the communication method is "purple smoke", no radio is necessary. So, if you want this effect in your scenario you have to effect it via a house rule - as I did in my France 1944 scenario.

quote:

German General Helmut Mahlke:
“Target description by telephone, based on maps, was used. This of course causes quite a bit of delay, which was not acceptable for a quick operation. Beginning in France, therefore, a special organization was set up. A Stuka UHF wireless set was mounted in a tank of the Panzer Force involved in the main battle. Luftwaffe UHF operators in these tanks participated in the main ground attacks, as close as possible to the commander of the Panzer Force. Where this system was in operation, the Stuka unit was directed overhead and got exact targeting by wireless. In addition, the ground troops would shoot colored flares near the target.
Read more: http://www.simhq.com/_air9/air_276c.html#ixzz5ZEBKlF2K


In other words, just as I said about "purple smoke" in an earlier post.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 72
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/10/2018 8:36:11 AM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
To make it more comprehensible:
<turn start>actions/actions/.../actions<turn end>
1. Any action within a turn should consume time.
2. Time consumed in-game should simulate th real time it took to perform the action(s).
3. This must be scaled to fit the game scale. In FITE2 the scale is 3.5 days per turn and ca. 5 km per hex. In other Easter Front scenario the turn takes a day and the hex is 10 km. The actions must be scaled to fit to this.

We already have established that there is a lot of simplifications. Example: the overrun of different sized units. In many games small unit can be overrun with wipe-out effect (so it surrenders without retreating) or with "being ignored" for the chase (so either the ZOC is disabled or the enemy can even go past the hex occupied by the unit). However as you have stated in TAOW it does not matter. There is a one-fits-all approach.
You might think that this is fine. I on the other hand think it's not. Because what happens is that no matter how small the overruned unit is the effects are the same and the TS will be the same. And that is not a proper simulation of a combat. There is a difference when a company is overrun and where full division decides to make a run for it.

Another issue is that TS can be easily exploited if the above is indeed how the engine works. You just set up a deep line of small units and then make the enemy burn the rounds with overruns. In boardgames this would not be possible because there were no TS and overrun was without penalties. Now I think I understand why it is so easy to block an advance in FITE2. There is no old-school overrun implemented.
The ZOC mod proposed in this thread might provide some solution to this issue.

The scalability: you need to take into account the size of the hex(es), the size of forces performing action(s) and the turn lenght. Because TAOW is designed to cover a lot of history it's almost impossible to get it right as with the periodic games (so games designed only for a given period and/or theater). A weak regiment has a different capacity to defend a hex than a full strenght brigade.
I have read a reply from Norm to some criticism he received back in 1999 and I must say I was not impressed by his reply. It was quite generic and similar to your approach: well in the end all in all is fine. Well it is not all fine :(

In IIWW to be able to order an bombardment of enemy position by heavy planes you'd need to go the army level and you would need to plan it for the operation (so the scale would be say Operation Zitadelle - the heavies would have to be planned before the Operation Zitadelle would have started). Heaving the ability to call-in a B17 or JU-88 the same way you callgin Stukas or P47 is not proper simulation but oversimplification. As I wrote before: the attacked hexes would be inaccessible for the advance until the bombardment is concluded. House rule is a semi-solution to this.

Scenario 1: 8hrs turns or less
Bombardment (by medium or heavy bombers) and ground actions should not be allowed on the same round. Use of bombers should consume rounds.
Scenario 2: 3.5 days turn
Bombardments and ground actions can be concluded in the same round.

PS. You would not be able to mark targets for heavy bombers with smokes. It cannot be seen from 5-6 km above.

< Message edited by gliz2 -- 12/10/2018 5:02:52 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 73
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/10/2018 6:33:24 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
OK Bob got my lazy ass to get a nice example for You
Situation:





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by gliz2 -- 12/10/2018 7:04:26 PM >

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 74
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/10/2018 7:05:16 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Scenario 1
No blocking units


Result: The Soviet unit withdrawn to the empty hex, 3 rounds were burned.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by gliz2 -- 12/10/2018 7:09:52 PM >

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 75
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/10/2018 7:06:20 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Scenario 2
Full blocking (two units arrive late, northern infantry unit replaced with AT)


Result: Soviet unit eliminated, 7 rounds burned.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by gliz2 -- 12/10/2018 7:12:21 PM >

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 76
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/10/2018 7:06:48 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Scenario 3
Only one hex is blocked by a "late" unit


Result: Soviet unit eliminated, 3 rounds burned.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by gliz2 -- 12/10/2018 7:15:12 PM >

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 77
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/10/2018 7:16:26 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
I've run 6 other tries (different units and encirclement setups) and the results were similar - in some cases even 2 blocking hexes were not taken into account.
My only explanation would be that this perhaps was due to the different result of the combat? Where can it be checked

PS. After another 5 tries with empty hex (Scenario 1) and 5 tries with the hex being blocked (Scenario 3) the results were 100% the same.



< Message edited by gliz2 -- 12/10/2018 7:50:55 PM >

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 78
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/10/2018 11:48:57 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11286
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

3. This must be scaled to fit the game scale. In FITE2 the scale is 3.5 days per turn and ca. 5 km per hex. In other Easter Front scenario the turn takes a day and the hex is 10 km. The actions must be scaled to fit to this.


TOAW has a host of tools to enable designers to do so. The Attrition Divider is a major one. And, of course, unit scale. The first case should have the AD reduced to 4 and use battalions. The second should use the default AD of 10 and regiments, for example.

quote:

We already have established that there is a lot of simplifications.


I must have missed that.

quote:

Example: the overrun of different sized units. In many games small unit can be overrun with wipe-out effect (so it surrenders without retreating) or with "being ignored" for the chase (so either the ZOC is disabled or the enemy can even go past the hex occupied by the unit). However as you have stated in TAOW it does not matter. There is a one-fits-all approach.
You might think that this is fine. I on the other hand think it's not. Because what happens is that no matter how small the overruned unit is the effects are the same and the TS will be the same. And that is not a proper simulation of a combat. There is a difference when a company is overrun and where full division decides to make a run for it.


An overrun isn't combat. The defender surrenders. I don't understand why that act should be proportional to unit size. Nevertheless, to some extent, there is some scaling: Division-scaled scenarios should use 20-25km hex size. Company-scaled scenarios should use 2.5km hex size. Time cost to enter a 25km hex is obviously 10x the cost to enter a 2.5km hex.

quote:

Another issue is that TS can be easily exploited if the above is indeed how the engine works. You just set up a deep line of small units and then make the enemy burn the rounds with overruns. In boardgames this would not be possible because there were no TS and overrun was without penalties. Now I think I understand why it is so easy to block an advance in FITE2. There is no old-school overrun implemented.
The ZOC mod proposed in this thread might provide some solution to this issue.


Again, if the units used to perform the overruns are the ones that started out closest to the targets, there will be no penalty. It's only if you bring the overrunning unit from far away that any issue arises. (And then it should arise).

quote:

The scalability: you need to take into account the size of the hex(es), the size of forces performing action(s) and the turn lenght. Because TAOW is designed to cover a lot of history it's almost impossible to get it right as with the periodic games (so games designed only for a given period and/or theater). A weak regiment has a different capacity to defend a hex than a full strenght brigade.


I haven't seemed to have had any trouble getting it right. Take a look at my Kaiserschlacht 1918 scenario (2.5km and regiments) and compare it to my Kaiserschlacht 1918 (mini) (5km and divisions) scenario. They both work about the same.

quote:

I have read a reply from Norm to some criticism he received back in 1999 and I must say I was not impressed by his reply. It was quite generic and similar to your approach: well in the end all in all is fine. Well it is not all fine :(


Be careful. Norm was a really smart guy.

quote:

In IIWW to be able to order an bombardment of enemy position by heavy planes you'd need to go the army level and you would need to plan it for the operation (so the scale would be say Operation Zitadelle - the heavies would have to be planned before the Operation Zitadelle would have started). Heaving the ability to call-in a B17 or JU-88 the same way you callgin Stukas or P47 is not proper simulation but oversimplification. As I wrote before: the attacked hexes would be inaccessible for the advance until the bombardment is concluded. House rule is a semi-solution to this.

Scenario 1: 8hrs turns or less
Bombardment (by medium or heavy bombers) and ground actions should not be allowed on the same round. Use of bombers should consume rounds.
Scenario 2: 3.5 days turn
Bombardments and ground actions can be concluded in the same round.


Again, none of that is a physical limitation of the planes themselves. It's really entirely a product of the specific situation. If you want that in your scenario, you have to impose it by house rule.

quote:

PS. You would not be able to mark targets for heavy bombers with smokes. It cannot be seen from 5-6 km above.


They wouldn't be performing combat support at 5-6 km high. They would be at low altitude.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 12/11/2018 12:30:23 AM >


_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 79
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/10/2018 11:50:12 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11286
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I've run 6 other tries (different units and encirclement setups) and the results were similar - in some cases even 2 blocking hexes were not taken into account.
My only explanation would be that this perhaps was due to the different result of the combat? Where can it be checked

PS. After another 5 tries with empty hex (Scenario 1) and 5 tries with the hex being blocked (Scenario 3) the results were 100% the same.


None of the above tells me anything. You haven't shown what the timestamps of the the units were. Show us the Combat Charts for those combats, like I did for my example.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 80
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/11/2018 8:21:19 AM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Bob
On the bombing in IIWW I highly recommend to read "They Hosed Them Out" by John Bede Cusack.

I stand corrected that the heavy bombers were not used at low-level bombardments as B-24 were. But low-level bombardment was of limited use because of extremely heavy losses.
In the low-level attack by B-24 bombers against Ploesti, August 1st, 1943, out of 178 bombers, 41 were downed by the defenses and 13 lost for other reasons, totaling 54 losses (1/3 of total deployed planes)which is why… despite the great damage done such a low level assault was NOT repeated, as very few air forces could afford to lose 20–30% of every mission flown. It was deployed only when the potential losses to the target were considered worth the great cost in aircrew incurred. At altitude of below 3.000 feet mostly bi-engine bombers were only used.

The cloured flares were used by special pathfinders units to mark targets for heavy bombers for night runs on cities and factories (static targets). This technique was used for CAS (which excludebheavy bombers) by ground forces as there was a direct comms between CAS and ground forces (which did not exist between ground forces and heavy bombers).
TBH I think we are not having a discussion here. I mean your statement of heavy bombers using low level bombing to hit enemy ground forces is not substantiated by evidence in IIWW.

You are right that technically such an attack was possible. Just as you can eat a poisonous mushroom. In 99% cases you'll die of it, but yes, technically ypu CAN eat it.

To scalability: when heavy bombers drop their payload the devastation is terrible. And it has it's effects. See the battle of Monte Cassino or effects on Caen or May-sur in Normandy. The ground forces had to clean up the rubble first to be able to move (tanks could not pass in some cases for days). That is what I mean by effects of (heavy) bombardment.

I will post them Combat Charts in next few days.

PS. An extreme example should not be taken as general rrule. Just because once in IIWW a m8 Greyhound was able to destroy a Tiger I tank it does not mean that in combat M8s were capable of taking Tigers. They weren't as supported by all other examples from history.


< Message edited by gliz2 -- 12/11/2018 8:31:00 AM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 81
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/11/2018 2:39:57 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11286
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I stand corrected that the heavy bombers were not used at low-level bombardments as B-24 were. But low-level bombardment was of limited use because of extremely heavy losses.
In the low-level attack by B-24 bombers against Ploesti, August 1st, 1943, out of 178 bombers, 41 were downed by the defenses and 13 lost for other reasons, totaling 54 losses (1/3 of total deployed planes)which is why… despite the great damage done such a low level assault was NOT repeated, as very few air forces could afford to lose 20–30% of every mission flown. It was deployed only when the potential losses to the target were considered worth the great cost in aircrew incurred. At altitude of below 3.000 feet mostly bi-engine bombers were only used.


Obviously, Ploesti was extremely heavily defended. Mediums would have suffered just as badly, if not worse. Normal ground targets, like troop concentrations wouldn't have that level of defense. What matters is what the planes were capable of, not what historical choices were made about them.

quote:

PS. An extreme example should not be taken as general rrule. Just because once in IIWW a m8 Greyhound was able to destroy a Tiger I tank it does not mean that in combat M8s were capable of taking Tigers. They weren't as supported by all other examples from history.


But if you want to attack Tigers with Greyhounds the game allows it. Are you saying that should be banned?

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 82
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/11/2018 3:54:23 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
And here the god mode vs realistic simulation comes into play.

Just because an infantry platoon with just rifles can charge through open field to assault a Tiger tank doesn't mean it would do so in reality. As a matter of fact putting the banzai attacks aside they wouldn't had. Just like in reality allied tankers avoided duelling with Tiger tanks. At some point there was even a Tigerphobia in Normandy which resulted in tankers refusing to follow orders.

To answer your question if we are talking on a platoon level then it would be a extremely low probability roll that M8 would attack the Tiger(s). If we are talking large scale engagement were the M8 are just accompanying tanks then they obviously be participating in that engagement.

It's hard to discuss a IIWW air force tactics with someone who has very basic knowledge of the subject.
You constantly fail to notice the issues or simply choose to ignore them.

Yes, heavy bombers were used in low-level attack on static targets (like dams or factories) or when attacking ships in the Pacific but I still haven't found evidence that this was done against ground forces (especially for CAS). Maybe you are confusing a low level attack against a static defence (where AA anyhow would be an issue) and against columns of enemies on the road with a CAS low level bombing (which was not possible due to the lack of communication, skills and appropriate equipment).

For example in Panzer Campaigns you have formations (combat, movement, strategic movement). And then you can see effectivenes of bombardment on them. And by the way the bombardment of columns of enemies were also mostly done by fighter-bombers and medium bombers because of the tactics and means. Heavy bombers were used for level bombing of the infrastracture.

Most games allow players to order units to do things that in reality would not have been possible. Even laten in the war the German military was extremely against suicidal missions (there are only few know cases from late April/May 1945). Therefore suicidal actions like a platoon of M8 assaulting on its own Tigers or platoon of SdKfz 222 assaulting T34/85 should not be allowed.
Command Ops does a great job in simulating this. It's an extremely valauble tool to discover the real limitations of humans. They were not robots blindly following orders. During the fights over Arnhem one Frost boys were able to push back the Tiger II assault because of the amount of lead they've poured on them. Although almost no PIATs to were left to the Paras ze Germans didn't know that. And as one of tank crew members described the feeling it was like sitting in a hughe practise target with hundreds of round constantly hitting the armour. The crew was not able to distinguish heavy (6-pdr) from light rounds (heavy mgs). It was so loud and so constant. So in the end they have pannicked although only just a single tank was damaged.

If you want to reply to the above please do so but I'm done. It's a separate discussion from Time Stamps and lets focus on them TS.


< Message edited by gliz2 -- 12/11/2018 3:59:47 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 83
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/11/2018 7:30:12 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11286
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

And here the god mode vs realistic simulation comes into play.

Just because an infantry platoon with just rifles can charge through open field to assault a Tiger tank doesn't mean it would do so in reality. As a matter of fact putting the banzai attacks aside they wouldn't had. Just like in reality allied tankers avoided duelling with Tiger tanks. At some point there was even a Tigerphobia in Normandy which resulted in tankers refusing to follow orders.


There is no "God mode" in TOAW, as I've already explained. Formations and units can be reorganizing. In fact, sending a unit on a true "suicide mission" is an excellent way to put them into reorganization. And there were plenty of forces in WW II that DID carryout suicide missions. The Japanese were notorious for it, and the Soviets often sent troops forward with machineguns aimed at them in case they turned around.

quote:

It's hard to discuss a IIWW air force tactics with someone who has very basic knowledge of the subject.
You constantly fail to notice the issues or simply choose to ignore them.


Back to insults already. Great way to advance your claims.

quote:

Yes, heavy bombers were used in low-level attack on static targets (like dams or factories) or when attacking ships in the Pacific but I still haven't found evidence that this was done against ground forces (especially for CAS). Maybe you are confusing a low level attack against a static defence (where AA anyhow would be an issue) and against columns of enemies on the road with a CAS low level bombing (which was not possible due to the lack of communication, skills and appropriate equipment).

For example in Panzer Campaigns you have formations (combat, movement, strategic movement). And then you can see effectivenes of bombardment on them. And by the way the bombardment of columns of enemies were also mostly done by fighter-bombers and medium bombers because of the tactics and means. Heavy bombers were used for level bombing of the infrastracture.

Most games allow players to order units to do things that in reality would not have been possible. Even laten in the war the German military was extremely against suicidal missions (there are only few know cases from late April/May 1945). Therefore suicidal actions like a platoon of M8 assaulting on its own Tigers or platoon of SdKfz 222 assaulting T34/85 should not be allowed.
Command Ops does a great job in simulating this. It's an extremely valauble tool to discover the real limitations of humans. They were not robots blindly following orders. During the fights over Arnhem one Frost boys were able to push back the Tiger II assault because of the amount of lead they've poured on them. Although almost no PIATs to were left to the Paras ze Germans didn't know that. And as one of tank crew members described the feeling it was like sitting in a hughe practise target with hundreds of round constantly hitting the armour. The crew was not able to distinguish heavy (6-pdr) from light rounds (heavy mgs). It was so loud and so constant. So in the end they have pannicked although only just a single tank was damaged.


Again, it only matters what the stuff was capable of doing. The operational choices of the historical participants are just that: choices.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 84
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/12/2018 6:56:39 AM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Bob,
What insult is in making a statement? I have no clue about a modern warefare. Therefore how anyone could insult me saying that I have no understanding of modern warefare? You MAY take it personal but a criticism is not (or at least shouldn't be) by definition ad personam.
And You have constantly displayed a lack of understanding of IIWW air-ground forces cooperation.

And believe it or not I'm searching for the evidence for your claims. Because we are discussing and fact finding is a must. Otherwise it's emotional and personal monologues of two parties. Not discussion about factual.

You can build whatever theory based on some single events.
Soviets did not do banzai attacks and were not sent on a suicidal mission. They were forced not to withdraw or to advance to the extreme. However there are plenty evidance that they have not followed the orders and were "executed" by NKVD troops. So a very bad example.

I mentioned Japanese already, to point out differences in tactical approach. But if I'd follow your logic then it would mean I should be able to conclude a banzai attack with any troops. It is not a realistic approach.

An example of where it would lead is coding into the engine the ability for any strategic bomber to do diving runs. Of course they would in 99% cases died trying, planes would fall apart but technically yes one could issue such an order.

Well I'm all for HISTORICALLY plausable options but not for absurdities.

A god mode is a base of all hex games. I think you are confusing ability of issuing an order with following orders. Any unit in TAOW which you can issue an order will follow that order however absurd it might be.
A recon platoon charging on a fortified battalion? Sure thing.
A defense which will never try to break out unless you give the order?
Orders always being executed (especially in combined ops)? No problem (no the modifier does not simulate the issue properly).

If you think that an engine should allow for any absurdity imaginable then there is nothing to discuss because I'm totally against it Sir. And this is a personal preference. No argument will ever overcome personal preferences.

< Message edited by gliz2 -- 12/12/2018 8:08:12 AM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 85
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/12/2018 11:42:51 AM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 584
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline
Many years ago as a teenager I went to a local wargames club. But after a few visits I gave up because almost every evening descended into an argument between old men about what was or wasn't realistic.

Those old men were probably only about 30 however the experience kept me away from wargames until the heaven sent arrival of the computer and an AI/PO to play against.

Amen.

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 86
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/12/2018 12:35:33 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Having an argument just to have an argument for itself is pointless.
But on the other hand without those hours of heated discussion no good game would have ever been made. You need to be constantly and constructively challanged.


< Message edited by gliz2 -- 12/12/2018 12:36:05 PM >

(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 87
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/12/2018 7:09:48 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11286
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Bob,
What insult is in making a statement? I have no clue about a modern warefare. Therefore how anyone could insult me saying that I have no understanding of modern warefare? You MAY take it personal but a criticism is not (or at least shouldn't be) by definition ad personam.


It was an obvious insult. And it is totally unnecessary to making one's argument. I have not made any personal comments about you.

quote:

And You have constantly displayed a lack of understanding of IIWW air-ground forces cooperation.


I defy you to identify any statement I've made in this thread that was factually incorrect. And by identify I mean the post #.

quote:

You can build whatever theory based on some single events.
Soviets did not do banzai attacks and were not sent on a suicidal mission. They were forced not to withdraw or to advance to the extreme. However there are plenty evidance that they have not followed the orders and were "executed" by NKVD troops. So a very bad example.


Being executed for not attacking is a very good example. Nevertheless, the Germans described a horde of Russians heading towards them linked arm-in-arm and obviously very drunk. That was an obvious suicide mission that they even had to be drunk to carry out. Stalin famously said "It takes a very brave man to be a coward in my army.".

I would add that the torpedo bombers at Midway were on a suicide mission - only one survivor (and he was a miracle). The Hood was on a suicide mission against the Bismarck, which was itself on a suicide mission. Late in the war the German u-boats were basically on suicide missions. The first wave at Omaha beach, not to mention Tarawa could be called suicidal as well.

The bottom line is that it would be absurd for TOAW to ban certain actions just because in some cases units refused to carry them out.

quote:

I mentioned Japanese already, to point out differences in tactical approach. But if I'd follow your logic then it would mean I should be able to conclude a banzai attack with any troops. It is not a realistic approach.


By my logic, if you want something banned, then you need a house rule. That's the only practical way for such minutia to be handled by TOAW.

quote:

An example of where it would lead is coding into the engine the ability for any strategic bomber to do diving runs. Of course they would in 99% cases died trying, planes would fall apart but technically yes one could issue such an order.


One could even issue orders for the planes to actually fly into enemy ships.

quote:

A god mode is a base of all hex games. I think you are confusing ability of issuing an order with following orders. Any unit in TAOW which you can issue an order will follow that order however absurd it might be.


Not if it is in reorganization. And, if you give it a suicide mission, that may very well be the result.

quote:

If you think that an engine should allow for any absurdity imaginable then there is nothing to discuss because I'm totally against it Sir. And this is a personal preference. No argument will ever overcome personal preferences.


I think that if you want to disallow some action in your scenario then you should handle that via a house rule. It should not be built into TOAW.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 12/12/2018 7:21:58 PM >


_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 88
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 12/12/2018 11:09:34 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2660
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Many years ago as a teenager I went to a local wargames club. But after a few visits I gave up because almost every evening descended into an argument between old men about what was or wasn't realistic.

Those old men were probably only about 30 however the experience kept me away from wargames until the heaven sent arrival of the computer and an AI/PO to play against.

Amen.


And the worst of it was someone who was wrong never being wrong because they couldn't admit they were wrong. "I win because I was the last one to post so I'm right"

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

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

(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 89
RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy - 2/4/2019 12:21:38 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
It's good to finally find some outsiders view on the issue rather to read all this fanboy banter all over again.

"The time management is obscured in such a way that the game becomes opaque. Will my turn end? Can I do another combat? What about the rest of the border?

I totally understand the argument of a turn being a week, and units moving occupy a certain portion of that time, but man, this is just a ****ty way of doing it."

"I’ve said it time and time again, turn based is a throwback to the days of cardboard games. This is fine, but instead of using this back asswards time pulse system, why not just make it real time? It’s a hybrid bastard right now and would strongly benefit from a rework closer to Command Ops. Keep the hexes, keep everything, but kill this abomination of a time management system."

"Hopefully someone comes up with a similar game that fixes the issues here. If Atomic Games could damn well do it 20 years ago with a WEGO system, I’d think someone could do it today."

What is logicall in this pulse system where combat take place before the encirclement is completed yet the results are delayed in time so to allow encirclement? There is no logic behind it and it's both poor design and counterintuitive.

I have no problem with playing this handicapped game. I have problem with people (who are involved in the design) of admitting to the fact.

Link to the review

< Message edited by gliz2 -- 2/4/2019 12:30:09 PM >


_____________________________

Plans are worthless, but planning is essential.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> RE: TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   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

0.176