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: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase

 
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: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/2/2019 3:26:26 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11281
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido

One unit has 50 panzers (1) that will face 10 squads on foot (2) in the open. The hex is 5km in size and the turn a full day. It should be easy to these panzers to encircle the squads in their own hex which, as has been said, is a large battlefield. They are in the open (arid terrain may have some cover). It should be an easy game to encircle and an easy game to eliminate if squads donít take cover and move through the open.

We first explore RBC. In figure 3, the panzers enter the infantry hex and the squads go around in a nice dribble. In figure 4, the panzers chase the foot soldiers that keep one step ahead, after a 10km chase through the open. In figure 5, they enter hills and rocky terrain, which finally stops the panzers after a 20km chase, most of it on open terrain following foot soldiers. The day is over.

Were those panzers in an escort role pace, while the soldiers marched in front of them? Could these soldiers cover 10 km in the open and 10km over rocky terrain being harassed by panzers without any kind of cover, since they were moving? Wouldnít these panzers encircle and contain these squads unless they dispersed completely (and perhaps even then) losing all unity and cohesion?

In some tests, the panzers could eliminate the unit after 10 or 15 km. Even so...

Itís true that the infantry may find cover even in arid terrain and try to resist tanks without infantry support, but then they would have to stay in place. As I said earlier, Iím not analyzing the capacity of infantry to resist an attack on prepared position by tanks or the effectiveness of tanks against such a position, but the dynamics of encirclement and pursuit in such situations.


I'd be interested to know if disengagement attacks were ever triggered. You didn't keep track of the infantry unit's strength (and whether it was being whittled away or not).

Obviously, the panzers didn't have much recon. So, it might be like trying to herd cats for them.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Cabido)
Post #: 31
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/2/2019 3:32:28 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11281
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido

Well, I tried then to treat it as an hex based game, with all itís logic based on this arbitrary unit, the hex. Instead of treating the infantry hex as the battlefield, and itís relative equipment density as the main variable, I treated the focal hex with all hexes around will be the battlefield, with seven different parts. This panzer unit should be able to encircle this tiny foot infantry unit in open terrain. So, I set for it.

We have two serious problems then: we can only divide a unit by 3 and we must deal with enemy ZOC. As shown in the picture, we must disengage, go around ZOC and enter ZOC again. It takes 9 MP from 15 MP, which in game terms means approximately 14 hours to go around this tiny unit. Since we only can divide it by 3, We establish a pyramid like shape, which in my opinion, based on the difference of force and mobility, should be considered already an encirclement. But it isnít. After more than half a day maneuver, when the northern unit advances, the squads just flow like water through the gaps that, in real life, would be easily closed by the flanking units (figure 4), considered their greater mobility and favorable terrain. And the goose chase begins, since, after 14 hours, there is no more MPs to go around the infantry unit using an hex based logic.

Oh, but there isnít enough equipment to guarantee an hermetic encirclement, one could say. Well, I divided the panzer unit in two different units in the scenario editor, with exactly half the equipment of the original unit each. This way, I would be able to get 6 units from the ďin gameĒ division, but exactly the same force relation between the two opposing units. You can see the result in figure 8. The infantry unit is ALWAYS encircled and eliminated. It takes still too long, because of the tiny infantry unit ZOC, but at least we donít have to chase it around.

So, no matter the difference in force of both units, we would always have to call a second unit just to get six sub units and close the hex based gaps. If we had octagons, instead of hexagons, we would have to have 8 sub units, independently of equipment density and mobility.

To be honest, when using planned combat (preventing RBC), we get better results, even with the 3 units encirclement, but the infantry unit can still escape most of the time. The difference is that using planned combat, instead of forcing RBC, we can kill it (them, when it divides) more easily afterwards. The losses are greater, since all three sub-units take part in combat. But, again, as said earlier, the point here isnít on the losses, but on the dynamics of encirclement and pursuit.

The necessity to occupy the 6 hexes for encirclement is artificial, since most of the combat should take place (in case of very low density units like this, at least) in the infantry unitís hex, which, in this particular case, would be easily encircled. But, in this example, even if it wasnít the case of treating the infantry hex as the exclusive battlefield area, the tanks would easily move to close the gaps against foot infantry.

If the game logic is completely hex based, the units should, at least be able to divide by six (the magic number for encirclement) and ZOC of tiny units (relatively, of course) eliminated. But a more realistic approach would be to verify if the relative mobility would allow a unit to pass through a gap between two enemy units without having itís path blocked (terrain could be a factor by itís influence in mobility and relative strength of units). If there is a supporting friendly unit in this gap (the unit Curtis though I wished the game should supply?), the retreat should be easier.

In relation to RBC, units with lower mobility should be eliminated more easily. The influence of mobility in disengagement attacks isnít enough.


Here, a disengagement attack must have been generated, since the unit split into three. But the tanks don't seem to have enough AP to kill the unit outright.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Cabido)
Post #: 32
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/2/2019 4:34:15 PM   
Shadrach


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/16/2001
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
I am continually perplexed by the number of people on this forum who dislike this game so much yet here they are playing it.


I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding this. People post these things because they care deeply about the game, and want it to become even better. Not because they dislike it, then they would just leave and find something else.

I have no illusions of being able to tell the developers how to improve this, as my knowledge of the code and deeper mechanics is limited. However I can voice my opinion that this might be something worth looking into, and maybe, if even possible, improve it. That's all there is to it.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 33
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/2/2019 7:02:11 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 8464
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
When I first saw your posts I was excited that you had put together a test scenario that could be used to analyze results, then you made this comment right at the beginning:

quote:

It should be easy to these panzers to encircle the squads in their own hex ...

Panzers are not designed for nor used for encircling squads, so I don't see how you can prove anything by setting it up that way. I stopped there and did not read the rest of your posts. Either you redeemed yourself later, or you should set it up differently.

quote:

But the tanks don't seem to have enough AP to kill the unit outright.

I would think they would, but the enemy infantry would have to stand in front of the tanks and not return any fire in order for the tanks to kill them. It's just not a proper test condition.
It has already been shown [in post #17] that disengagement attacks do occur and if executed properly will quickly eliminate units in this situation.

< Message edited by sPzAbt653 -- 4/2/2019 7:17:43 PM >

(in reply to Cabido)
Post #: 34
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/2/2019 8:52:28 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2645
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
I am continually perplexed by the number of people on this forum who dislike this game so much yet here they are playing it.


I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding this. People post these things because they care deeply about the game, and want it to become even better. Not because they dislike it, then they would just leave and find something else.

I have no illusions of being able to tell the developers how to improve this, as my knowledge of the code and deeper mechanics is limited. However I can voice my opinion that this might be something worth looking into, and maybe, if even possible, improve it. That's all there is to it.


I'm talking about things like the quote below. I am not misunderstanding that statement. It's very clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido
Well, I tried then to treat it as an hex based game, with all itís logic based on this arbitrary unit, the hex.


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

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

(in reply to Shadrach)
Post #: 35
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 9:19:35 AM   
Shadrach


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/16/2001
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline
quote:

I'm talking about things like the quote below. I am not misunderstanding that statement. It's very clear.


I have no idea how that statement can in any way shape or form be understood as a 'dislike' of the game. Is it the word 'arbitrary'? If so yes maybe not the best choice of words, but it just means 'randomly chosen'. Maybe calling hexes 'arbitrary' is deeply offensive to grogs

I think Cabido is making an excellent point, and much clearer than I would ever be able to. A unit of less than a hundred infantry is able to run in circles around a formidable tank-unit, in the middle of an open desert landscape. Those guys would be mincemeat in a no time flat, and if they had any sense they would surrender.

< Message edited by Shadrach -- 4/3/2019 11:21:35 AM >

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 36
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 11:48:51 AM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 373
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Keeping things in perspective is a key.
An advancing unit (be it infantry or armoured) would not be doing any mopping up. This would be the task of the mopping up force (rear echelons). Therefore they would not engage in pursue if the enemy got out of the way.

Only in exceptional cases a small unit (e.g.company-sized) would be able to orderly disengage from an advancing force. Normally either the unit would get disorganised or would surrender (overrun) even if many routes of withdrawal would have been available. Especially infantry vs armour would stay a close to none chances of disengaging.

On a 5-10 km scale the disengagement opportunities should be quite limited. The current wild goose chase system is another example of bad porting of boardgames solutions (where there were quite strick limitations for disengaging before combat).

A good example of the issue is when a stacked force tries to advance from a single hex. It is the top unit (of the stack) that makes the move (for God knows what reason) and only it is taken into account if the disengagement before combat occurs. On a 5-10 km scale, with half-week turns you have to (and are allowed to) encircle the enemy without him being able to disengage. Masterminds of boardgames would not be able to mess it up better.

< Message edited by gliz2 -- 4/3/2019 11:53:47 AM >


_____________________________

Plans are worthless, but planning is essential.

(in reply to Shadrach)
Post #: 37
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 3:24:50 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2645
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

quote:

I'm talking about things like the quote below. I am not misunderstanding that statement. It's very clear.


I have no idea how that statement can in any way shape or form be understood as a 'dislike' of the game. Is it the word 'arbitrary'? If so yes maybe not the best choice of words, but it just means 'randomly chosen'. Maybe calling hexes 'arbitrary' is deeply offensive to grogs

I think Cabido is making an excellent point, and much clearer than I would ever be able to. A unit of less than a hundred infantry is able to run in circles around a formidable tank-unit, in the middle of an open desert landscape. Those guys would be mincemeat in a no time flat, and if they had any sense they would surrender.


So you are telling me that all of the games based hexes used them as a random choice? Arbitrary?

I could make one small scenario and create all manners of weird outcomes. They prove nothing because they are created specifically to fail. Poor game decisions do not equal a broken game. If you create the situation like the one in the original post how can you blame the game for what you created? There have been a multitude of times when I RBC a small unit just so I can pass through the other sides lines. I also intentionally do not create situations where enemy units are allowed to wander about the rear areas. It's just bad tactics.

It's your job to create situations within the game that are to your advantage. That's how you 'win'. It's also your job to understand how the game works. If you don't then you will have unfortunate outcomes.

There is only so much that can be done with this game given the lack of people to work on it. Bending it to everyone's individual wishes is impossible. One person doesn't like that there are no leaders. Another person doesn't like that the combat loss information isn't to their liking. One doesn't like that there is no command hierarchy. The next one doesn't like how RBC happens. The next one doesn't like how the naval combat works. This one doesn't like how the air combat functions. One person (me) doesn't like the abstract way transportation is represented. Another thinks supply should be split between ammo, pol and other. The list goes on and on and on. Most are valid. Some are just spurious extra 'stuff' that they want because another game has them.

From what Bob has said RBC is going to remain as it is unless someone can show him with strenuously tested proof that something is amiss other than an individuals poor planning. Little scenarios set up to intentionally show how RBC fails or promising to never buy/play the game or a tantrum will not do it. He is always consistent with his demand for proof.

Continuing to argue with him that it is broken without that proof is pointless. Believe me, I been down that road.

So, good luck with your test.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

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

(in reply to Shadrach)
Post #: 38
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 3:25:11 PM   
Bamilus


Posts: 442
Joined: 4/30/2010
From: The Old Northwest
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
I am continually perplexed by the number of people on this forum who dislike this game so much yet here they are playing it.


I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding this. People post these things because they care deeply about the game, and want it to become even better. Not because they dislike it, then they would just leave and find something else.

I have no illusions of being able to tell the developers how to improve this, as my knowledge of the code and deeper mechanics is limited. However I can voice my opinion that this might be something worth looking into, and maybe, if even possible, improve it. That's all there is to it.


Honestly, part of the issue is, while I love TOAW 4 (and 3 before it), the games have the worst written manual I've ever seen in over hundreds of wargames. The manual reads like a CPA reference book (source: CPA here) that would only really be helpful for people who already have a good understanding of the game and it's previous iterations. So, it does a great job of documenting the intricacies of the game but does a terrible of job helping new players. I know there are third party fan created sourced tutorials, but that isn't a perfect solution. If this game had a manual like DC:Barbarossa, I think it would clear up so much misunderstanding. Hopefully, if there is a fifth version of TOAW, more time will be spent on this.

Regardless, this is a great game and these discussions show how detailed it is. While the game isn't perfect, the biggest barrier still remains the TOAW paradigm shift from traditional IGOUGO/WEGO wargames. I know there are tons of good posts and things explaining developer reasoning behind certain design decisions, but they are hard to find as they spread out among multiple websites spanning two decades. Incorporating some of these into the manual, like DC Barbarossa did, would better help transition players first encountering the paradigm shift.

Tl;dr: Game manual sucks for new players and they easily get frustrated because game is incredibly complex and requires a totally different paradigm from nearly every other hex based wargame, so a lot of complaints come from misunderstanding of game mechanics or from misunderstanding of design decision. However, due to lack of concise information, this is understandable.


_____________________________

Paradox Interactive Forum Refugee

(in reply to Shadrach)
Post #: 39
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 3:28:02 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2645
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online
Aye. The game manual has not been edited since TOAW I. There are parts of it that are completely contradictory.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

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

(in reply to Bamilus)
Post #: 40
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 3:33:33 PM   
Cabido

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/11/2017
Status: offline
Lobster, I shouldnít even bother to give you an answer, but here we go.

Any ďspacial unitĒ design choice (like squares, circles, hexes) for games IS arbitrary from the standpoint of reality, even if logic from a game standpoint. We have to choose a minimal discrete spacial unit, after all, to move pieces around and track positions. But nothing in reality leads us to the conclusion that we have to use 4, or 6, or 8 points to encircle, as directions to move etc. But after choosing, we can abstract from it (it is done, in the game), in order to try a better representation of reality and escape the imprisonment to this arbitrary number (4, 6, 8 or whatsoever) that has no logical link to reality, which is, ultimately, what we are trying to model, even if in an imperfect way.

Quoting Curtis:
ď(Don't think of the hex as something monolithic - it's actually a huge tactical battlefield).†Ē

There are two ways of looking at it. Either all rules are hex based, being the hex the smallest unit on the game logic, or the hex has itís own internal logic that must find continuity in adjacent hexes; it canít suddenly be broken by hex borders, as if part of two different universes. Itís a design choice. We canít shift between one paradigm and the other whenever convenient to justify game mechanics results.

Now, my real answer: I have designed graphics for this game (a lot of work involved, believe me), I have tried to help other people whenever I felt able to, and I have suggested (suggested, I said) changes I think could make things better (yes, this hex game can be made better). There are a lot of such suggestions around. All that is because I donít like the game! This must be the typical behavior of a troller!

Perplexity is my feeling about your inability to read and interpret. My english may not be perfect, but I think the context is clear enough. Where did I say hexes or RBC should be extinguished? Read my posts on this thread with suggestions before reacting like an offended child. I suggested solutions that are HEX BASED and assumes the possibility of RBC. You may not like my suggestions (itís your right), but they turn to dust your conclusions.


Curtis and sPzAbt653, I have already written an extensive text on it and wonít do it again. I just donít have the time. If you donít want to see the inconsistencies, who am I to convince you. I have structured the test in such a way as to analyse the encirclement and pursuit dynamics as represented in the game, not the combat results. The unit could stand the attack, could evaporate on the first round, etc. That would be a discussion about the combat engine, which in my opinion, apart from possible bugs, does a decent job. But movement, chase and encirclement dynamics must be consistent.

Arenít the panzers designed to encircle squads? Wonít go into it. But I was able to encircle and eliminate the squads (ALWAYS), if the unit can be divided by 6. Divided by 3 (the limit the game imposes, if we have all the equipment on a single container, the counter), we canít encircle, but will eventually kill. This is treating the hex as something monolithic, which Curtis said we shouldnít. The logic is completely hex based and not based on area, equipment density and mobility. Ok, this is a design choice, but I suggested that, if it is so, at least allow division by 6, so that we wonít need a second unit to close the gap, even if one single unit could deal with the situation.

And sPzAbt653, AP strength is the factor the game uses, and it is pretty high here, if you agree or not, so the results wouldnít change much if I used any other equipment. So, from a game mechanics standpoint it is an adequate unit to do the test. But damage isnít the main issue here. The point is the capacity of these tanks to overrun and contain the little infantry unit, even if they donít get a kill.

As for taking half a day to go around these squads?

Finally, the RBC chasing. Are they like cats? It would depend on features in the terrain and posture. Moving at high pace and keeping cohesion on arid terrain with a 5km radius hex... they would be visible. If hiding, on the few topographical features available on desert terrain, tanks could loose track of them, perhaps, but that should be dealt with in the combat resolution engine, since they would be more static.

Shadrach, thanks for your support. You really understood my intentions.

Gliz2, I must agree with your perspective here.

But even for those who disagree (like Curtis and sPzAbt653), I must say that disagreement is part of the game. This is a forum for a small community, if compared to other modern computer games. Insulting isnít the way to go, in my opinion. Apart from people here in this forum, nobody in this world gives a **** for what is written in these threads. We canít find a better way to expel people from this community than by verbal aggression here and then, the last one will have a desert to preach within, without opposition.

I think it can be a good use of my time to write long texts to suggest improvement on this game, even if they arenít accepted or even read. But I consider a waste of my own time to have to write even a short text to react to insults.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 41
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 4:02:24 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2645
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido

Where did I say hexes or RBC should be extinguished?



My question too. I never said that. But if you want to say I said something go ahead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido

You may not like my suggestions (itís your right), but they turn to dust your conclusions.



Again, I never said that but if you want to say I did go ahead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido
Curtis and sPzAbt653, I have already written an extensive text on it and wonít do it again. I just donít have the time. If you donít want to see the inconsistencies, who am I to convince you. I have structured the test in such a way as to analyse the encirclement and pursuit dynamics as represented in the game, not the combat results. The unit could stand the attack, could evaporate on the first round, etc. That would be a discussion about the combat engine, which in my opinion, apart from possible bugs, does a decent job. But movement, chase and encirclement dynamics must be consistent.


You made a small scenario whose outcome is sure to support your claims as though that is how an RBC will always turn out. It's not conclusive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido
Arenít the panzers designed to encircle squads? Wonít go into it. But I was able to encircle and eliminate the squads (ALWAYS), if the unit can be divided by 6. Divided by 3 (the limit the game imposes, if we have all the equipment on a single container, the counter), we canít encircle, but will eventually kill. This is treating the hex as something monolithic, which Curtis said we shouldnít. The logic is completely hex based and not based on area, equipment density and mobility. Ok, this is a design choice, but I suggested that, if it is so, at least allow division by 6, so that we wonít need a second unit to close the gap, even if one single unit could deal with the situation.


Tanks are made to be supported by infantry, not operate independently especially against infantry. German tactics were a tripod, not a pole.

A more simple solution that would fit with the games static, as opposed to dynamic, data structure would be to allow for different ZOC. Sticky ZOC would not allow units to pass from one ZOC to another. Doing so during a retreat would cause elimination. Elastic ZOC would be as it is now. No ZOC is explains itself and we also have that already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido
And sPzAbt653, AP strength is the factor the game uses, and it is pretty high here, if you agree or not, so the results wouldnít change much if I used any other equipment. So, from a game mechanics standpoint it is an adequate unit to do the test. But damage isnít the main issue here. The point is the capacity of these tanks to overrun and contain the little infantry unit, even if they donít get a kill.


A buttoned up tank has very poor visibility at best even without dust. If the tanks are fighting infantry with no support they are most certainly buttoned up. Have you ever tried to look out the ports of a buttoned up tank?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido
As for taking half a day to go around these squads?

Finally, the RBC chasing. Are they like cats? It would depend on features in the terrain and posture. Moving at high pace and keeping cohesion on arid terrain with a 5km radius hex... they would be visible. If hiding, on the few topographical features available on desert terrain, tanks could loose track of them, perhaps, but that should be dealt with in the combat resolution engine, since they would be more static.


Again, buttoned up tank, infantry. Chasing cats might be easier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido
Shadrach, thanks for your support. You really understood my intentions.

Gliz2, I must agree with your perspective here.

But even for those who disagree (like Curtis and sPzAbt653), I must say that disagreement is part of the game. This is a forum for a small community, if compared to other modern computer games. Insulting isnít the way to go, in my opinion. Apart from people here in this forum, nobody in this world gives a **** for what is written in these threads. We canít find a better way to expel people from this community than by verbal aggression here and then, the last one will have a desert to preach within, without opposition.


If by verbal aggression you mean calling something by what it appears to be, then ok. BTW, this forum has survived more 'verbal aggression' than you can possibly imagine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido
I think it can be a good use of my time to write long texts to suggest improvement on this game, even if they arenít accepted or even read. But I consider a waste of my own time to have to write even a short text to react to insults.


Again, if you try to tell people that game designers are using arbitrary methods for their creations you have in one stroke insulted legions and I will be quick to defend them.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

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

(in reply to Cabido)
Post #: 42
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 4:08:10 PM   
Cabido

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/11/2017
Status: offline
You really don't understand what you read, do you Lobster?

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 43
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 4:42:13 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2645
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

A more simple solution that would fit with the games static, as opposed to dynamic, data structure would be to allow for different ZOC. Sticky ZOC would not allow units to pass from one ZOC to another. Doing so during a retreat would cause elimination. Elastic ZOC would be as it is now. No ZOC is explains itself and we also have that already.




If you paid attention you would see that this takes care of Shadrack's goose chase problem without affecting RBC or going through endless programming hoops attempting to cover every situation. It also requires only two units instead of the three you show in your scenario. It also gives scenario designers flexibility in their scenario design. Something I always campaign for.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lobster -- 4/3/2019 4:45:05 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

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

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 44
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 4:44:51 PM   
Shadrach


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/16/2001
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline
Let it go Cabido mate, it's just not worth the time... I am sure the people who actually have some power over this have seen our view on it, and there's not much more to be said to influence them by now.

I just need to comment this and I'll let it go:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bamilus
Tl;dr: Game manual sucks for new players and they easily get frustrated because game is incredibly complex and requires a totally different paradigm from nearly every other hex based wargame, so a lot of complaints come from misunderstanding of game mechanics or from misunderstanding of design decision. However, due to lack of concise information, this is understandable.


Well, as a new player to TOAW (but not new to hex-based wargames), I actually found the manual pretty damned good. All it relative, and I've seen some really horrible manuals (Graviteam -- looking at you here). Slick presentation, and it covers the necessary bases. If anything, it could easily go into even more detail on how the underlying mechanics work, but it does a good job nonetheless.

(in reply to Cabido)
Post #: 45
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 4:47:24 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2645
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online
Read the above. Don't be so quick to judge. Instead try to come up with solutions that will be simple and give scenario designers the flexibility they deserve for all the work they do providing these free scenarios to people.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 4/3/2019 4:48:04 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

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

(in reply to Shadrach)
Post #: 46
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 5:06:11 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 8464
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

I have structured the test in such a way ...

And several of us have explained why you are wrong. And we fairly quickly proved that the entire premise of this thread is wrong. Jack, Bob and I don't need to be convinced of anything, we've worked for years taking direction from others on how to improve or 'fix' things. This isn't one of those things.

EDIT: Not that we are the only ones, there are several others, those mentioned are the ones that I saw participating in this particular thread.

< Message edited by sPzAbt653 -- 4/3/2019 5:19:53 PM >

(in reply to Cabido)
Post #: 47
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 5:08:29 PM   
Bamilus


Posts: 442
Joined: 4/30/2010
From: The Old Northwest
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

Let it go Cabido mate, it's just not worth the time... I am sure the people who actually have some power over this have seen our view on it, and there's not much more to be said to influence them by now.

I just need to comment this and I'll let it go:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bamilus
Tl;dr: Game manual sucks for new players and they easily get frustrated because game is incredibly complex and requires a totally different paradigm from nearly every other hex based wargame, so a lot of complaints come from misunderstanding of game mechanics or from misunderstanding of design decision. However, due to lack of concise information, this is understandable.


Well, as a new player to TOAW (but not new to hex-based wargames), I actually found the manual pretty damned good. All it relative, and I've seen some really horrible manuals (Graviteam -- looking at you here). Slick presentation, and it covers the necessary bases. If anything, it could easily go into even more detail on how the underlying mechanics work, but it does a good job nonetheless.



I guess I'm glad the manual helped you, but the manual is basically just a glossary of rules and other than the new supply system, it never really explains things that well.

Now, after playing the game for awhile, the manual is a great reference, but starting with the manual just adds confusion because there's a big difference between explaining the details behind complex supply calculations or the time stamp system and actually showing players how to use that knowledge.

Myself and countless others achieve a decent understanding of the system from the manual, but something like in DC:Barbarossa manual that actually explains how to use this knowledge (through examples and tips) would work wonders. I've read so many stories of people who read the manual, then try the game and get frustrated because the optimal way to play the game is entirely different from any other wargame ("you mean I have to plan my moves first and plan my attacks, but then perform all my attacks at the end"?).

Also, as Lobster said, there's ton of stuff in the manual that is contradictory or ambiguous.

As a reference guide, the manual is very good. As a way to actually get you into the game and playing it in a successful way, it's not good. You can understand all the thousands of rules behind the super complex systems, but until you are shown how to actually play, it doesn't matter.

I'm sure there's people much smarter than me who read the manual, played the first tutorial, and totally understood the supply system and how to plan out their turns to fit in 7-8 combat rounds before the turn is over. I guess I just wasn't one of them.

_____________________________

Paradox Interactive Forum Refugee

(in reply to Shadrach)
Post #: 48
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 5:22:58 PM   
Cabido

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/11/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

I have structured the test in such a way ...

And several of us have explained why you are wrong. And we fairly quickly proved that the entire premise of this thread is wrong. Jack, Curtis and I don't need to be convinced of anything, we've worked for years taking direction from others on how to improve or 'fix' things. This isn't one of those things.


Proved? You don't seem to know the meaning of the word. Anyway, do it as you wish.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 49
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 6:07:26 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2645
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

I have structured the test in such a way ...

And several of us have explained why you are wrong. And we fairly quickly proved that the entire premise of this thread is wrong. Jack, Curtis and I don't need to be convinced of anything, we've worked for years taking direction from others on how to improve or 'fix' things. This isn't one of those things.


Proved? You don't seem to know the meaning of the word. Anyway, do it as you wish.



Please don't think this is an insult or poking with a sharp stick. But yes, proved. Those of us who have been around for a long time know that in order to get a change in fairly anything in this game you have to prove your point with "rigorous testing" (Bob's words). While changing a portion of the game for a handful of scenarios might seem like a good thing it could also prove to have a negative impact on an even larger number of scenarios. I don't know how many scenarios are out there for TOAW but I would wager it's well over 1 thousand. You can't weigh the impact of a change on a few when so many have been made. That's thousands and thousands of man hours of work to create free scenarios for us to play that's at risk. You can't just shrug that off as if it were nothing. Now that would be an insult.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 4/3/2019 6:08:22 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

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

(in reply to Cabido)
Post #: 50
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 6:14:40 PM   
larryfulkerson

 

Posts: 37776
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
"...[t]hat's thousands and thousands of man hours of work to create free scenarios for us to play that's at risk. You can't just shrug that off as if it were noting. Now that would be an insult."

Hey you guys....can't we just get along together? I didn't see any hint of any insulting going on in what he said.

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 4/3/2019 6:15:05 PM >


_____________________________

"The universe contains protons, neutrons, electrons and morons." Anon.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 51
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 6:23:27 PM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 584
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline
I gave up playing table top wargames 50 years ago because, as a 15 year old, all I saw most evenings was old men arguing about what was or was not fair or realistic.

Those old men were probably 29 or 30 and will now be really old men, like me at 65 and playing games!

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 52
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 6:25:29 PM   
larryfulkerson

 

Posts: 37776
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
...like me at 69 and playing games!

_____________________________

"The universe contains protons, neutrons, electrons and morons." Anon.

(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 53
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/3/2019 6:47:02 PM   
Shadrach


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/16/2001
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri
I gave up playing table top wargames 50 years ago because, as a 15 year old, all I saw most evenings was old men arguing about what was or was not fair or realistic.


Congratulations Sir, you win the thread!

(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 54
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/5/2019 8:29:00 PM   
Hellen_slith


Posts: 328
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Just chiming in here, w/ my two pfennigs, but there is a good use for such tactic (for the RBC unit)....I think Larry may have noticed, that some of my cav recon units are somewhat adapt at "leading" some of his units into a wild goose chase ... which I plan, hopefully to my advantage (slim, albeit, but every advantage that I can find against Larry is an advantage to be used!)

Answer is simple: don't chase.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 55
RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase - 4/5/2019 9:14:00 PM   
mussey


Posts: 650
Joined: 12/2/2006
From: Cleve-Land
Status: offline
I couldnít help myself. I chased the goose. Got burned. Lord help me.

_____________________________

Col. Mussbu

The long arm of the law - "The King of Battle"


(in reply to Shadrach)
Post #: 56
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> RE: Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.172