Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I use these settings very little -- except of course to permit artillery to support attacks during my turn. On the other hand, I've played opponents who use them a lot.

I really tear them to pieces in consequence. Why I don't use the settings myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I use these settings very little -- except of course to permit artillery to support attacks during my turn. On the other hand, I've played opponents who use them a lot.

I really tear them to pieces in consequence. Why I don't use the settings myself.

Colin, may I ask in what sort of games? W2, moderns, etc etc?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I use these settings very little -- except of course to permit artillery to support attacks during my turn. On the other hand, I've played opponents who use them a lot.

I really tear them to pieces in consequence. Why I don't use the settings myself.

Colin, may I ask in what sort of games? W2, moderns, etc etc?

World War Two, generally. The most historically recent scenario I've ever played was the disc Korea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I use these settings very little -- except of course to permit artillery to support attacks during my turn. On the other hand, I've played opponents who use them a lot.

I really tear them to pieces in consequence. Why I don't use the settings myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Artillery supports cooperative units within range on defense . Don't use Tactical or Local settings as the units will then move around willy-nilly and either run into a ground attack or move in a silly direction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I use these settings very little -- except of course to permit artillery to support attacks during my turn. On the other hand, I've played opponents who use them a lot.

I really tear them to pieces in consequence. Why I don't use the settings myself.

May I ask, how do you use these settings to influence your artillery support of attacks.

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Would like to see a change where units that are moved due to being in the reserve status have the ability to entrench after movement.  This, of course, is provided that they have at least one movement point remaining.

quote:

Also, it seems that a unit should have the capacity to have both an entrenchment and reserve status.  I do not think that entrenched and reserve statuses are mutually exclusive.  There is plenty of room on the unit counter to display both the entrenchment and reserve status.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I dunno. If everyone's all set to move off when the call comes, they can't simultaneously be set up in an optimal defensive position, and they certainly can't be holed up in bunkers with their guns set up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I dunno. If everyone's all set to move off when the call comes, they can't simultaneously be set up in an optimal defensive position, and they certainly can't be holed up in bunkers with their guns set up.

They can be set up in a optimal defensive position, and be ready to move within a few hours. Depends on the scale aswell. A platoon can make a counter-attack pretty fast into a lost position in the company area. Etc.
A division it would take some time to get on the move, but this doesn't mean they couldn't be in defensive positions before that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

We are talking Tactical Reserve, not Local Reserve.

Regimental scale, time wise probably half week or one week turns . . . and you’re telling me that is not adequate time to move to a new position (a position that is already occupied and at least partially prepared by friendly forces).

I'm sorry -- but I don't see it.

Think this really displays the pundit’s lack of first hand experience. The ability of a combat unit to move, and to find cover while under fire, is being vastly understated.

Regards, RhinoBones

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid

I sometimes use armor in "T" behind an infantry defense line. It comes as a surprise to the attacker when he thinks he is just going to hit infantry, and then faces armour. If he cannot kill the armour he will end up burning his turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Really? What's your 'first hand experience' -- and what range of conditions and scales does it cover?

quote:

Point being that OPART covers a wide range of scales, unit capabilities, etc. Obviously, a mechanized battalion deployed over a 2 km front might be able to pull up stakes pretty quick when it gets the word -- but whether the same applies to a 1916 Russian infantry corps dug in across 20 kilometers is another question.

quote:

In general, though, it seems a tad odd to me that a unit could be simultaneously entrenched to hold a given sector and ready to move out at a moments' notice.

quote:

Certainly, it's not a change I think would necessarily improve the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Really? What's your 'first hand experience' -- and what range of conditions and scales does it cover?

Yes, really. Nam, 70-71, Co/Bn. There were three of us called Rhino . . . I was the Bones. And no, I was not a medic. The Navy provided the medics.

quote:

Point being that OPART covers a wide range of scales, unit capabilities, etc. Obviously, a mechanized battalion deployed over a 2 km front might be able to pull up stakes pretty quick when it gets the word -- but whether the same applies to a 1916 Russian infantry corps dug in across 20 kilometers is another question.

You’re making a problem where there isn’t any. A variable can be defined that calculates how any MPs a unit needs to both move and entrench based on the designer’s input.

quote:

In general, though, it seems a tad odd to me that a unit could be simultaneously entrenched to hold a given sector and ready to move out at a moments' notice.

Besides you, who said it was at a moments notice? Moving takes time and that is all part of the usage of MPs by a unit in reserve. The number of movement points required is function of the unit’s readiness and experience. I don’t see a big difference between an entrenched unit moving out as opposed to a unit milling about in “reserve” status and moving out.
Your position implies that units are either tasked 100% to move out or 100% to entrench and that switching from one mode to another take some kind of extraordinary effort. This is just not the case no matter how absurd you try to frame your argument.

quote:

Certainly, it's not a change I think would necessarily improve the game.

As is, a unit will move from the back line to reinforce the front line and has absolutely no ability to defend itself by digging in (the current TOAW model). You evidently find this more realistic than a unit that moves up to the front line and, provided time is available, entrenches before the next assault.

Regards, RhinoBones

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
A unit does take time to deploy, and if it is already deployed, it takes time to assemble in march order and move off. Unlike you, for example, Patton did not regard it as routine when his army was able to disengage, promptly move north, and go into the attack to relieve Bastogne. He actually thought it was quite a feat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

We are talking Tactical Reserve, not Local Reserve.

Regimental scale, time wise probably half week or one week turns . . . and you’re telling me that is not adequate time to move to a new position (a position that is already occupied and at least partially prepared by friendly forces).

I'm sorry -- but I don't see it.

Think this really displays the pundit’s lack of first hand experience. The ability of a combat unit to move, and to find cover while under fire, is being vastly understated.

Regards, RhinoBones

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
A unit does take time to deploy, and if it is already deployed, it takes time to assemble in march order and move off. Unlike you, for example, Patton did not regard it as routine when his army was able to disengage, promptly move north, and go into the attack to relieve Bastogne. He actually thought it was quite a feat.

Patton moved a whole army in 48 hours...It was quite a feat, but it is not what we are discussing. The point is that for example if I have a division with 3 regiments, I can hold 2 regiment in the frontline and 1 behind them in tactical reserve. What stops this third regiment from being in entrenched positions? Unless the time is something like 6 hours a turn then the unit moving to counter-attack is completely possible.

And do remember that this is not in any way comparable to what Patton did, this is easy and there are plans for it.

I do not have experience of battalions, regiments, brigades and divisions, but from company level down I do have.

A company can get on the move pretty fast. If an immediate counter-attack is needed, then no more than an hour is needed. If everything needs to be moved then a few hours...but this doesn't mean the combat forces wouldn't still get on the move within an hour. Just leave the cooks etc. to strip down the tents etc.

Platoons can get on the move within minutes. I know this because I have done this. From entrenched positions to counter-attack.

Btw. deploying doesn't really take much time. Our liutenat made us run back and forth for a whole day back when I was conscript, we had 10 minutes to set up a tent(plus everything inside) and look up defensive positions. 5 minutes to strip down the tent, pack up everything, and be ready to move. That's with a 7 men squad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


Sure -- but as you say, this is for certain time scales, and with a particular army using particular equipment. What a modern US rifle company with extensive training and lavish communications can do is one thing -- what some Russian Civil War corps with not even one field telephone to its name can do is another.

My point -- Rhinobones' attempts to sneer notwithstanding -- is that allowing units to be both entrenched and standing by on reserve may not be especially realistic across the whole range of situations. As far as TOAW goes, I actually could care less about what a modern US unit can or can't do. My interest in warfare ends at about 1960 -- and look at the scenario list on the disc. How many of the units involved have anything like the capabilities of the military unit you served in?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


Sure -- but as you say, this is for certain time scales, and with a particular army using particular equipment. What a modern US rifle company with extensive training and lavish communications can do is one thing -- what some Russian Civil War corps with not even one field telephone to its name can do is another.

My point -- Rhinobones' attempts to sneer notwithstanding -- is that allowing units to be both entrenched and standing by on reserve may not be especially realistic across the whole range of situations. As far as TOAW goes, I actually could care less about what a modern US unit can or can't do. My interest in warfare ends at about 1960 -- and look at the scenario list on the disc. How many of the units involved have anything like the capabilities of the military unit you served in?

I would argue that in most situations the units would be able to do this. WWI onwards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Isn't this why units in 'mobile' deployment get a defensive benefit over those that are 'moving'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Okay, they're either dispersed along a 10 km (the hex they're in and one of the two hexes they can exert a zone of control over) front, or they're concentrated at some road junction pending an order to move. In the latter case, they probably can be on the road in an hour. That leaves them fifteen hours of a sixteen hour day to get to where they are wanted.

In the former case, add an hour to get the word out and three hours to physically assemble -- plus the hour to do whatever they did to get ready when they were already assembled.

So it's eleven hours of actual movement and fighting or whatever in the new position versus fifteen hours.