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: Digging In

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> RE: Digging In Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Digging In - 1/30/2008 1:26:00 PM   
Heldenkaiser

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 8/8/2006
Status: offline
I tend to think it would be best to have turn-burning attacks affect the individual formation, but not the entire army across the map. So this one division (corps, army, etc.) messed up its attack and finds itself in an awkward position as a result, that's fine. But why should it affect everyone else on the board?

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 31
RE: Digging In - 1/30/2008 8:19:26 PM   
hank

 

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline
I see some others also have reservations about the early turn burns.  I see some good comments that I was unable to put down in words but reflect some of my discontent with how the early turn endings are implemented.  Like a previous post said one lone unit can shut down an entire front during whatever the turn duration is (and in most large battles its at least a one day to one week duration ... give or take).  That does sound quite harsh when compared to reality.

Heldenkaiser hit on one possible improvement by only penalizing the division or regiment the unit that's causing the turn burn belongs to.  ... or possibly all the friendly units in a one or two hex radius gets their MP's zero'ed .... another suggestion.  Just because one unit or hex group is causing a burnout of the turn should that one bad spot on the map penalize the whole army stretched out over a few hundred miles of front.

Just another log on the fire

< Message edited by hank -- 1/30/2008 8:21:09 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 32
RE: Digging In - 1/30/2008 9:06:22 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

I see some others also have reservations about the early turn burns. I see some good comments that I was unable to put down in words but reflect some of my discontent with how the early turn endings are implemented. Like a previous post said one lone unit can shut down an entire front during whatever the turn duration is (and in most large battles its at least a one day to one week duration ... give or take). That does sound quite harsh when compared to reality.

... or possibly all the friendly units in a one or two hex radius gets their MP's zero'ed .... another suggestion.


I'd go with a larger radius myself. The unpredictability should be substantial -- just not so universal as to be absurd. Of course, the difference is primarily evidence that the radius should be an editable value. If you want scenario-wide turn ending, just set the value to 300. If you don't want early turn-ending at all, set it to 0.

Make the default 300 and older scenarios won't be affected.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/30/2008 9:08:51 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to hank)
Post #: 33
RE: Digging In - 1/31/2008 4:07:07 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Let's be sure we're not mixing terms here. There are basically three mechanisms that can cause your turn to end early:

1. You screw up (or, do so deliberately for some important reason) and attack with a unit that has expended most of its movement allowance already. There are tools in the game now to alert you to this mistake - the circle of stars, etc. That ought to be enough. In fact, it can be an important tactical option, so should be retained.

2. You randomly suffer a Force Proficency Check failure. This is an important feature that somewhat counters some of the IGOUGO issues. It must be retained.

3. One of your attacks lasts longer than expected and burns up most of the turn. This is the only one that is controversial. Note that we've already added one feature to address it: Max Rounds Per Battle (MRPB) - set in the editor. For further addressing it check out item 1.15 in the wishlist (an idea from Rhinobones):

1.15 Multiple round combats placed in “engaged” mode while other units are allowed to finish movement (but still subject to Force Proficiency check).

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 1/31/2008 4:09:03 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 34
RE: Digging In - 1/31/2008 6:36:43 PM   
brucekg

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 3/15/2003
From: Hudson, NH, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Let's be sure we're not mixing terms here. There are basically three mechanisms that can cause your turn to end early:

1. You screw up (or, do so deliberately for some important reason) and attack with a unit that has expended most of its movement allowance already. There are tools in the game now to alert you to this mistake - the circle of stars, etc. That ought to be enough. In fact, it can be an important tactical option, so should be retained.

2. You randomly suffer a Force Proficency Check failure. This is an important feature that somewhat counters some of the IGOUGO issues. It must be retained.

3. One of your attacks lasts longer than expected and burns up most of the turn. This is the only one that is controversial. Note that we've already added one feature to address it: Max Rounds Per Battle (MRPB) - set in the editor. For further addressing it check out item 1.15 in the wishlist (an idea from Rhinobones):

1.15 Multiple round combats placed in “engaged” mode while other units are allowed to finish movement (but still subject to Force Proficiency check).


Thank you for a clear and concise summarization.


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 35
RE: Digging In - 1/31/2008 9:15:58 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

2. You randomly suffer a Force Proficency Check failure. This is an important feature that somewhat counters some of the IGOUGO issues. It must be retained.


I'm beginning to wonder if it still functions in the first place.

In one scenario I'm play-testing, the British are dialed all the way down to 50%. I've yet to see them get off fewer than three rounds.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/31/2008 9:18:02 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 36
RE: Digging In - 1/31/2008 9:29:46 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


2. You randomly suffer a Force Proficency Check failure. This is an important feature that somewhat counters some of the IGOUGO issues. It must be retained.


Yeah -- but the difficulty is that one is still penalized for mounting minor attacks. Let's suppose I've got a wave of assaults I could make with none of the turn gone, a secondary attack I could launch at 40%, and a couple of fairly important ones to make that will use 80% of the turn.

I'd be crazy to launch the 40% attack without launching the 80% attacks simultaneously. This is the problem with the system. Since the effects are universal, you can't risk that attack with Ski Battalion 39. It might halt Panzer Group Kleist down in the Ukraine -- simply because the check will be carried out.

So while I certainly appreciate the need for early turn ending, I don't think it works to make the effect universal -- whether you see it as coming from one combat or as coming from a general check. The simple fact that one will risk undergoing the check if one makes a given attack suffices to produce unreasonable disincentives to attack.

One could say that I in fact don't want true early turn ending. What I want is for the turn to end for specific areas of the front.

quote:





3. One of your attacks lasts longer than expected and burns up most of the turn. This is the only one that is controversial. Note that we've already added one feature to address it: Max Rounds Per Battle (MRPB) - set in the editor. For further addressing it check out item 1.15 in the wishlist (an idea from Rhinobones):

1.15 Multiple round combats placed in “engaged” mode while other units are allowed to finish movement (but still subject to Force Proficiency check).


That's a rather good idea -- assuming it's practical to program. However, note that if it is implemented, the likelihood of other forms of turn ending should be increased.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 37
RE: Digging In - 2/1/2008 12:25:39 AM   
brucekg

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 3/15/2003
From: Hudson, NH, USA
Status: offline
With a thread having wandered off this bad, you should really start a new thread. Otherwise people interested in this new discussion just aren't going to expect to find it under "Digging In".

But, I am finding it informative.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 38
RE: Digging In - 2/1/2008 12:32:05 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg

With a thread having wandered off this bad, you should really start a new thread. Otherwise people interested in this new discussion just aren't going to expect to find it under "Digging In".

But, I am finding it informative.



Be thankful we haven't gotten onto the Republican Primary.

I've never bothered much about worrying about threads wandering off topic. They always do that. As to finding a given topic -- think of it as a challenge. I often wind up searching the recent posts of whoever it was who was saying something on the subject.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to brucekg)
Post #: 39
RE: Digging In - 2/1/2008 12:47:56 AM   
brucekg

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 3/15/2003
From: Hudson, NH, USA
Status: offline

Marines and political wackos, now I am calling the SP. Out of my bar, the lot of you.


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 40
RE: Digging In - 2/1/2008 4:25:53 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah -- but the difficulty is that one is still penalized for mounting minor attacks. Let's suppose I've got a wave of assaults I could make with none of the turn gone, a secondary attack I could launch at 40%, and a couple of fairly important ones to make that will use 80% of the turn.

I'd be crazy to launch the 40% attack without launching the 80% attacks simultaneously. This is the problem with the system. Since the effects are universal, you can't risk that attack with Ski Battalion 39. It might halt Panzer Group Kleist down in the Ukraine -- simply because the check will be carried out.

So while I certainly appreciate the need for early turn ending, I don't think it works to make the effect universal -- whether you see it as coming from one combat or as coming from a general check. The simple fact that one will risk undergoing the check if one makes a given attack suffices to produce unreasonable disincentives to attack.

One could say that I in fact don't want true early turn ending. What I want is for the turn to end for specific areas of the front.


Gives one an edge if you have a high force proficiency. If you have a low one, better not get too "cute". So high prof forces get the advantages of multiple rounds, while low prof ones have to be cruder in their choices.

I'll admit the effect increases as the size of the scenario expands. But that can be somewhat addressed by appropriate increases in Force Proficiency.

quote:

That's a rather good idea -- assuming it's practical to program. However, note that if it is implemented, the likelihood of other forms of turn ending should be increased.


I've got some reservations about it. It will just about eliminate all the skill required for round management - just set every attacker at "ignore losses" and go.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 41
RE: Digging In - 2/1/2008 4:31:04 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

2. You randomly suffer a Force Proficency Check failure. This is an important feature that somewhat counters some of the IGOUGO issues. It must be retained.


I'm beginning to wonder if it still functions in the first place.

In one scenario I'm play-testing, the British are dialed all the way down to 50%. I've yet to see them get off fewer than three rounds.


It's working. Be sure you understand the true risk of check failure:

Both the check against Force Proficiency fails and the check against rounds expended fails.

So, if only one round had been expended in the above case, the risk of early ending after that combat phase would be 5%.

If half the turn had been expended, the risk of ending after that combat phase would be 25%, etc.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 2/1/2008 4:33:12 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 42
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> RE: Digging In 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

2.797