Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
You're welcome to have a go, but perhaps fights like the one Curtis and I are waging over volume-based supply are more useful. They're not especially pleasant, but at least they do lay out some of the arguments pro and con for any given change. A poll can't do that.

There is a problem. This way important, but not doubtful wishes are lost. Nobody is waging - the problem isn't critical. I don't like the approach taken literally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

Just wonder if I can add another:
what's the specialty/characteristics about each 128 unit icons available in TOAW3...
Put them inside Manual would be best

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

Just wonder if I can add another:
what's the specialty/characteristics about each 128 unit icons available in TOAW3...
Put them inside Manual would be best

A lot of them don't do anything -- but you're right. If would be good if there was a list of the ones that do actually provide some special capability and what that capability is.

To take the question backwards, as far as I know, the following icons don't do anything. Engineers of all types, truck and transport icons, naval aviation as opposed to ordinary aviation, military police, anti-aircraft. In all these cases, the capability inheres in the equipment assigned, not the icon. Don't know for sure about cavalry, armor, recon -- but I'll put my money on it just being the equipment that gives the effect.

Icons that will do something in and of themselves include all HQ and artillery icons, including 'infantry artillery.' Airborne, glider, etc. Guerrilla. Mountain. Supply.

Somebody can probably improve on this list -- but that's what comes to mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

Just wonder if I can add another:
what's the specialty/characteristics about each 128 unit icons available in TOAW3...
Put them inside Manual would be best

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As with my other wishes, I wouldn't be surprised if this is already on there, but I really think there should be separate 'truck' units that can pick up and carry units.

OPART tends to assume either that a unit has organic transportation, or that it has no access to trucks at all. Actually, my readings are convincing me that neither one was the norm (pun not intended).

Italians, Britons, Germans, Japanese -- all spent most of the war without enough trucks to haul all of their infantry all the time. Rather, there were so many trucks, and these could be shifted around to move this or that unit to some position where it would thereafter be limited to shank's mare. The trucks, meanwhile, would have gone off to perform some other function.

This was the norm -- far more than the feast or famine TOAW requires. Since the game's focus really is on World War Two, shouldn't it at least allow the possibility of reproducing this situation. Truck units that can provide a long distance strategic movement capability to otherwise foot-bound infantry?

You could remember - we discussed the problem on TDG. There are 3 different ways: present-rail-like trucks (6.9), present-aircraft-carrier-like transport units (6.13) and one of effects of composite units 4.8.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As with my other wishes, I wouldn't be surprised if this is already on there, but I really think there should be separate 'truck' units that can pick up and carry units.

OPART tends to assume either that a unit has organic transportation, or that it has no access to trucks at all. Actually, my readings are convincing me that neither one was the norm (pun not intended).

Italians, Britons, Germans, Japanese -- all spent most of the war without enough trucks to haul all of their infantry all the time. Rather, there were so many trucks, and these could be shifted around to move this or that unit to some position where it would thereafter be limited to shank's mare. The trucks, meanwhile, would have gone off to perform some other function.

This was the norm -- far more than the feast or famine TOAW requires. Since the game's focus really is on World War Two, shouldn't it at least allow the possibility of reproducing this situation. Truck units that can provide a long distance strategic movement capability to otherwise foot-bound infantry?

You could remember - we discussed the problem on TDG. There are 3 different ways: present-rail-like trucks (6.9), present-aircraft-carrier-like transport units (6.13) and one of effects of composite units 4.8.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'll note that composite units would actually let units use their trucks precisely as I tend to object to seeing them used. The infantry become panzergrenadiers. Infantry almost universally could ride in trucks -- but ordinarily didn't use them for tactical movement. The 2/5 Borsets may well have arrived to join the Amiens attack of 25 August 1918 on trucks -- I'm quite certain they didn't use them to exploit their success.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'll note that composite units would actually let units use their trucks precisely as I tend to object to seeing them used. The infantry become panzergrenadiers. Infantry almost universally could ride in trucks -- but ordinarily didn't use them for tactical movement. The 2/5 Borsets may well have arrived to join the Amiens attack of 25 August 1918 on trucks -- I'm quite certain they didn't use them to exploit their success.

This shouldn't be as big problem as you mention. Anyway - you find other important problem - calculation of proficiency. If the program could remember original prof of grouped unit, and use recalculated prof of composite unit only as temporary parameter, the problem is solved. You could just set proficiency of independent British or Italian truck unit as 1%. This way, your 70% infantry could try to be panzergrenadier, but it reduces it's battle strength dramatically. Let define your truck unit this way, that there is 50 trucks and 175 civilian group. You have 225 pieces of equipment with prof of 1% for each 25 infantry squad with prof of 70%. Temporary prof of such unit could be about 7% - just enough to discourage for trying mobile warfare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'll note that composite units would actually let units use their trucks precisely as I tend to object to seeing them used. The infantry become panzergrenadiers. Infantry almost universally could ride in trucks -- but ordinarily didn't use them for tactical movement. The 2/5 Borsets may well have arrived to join the Amiens attack of 25 August 1918 on trucks -- I'm quite certain they didn't use them to exploit their success.

This shouldn't be as big problem as you mention...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Here's another idea which may already be in the wish list: captured equipment. ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
One could simply have the usual portions of any 'lost' equipment dumped in the pool for both sides.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Levelworm

Could I suggest seperate 'News Summary' for two sides?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Levelworm

Could I suggest seperate 'News Summary' for two sides?

Yeah. If that's not already in the list it should be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sker

I would like to see something to make some of my unit have a priority when the replacement are assigned. For example if one of my infantry division in a key point of my offensive is about to running out of men or equipment I would like to send them a larger part of the avaible replacements than another unit who is not in a such important place.
Maybe just add a menu with three levels of priority: something like high, normal and low.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sker

I would like to see something to make some of my unit have a priority when the replacement are assigned. For example if one of my infantry division in a key point of my offensive is about to running out of men or equipment I would like to send them a larger part of the avaible replacements than another unit who is not in a such important place.
Maybe just add a menu with three levels of priority: something like high, normal and low.

I second that. Maybe together with a hierarchical OOB a player could channel the flow of replacements al gusto. On the other this could turn into excessive micromanagement in bigger scenarios like Dno, EA, FitE, so it better should be kept simple.

In the scenario editor a designer already has the possibility to set replacement prorities for each individual unit, but once set it can't be changed anymore during play. I'd like to see replacement priorities that can be changed by events.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



Note that the ability to do this in reality is limited; or to be more precise, the results can be less than happy.

In Operation Mars, Zhukov started out by throwing his assault divisions against Model's defenses -- made life pretty hairy for the Germans for a while, but didn't get that decisive breakthrough.

Then he did just what is advocated here: filled up his decimated formations with fresh recruits and had another go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The results were disastrous. The divisions simply fell apart under fire. To recover properly, a unit that has suffered heavy losses needs some time -- more or less what the current system insists on.

I could see some limited ability to adjust priorities -- but a system that lets you just take that division that is currently at 50% strength and force-feed it back up to a 100% within a couple of turns...that's often precisely what can't be done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



Note that the ability to do this in reality is limited; or to be more precise, the results can be less than happy.

In Operation Mars, Zhukov started out by throwing his assault divisions against Model's defenses -- made life pretty hairy for the Germans for a while, but didn't get that decisive breakthrough.

Then he did just what is advocated here: filled up his decimated formations with fresh recruits and had another go.

First of all, the thing that is advocated here is: "a player could channel the flow of replacements al gusto" What one does with this feature and what the system should allow is another thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The results were disastrous. The divisions simply fell apart under fire. To recover properly, a unit that has suffered heavy losses needs some time -- more or less what the current system insists on.

I could see some limited ability to adjust priorities -- but a system that lets you just take that division that is currently at 50% strength and force-feed it back up to a 100% within a couple of turns...that's often precisely what can't be done.

I never said anything about force-feeding a unit - that's your interpretation about what i might have had in mind. But this is not what i had in mind. The proposed feature could be used for things like "let's have this sPzAbt receive the next 10 rounds' production of the Tiger II" or a player could decide that 50% of infantry type replacements go to Heeresgruppe Süd while Heeresgruppen Nord and Mitte only receive 25% each. Somehing along these lines.

Btw, with the current system veteran units lose their veteran status if they receive a lot of fresh replacements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sker

I would like to see something to make some of my unit have a priority when the replacement are assigned. For example if one of my infantry division in a key point of my offensive is about to running out of men or equipment I would like to send them a larger part of the avaible replacements than another unit who is not in a such important place.
Maybe just add a menu with three levels of priority: something like high, normal and low.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

That is a good idea but there's one VERY big problem. That is once the unit loses 'rare/expensive' pieces of equipment they will be replaced with the cheaper/more numerous equipment.

In your example I suspect there would be a lot of cases where the unit would have no mortars. But the problem really would be in bigger units with lot's of different equipment. Or rather with mixed equipment. This would create a case where tanks, artillery etc are replaced by rifle squads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



? Just have a lot of mortars in the pool. Having all their units up to snuff on mortars all the time won't save the Germans.

quote:


As to 'cases where tanks, artillery, etc are replaced by rifle squads' -- have you ever looked at a late-war German 'Panzer Army'? Or checked out the artillery-units-fighting-as-infantry on Crete?

quote:


I'll grant the solution isn't perfect. I even would be the last one to argue that its universally useful. However, it does elevate a good idea of Norm's that up until now has been a largely useless noble intention to something that would be susceptible to practical use.

To take the cases I mentioned -- well, I just wouldn't attempt to apply the idea to Panzer divisions. Let things go on as they have until now. But if I was dealing with Panzer regiments -- and wanted them to be able to re-equip from Mk II's and short-barrel Mk III's to long-barrel Mk III's -- well, it should work rather nicely.