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: Comprehensive Wishlist

 
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 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/17/2010 4:56:23 AM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
. . . in real life, the river valley tends to provide the best route, but in OPART-land, one wants to stay at lest 2.5-50 km away from that water...not at all the same thing.


Sounds like what you need is to define a new terrain type. Maybe 3.4 will make that option available and the resident graphics wizard can draw the appropriate terrains. In the mean time, you could try plotting secondary roads along the river . . . this mimics what you propose but we both know that it creates secondary problems. However, depending on your intended application, maybe the secondary problems are not significant.

Regards, RhinoBones


_____________________________

Colin Wright:
Comprehensive Wishlist Forum #467 . . . The Norm (blessed be His name, genuflect three times and accept all values in the program as revealed truth)

Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 571
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/17/2010 6:27:41 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Definitely an assertion only you could make.


And I'll keep making it because it's true. That's the only defensive benefit the wadi can provide. It's not a serious barrier to an assault. And it does shelter the defenders just like a trench.

quote:

Substantially, the Rapahannock could have been a wadi. Lee would have defended it exactly the same way.


Pure rubbish! Burnside lost so many bridging engineers bridging the Rapahannock that he was told that he practically had a bridge made of bridging engineer bodies. Had the Rapahannock been a wadi there would have been no such issue. The fact that heights beyond the Rapahannock also provided a powerful defense was independent of the location of the Rapahannock.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 572
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/17/2010 7:13:04 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Definitely an assertion only you could make.


And I'll keep making it because it's true. That's the only defensive benefit the wadi can provide. It's not a serious barrier to an assault. And it does shelter the defenders just like a trench.



Beautiful. I think I can just let that stand without comment.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/17/2010 7:18:42 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 573
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/17/2010 7:32:15 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Pure rubbish! Burnside lost so many bridging engineers bridging the Rapahannock that he was told that he practically had a bridge made of bridging engineer bodies. Had the Rapahannock been a wadi there would have been no such issue. The fact that heights beyond the Rapahannock also provided a powerful defense was independent of the location of the Rapahannock.


Why don't you dig up the figures for us, Curt? How many men were lost in the actual crossing and how many in storming the heights?

As to Lee's deployment, that is how one is supposed to defend a river -- or for that matter, a wadi, or a wadi with a little water at the bottom, or a modest river in a canyon with steep sides, or any one of the possible combinations of what are all variations on the same theme.

If there aren't heights of some kind, then either (a) the river is not militarily significant in the first place, or (b) it's pretty damned big. But generally, rivers flow at the bottom of something (go figure), and that means there's higher ground along either bank, and that's where one defends.

There are exceptions, of course, but that's the general rule. Read any discussion you like of the issue. It's practically a platitude. Generally, one doesn't defend a river from the bank -- and one certainly doesn't defend a wadi from the bottom.

In other words, the presence of water doesn't really affect how the defender approaches the situation except in the sense that if there isn't a substantial flow of water, the obstacle may no longer be militarily significant -- in which case it shouldn't be on the map at all. However, if it remains militarily significant, it will defended exactly as if it was a river -- from the heights opposite the crossing.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/17/2010 7:37:27 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 574
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/17/2010 11:29:56 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

[Why don't you dig up the figures for us, Curt? How many men were lost in the actual crossing and how many in storming the heights?


I don't know what the exact numbers were, but it is a fact that the Rapahannock had to be bridged and that resulted in a slaughter. Burnside really was told what I said about a bridge of bridging engineer bodies. Had it been a wadi, the Union would have simply swarmed across. A wadi doesn't provide a barrier defense. It does provide a depression that forces can shelter in. In contrast, what defensive benefits are accrued from the river are due to the target that crossers make as they attempt to cross.

quote:

As to Lee's deployment, that is how one is supposed to defend a river -- or for that matter, a wadi, or a wadi with a little water at the bottom, or a modest river in a canyon with steep sides, or any one of the possible combinations of what are all variations on the same theme.

If there aren't heights of some kind, then either (a) the river is not militarily significant in the first place, or (b) it's pretty damned big. But generally, rivers flow at the bottom of something (go figure), and that means there's higher ground along either bank, and that's where one defends.

There are exceptions, of course, but that's the general rule. Read any discussion you like of the issue. It's practically a platitude. Generally, one doesn't defend a river from the bank -- and one certainly doesn't defend a wadi from the bottom.

In other words, the presence of water doesn't really affect how the defender approaches the situation except in the sense that if there isn't a substantial flow of water, the obstacle may no longer be militarily significant -- in which case it shouldn't be on the map at all. However, if it remains militarily significant, it will defended exactly as if it was a river -- from the heights opposite the crossing.


If and where there are escarpments or heights near a river, TOAW is already capable of modeling them - in addition to the defensive benefit that the river itself provides. An assumption of escarpments or heights is not built into the river bonus, nor should it be.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 575
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/18/2010 2:55:33 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



If and where there are escarpments or heights near a river, TOAW is already capable of modeling them - in addition to the defensive benefit that the river itself provides. An assumption of escarpments or heights is not built into the river bonus, nor should it be.


A river -- by itself -- either may or may not merit representation in a given scenario.

To quote Schleiffen when an aide called his attention to the beauty of the sunrise over the River Pregel when they were on maneuvers: 'an insignificant military obstacle.'

Obviously if we're talking about the Rhine, the water's significant regardless. But generally the 'river' symbol reflects a number of factors. The banks. How deeply cut the canyon is. How common bridges and fords are. What the scale of the scenario is. What kind of capabilities the average unit in the scenario has. How exposed are units attempting to cross? Etc.

As with wadis.

The two points are that (1) whether a given hex should contain a river is the product of a number of factors, of which the volume of water is only one, and (2) militarily, a wadi functions in about the same way as a river. What I was originally noting -- before we got hauled off into that notion that troops use wadis as trenches -- is that in OPART, rivers and wadis are treated completely differently, and they shouldn't be.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/18/2010 6:28:42 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 576
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/18/2010 5:10:30 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Obviously if we're talking about the Rhine, the water's significant regardless. But generally the 'river' symbol reflects a number of factors. The banks. How deeply cut the canyon is. How common bridges and fords are. What the scale of the scenario is. What kind of capabilities the average unit in the scenario has. How exposed are units attempting to cross? Etc.


Nope. Defensively it represents one thing and one thing only: The exposure units incur as they attempt to cross the body of water in it. Escarpments, heights, gorges, etc. are not built into the river's tiny defense factor. In the rare cases where those factors are present, they need to be added along with the river. The Fredricksburg crossing of the Rapahannock is a splendid example. See how I modeled it in "Killer Angels 1863".

quote:

As with wadis.

The two points are that (1) whether a given hex should contain a river is the product of a number of factors, of which the volume of water is only one, and (2) militarily, a wadi functions in about the same way as a river. What I was originally noting -- before we got hauled off into that notion that troops use wadis as trenches -- is that in OPART, rivers and wadis are treated completely differently, and they shouldn't be.


And you are completely and totally wrong. In and of itself, the only benefit the wadi could possibly apply is to shelter units inside it. There are no heights, escarpments, gorges, etc. built into the wadi any more than they are in river hexes. Defending on the far side of a wadi absent such other features would make no more sense than defending on the "far" side of a trench. As such, the wadi can only provide its small defensive benefit to units located in its hex - like a trench.

Not so for rivers. But, as I suggested in 2.2, given the right context, the defenders can be assumed to be "behind" the river while being in its hex (and, similarly, the attackers can be assumed to be "across" the river, in some cases). So, there is some room for some refinement to the river hex.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 577
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/18/2010 6:11:33 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...Escarpments, heights, gorges, etc. are not built into the river's tiny defense factor. In the rare cases where those factors are present, they need to be added along with the river...


'tiny defense factor,' and 'rare cases' particularly stand out.
quote:





...And you are completely and totally wrong. In and of itself, the only benefit the wadi could possibly apply is to shelter units inside it...


Are you parodying yourself? Given this theory (which is remarkable even by your standards), how do you explain the fact that wadis double the strength of defending infantry?


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/18/2010 8:04:43 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 578
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/18/2010 8:07:18 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

the river's tiny defense factor.


Hmm? Doesn't a river multiply the attacker's strength by 0.7? That's pretty serious.

Anyway, go to Google Images and put in "Wadi". One or two of them look like trenches. The rest look like rivers without the water (but still with nice clear fields of fire).


_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 579
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/18/2010 8:24:15 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


The rest look like rivers without the water...



Not surprisingly. That's what a 'wadi' is. Or conversely, a river is a wadi that actually has some significant amount of water in it.

Of course, past a certain point, the water alone becomes a significant obstacle. The Rhine is the Rhine is the Rhine, and you're not going to find a place to wade across. But generally the water itself is only one of a complex of elements that might lead one to make a hex 'river' -- and most of those elements are present in a 'wadi' and continue to exert their effect. So rivers and wadis should be treated similarly, rather than as opposites.

Practically speaking, one often wants to segue from one to the other. For example, the Orontes is without doubt a river rather than a wadi. Something similar would happen if you mapped the Colorado.

Many or most of the tributaries are better portrayed as wadis. It's damned odd to have the nature of the terrain reverse itself once the tributary joins the mainstem. You did want to be on the hex. Now you want to be behind it. It makes no sense at all.




< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/18/2010 8:32:47 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 580
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/19/2010 6:20:35 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

'tiny defense factor,' and 'rare cases' particularly stand out.


Exactly, the river is not as serious a defense factor as hills or escarpments, or worse.

It's really very simple: Do all river hexes benefit from the river bonus? Of course. Do all river banks have heights or escarpments by them? Of course not. The vast majority do not. I only need a single counter example, and I have a limitless number.

quote:

Are you parodying yourself?


No. Are you?

quote:

Given this theory (which is remarkable even by your standards), how do you explain the fact that wadis double the strength of defending infantry?


The sheltering effect of its depression - similar (but not fully equal to) a trench. That's the only benefit it can possibly provide. The same simple facts apply as above. Do all wadi hexes get the defensive benefit? Yes. Do all wadi banks have heights or escarpments by them? No. The vast majority do not. For both rivers and wadis, those are features that have to be added separately.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 581
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/19/2010 6:22:32 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

the river's tiny defense factor.


Hmm? Doesn't a river multiply the attacker's strength by 0.7? That's pretty serious.


The weakest defense bonus of all. Weaker than a hill or an escarpment.

quote:

Anyway, go to Google Images and put in "Wadi". One or two of them look like trenches. The rest look like rivers without the water (but still with nice clear fields of fire).


It's not equal to a trench (then the bonus would be x8), just similar.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 582
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/19/2010 6:28:28 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

'tiny defense factor,' and 'rare cases' particularly stand out.


Exactly, the river is not as serious a defense factor as hills or escarpments, or worse.

It's really very simple: Do all river hexes benefit from the river bonus? Of course. Do all river banks have heights or escarpments by them? Of course not. The vast majority do not. I only need a single counter example, and I have a limitless number.

quote:

Are you parodying yourself?


No. Are you?

quote:

Given this theory (which is remarkable even by your standards), how do you explain the fact that wadis double the strength of defending infantry?


The sheltering effect of its depression - similar (but not fully equal to) a trench. That's the only benefit it can possibly provide. The same simple facts apply as above. Do all wadi hexes get the defensive benefit? Yes. Do all wadi banks have heights or escarpments by them? No. The vast majority do not. For both rivers and wadis, those are features that have to be added separately.


You've moved to the point where in your attempt to prevail in any and all arguments, you will simply ignore both geographical reality and the way military units behave.

All these discussions follow the same pattern. I point out something in OPART with obvious deficiencies: how supply is modeled, how flak is handled, how interdiction works, the switch in how the program treats rivers and wadis. I propose what seems to me to be a workable remedy.

You then compulsively insist everything is more or less fine as is. In pursuit of this, you will assert literally anything: that troops treat wadis as trenches and primarily use them to 'shelter in,' for example. That the riverine defense bonus is 'tiny.'

There is no rational point to discussing anything with you. It's a pity you're allowed to interfere in the development of TOAW.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/19/2010 6:43:41 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 583
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/19/2010 6:38:25 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The weakest defense bonus of all. Weaker than a hill or an escarpment.


Hills and so on multiply the strengths of defending units. Rivers are the only thing which reduces the strength of the attacker.

quote:

quote:

Anyway, go to Google Images and put in "Wadi". One or two of them look like trenches. The rest look like rivers without the water (but still with nice clear fields of fire).


It's not equal to a trench (then the bonus would be x8), just similar.


Oh my god. I'm talking about the real world: nine wadis in ten are not comparable to trenches. They are comparable to rivers.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 584
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/19/2010 6:46:33 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The weakest defense bonus of all. Weaker than a hill or an escarpment.


Hills and so on multiply the strengths of defending units. Rivers are the only thing which reduces the strength of the attacker.

quote:

quote:

Anyway, go to Google Images and put in "Wadi". One or two of them look like trenches. The rest look like rivers without the water (but still with nice clear fields of fire).


It's not equal to a trench (then the bonus would be x8), just similar.


Oh my god. I'm talking about the real world: nine wadis in ten are not comparable to trenches. They are comparable to rivers.



Any wadi that was comparable to a trench wouldn't be represented in TOAW in the first place. If one did that, one would have to use the 'fill to border' function for much of the globe.

I'll also point out that the fortified status (Curtis' x8) represents considerably more than a simple trench.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/19/2010 6:56:35 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 585
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 12:26:12 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		And another thing...

Here's another aspect of the continuing problem with ant units.  The thread below starts out as a review of a scenario -- but quickly segues into a discussion of small but immovable StG units and what to do about them.

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/viewtopic.php?t=55&start=0

Things get going about half-way down the first page. The gist of my position is that defending forces below a certain density -- I picked 10 weapons per linear kilometer -- should be prone to RBC.  It should be possible to brush them out of the way even absent overwhelming force.



_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 586
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 3:19:11 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		A very large portion of the forces of most armies by the end of the war was comprised of these 'ant' units. They provided flexibility and, when attached to another unit, provided support that was not organic to that unit. Heck, the Germans and Soviets had hordes of them by 1942. So you can't simply ignore them since you would be amputating large portions of either nation's army. The Soviets had over 2000 separate artillery units alone.

When one is designing a scenario what should be done with them and still retain the flexibility they provided?

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 587
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 5:46:45 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Panama

A very large portion of the forces of most armies by the end of the war was comprised of these 'ant' units. They provided flexibility and, when attached to another unit, provided support that was not organic to that unit. Heck, the Germans and Soviets had hordes of them by 1942. So you can't simply ignore them since you would be amputating large portions of either nation's army. The Soviets had over 2000 separate artillery units alone.

When one is designing a scenario what should be done with them and still retain the flexibility they provided?


One has to combine them and/or incorporate them into larger formations as much as possible. AT guns can often be broken up among the infantry units, for example. If the flak served in ground combat, put it with the recon -- a lot of the time, it went there, since it was almost invariably truck-borne. If the army didn't use it in ground combat, omit it.

Anyway, partially that's the reason for a more effective solution to ant units. They are damned hard to avoid. One doesn't want the whole infantry brigade immobilized because one wants to fix a bridge -- but if one has the engineer company as a separate unit, it can run off and effectively block 10 km of front -- which is absurd. At least it could -- there's hope this is going to be addressed.

However, even aside from this, combining units when the loss in functionality won't be too severe is often a good idea: too many scenarios suffer from bumping into the stacking limit. If stacks of nine units are chronically appearing, then some very gamey combat results occur when units no longer have a place to retreat to in the course of a turn. I remember one scenario where I eliminated a whole stack of my opponent's units because the hex behind them (representing approximately 100 square kilometers) was 'filled' with units I had already retreated that amounted to perhaps three thousand men. Picture Manhattan with three thousand people on it. 'Nope -- sorry. All full up.'

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/20/2010 6:18:30 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 588
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 3:14:49 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline 		Isn't the ant problem solved in the next patch?

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 589
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 4:48:28 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Isn't the ant problem solved in the next patch?


It's been addressed...that's not necessarily the same as being solved. From what I heard, the change seems likely to improve matters but not likely to make the issue go away entirely. It's actually one of the trickier problems out there.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/20/2010 5:01:06 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 590
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 4:57:33 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		On another issue I have...flak:

AA does not work by shooting down planes.  I was reading a bit on the fall of Tobruk in 1942.  This would be an area either one hex at 20 km/hex or perhaps two hexes at 10 km per hex.  In that area there were eighteen 3.7 inch AA guns and (apparently) twenty four 40 mm Bofors.  This doesn't count the AA firepower TOAW would accord the six-plus Commonwealth infantry battalions.

The Axis flew 850 ground support sorties on May 20th.  Zero (0) aircraft were shot down by AA.

Try to get that result in TOAW.  I note that having been raised to try to make AA meaningfully effective, the effectiveness is now being lowered again.

It won't work.  AA does not work by shooting down planes.  It reduces their effectiveness -- but not, primarily, by shooting them down. 


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/20/2010 5:02:01 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 591
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 5:32:48 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You've moved to the point where in your attempt to prevail in any and all arguments, you will simply ignore both geographical reality and the way military units behave.


I'm prevailing because I'm right. You're the one ignoring reality. Let's just review. Who issued this stinker:

quote:

Substantially, the Rapahannock could have been a wadi. Lee would have defended it exactly the same way.


That would be you. Your own ignorant example was used to skewer your silly position. The technical term is "hoist on your own petard".

Since it was a river, Lee manned the banks of the Rapahannock to slaughter the Union bridging engineers. Had it been a wadi, well, Colin Wright might have remained there, but not Lee.

quote:

All these discussions follow the same pattern. I point out something in OPART with obvious deficiencies: how supply is modeled, how flak is handled, how interdiction works, the switch in how the program treats rivers and wadis. I propose what seems to me to be a workable remedy.


You're a legend in your own mind.

quote:

You then compulsively insist everything is more or less fine as is. In pursuit of this, you will assert literally anything:


Not true. My positions are always reasoned. That generally puts them over your head, though.

quote:

that troops treat wadis as trenches and primarily use them to 'shelter in,' for example. That the riverine defense bonus is 'tiny.'


Both true.

quote:

There is no rational point to discussing anything with you. It's a pity you're allowed to interfere in the development of TOAW.


Obstructing bad ideas is a good thing.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 592
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 5:35:40 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Many or most of the tributaries are better portrayed as wadis. It's damned odd to have the nature of the terrain reverse itself once the tributary joins the mainstem. You did want to be on the hex. Now you want to be behind it. It makes no sense at all.


This is actually modeling a very real problem real commanders have to deal with.

"I wanted to defend behind the river, but at this point it runs dry. What do I do now?"

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 593
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 5:39:17 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Hills and so on multiply the strengths of defending units. Rivers are the only thing which reduces the strength of the attacker.


So what? Only the overall ratio matters. It's still the weakest defense modifier. The important point is that it's weaker than the bonus for defending on a hill. Even if you make the absurd claim that all river banks are backed by hills, how can the bonus be smaller than a hill by itself, if that's what it's supposed to be based on?

Clearly, the river bonus is attributable to something else. Something that is universal to all rivers: the requirement to cross a body of water and the consequences that entails.

quote:

Oh my god. I'm talking about the real world: nine wadis in ten are not comparable to trenches. They are comparable to rivers.


I'm talking about the real world too. Think of a desert. It's flat, featureless, open. Mirages are shimmering in the distance. Units are exposed - except those sheltering in the wadi. The wadi is a desert feature. That is just the situation it's supposed to be used in.

It's not comparable to a river - it doesn't have any water in it. (See the Rapahannock example above).

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 1/20/2010 6:00:44 PM >

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 594
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 5:43:04 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

On another issue I have...flak:

AA does not work by shooting down planes.  I was reading a bit on the fall of Tobruk in 1942.  This would be an area either one hex at 20 km/hex or perhaps two hexes at 10 km per hex.  In that area there were eighteen 3.7 inch AA guns and (apparently) twenty four 40 mm Bofors.  This doesn't count the AA firepower TOAW would accord the six-plus Commonwealth infantry battalions.

The Axis flew 850 ground support sorties on May 20th.  Zero (0) aircraft were shot down by AA.

Try to get that result in TOAW.  I note that having been raised to try to make AA meaningfully effective, the effectiveness is now being lowered again.

It won't work.  AA does not work by shooting down planes.  It reduces their effectiveness -- but not, primarily, by shooting them down. 


Oh, let's go over this again for the 10th time.

AAA shoots down planes. Bombs cause damage. If we've got it so that the right number of planes get shot down and the right amount of damage gets inflicted by the bombs, then it's right. Period.

There is no reason to believe that bombing accuracy is proportionate to AAA strength. Rather, there are bombing techniques that can be used in the total absence of AAA that can't be used otherwise. Perhaps there should be a bonus for the (very) rare case where the defenders have no AAA at all.

In the example you site, we don't even know if the Axis planes were operating at low altitude or not. Nor did you do any tests to see how TOAW would actually handle it.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 1/20/2010 6:09:47 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 595
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 7:42:34 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

On another issue I have...flak:

AA does not work by shooting down planes.  I was reading a bit on the fall of Tobruk in 1942.  This would be an area either one hex at 20 km/hex or perhaps two hexes at 10 km per hex.  In that area there were eighteen 3.7 inch AA guns and (apparently) twenty four 40 mm Bofors.  This doesn't count the AA firepower TOAW would accord the six-plus Commonwealth infantry battalions.

The Axis flew 850 ground support sorties on May 20th.  Zero (0) aircraft were shot down by AA.

Try to get that result in TOAW.  I note that having been raised to try to make AA meaningfully effective, the effectiveness is now being lowered again.

It won't work.  AA does not work by shooting down planes.  It reduces their effectiveness -- but not, primarily, by shooting them down. 


Oh, let's go over this again for the 10th time.

AAA shoots down planes. Bombs cause damage. If we've got it so that the right number of planes get shot down and the right amount of damage gets inflicted by the bombs, then it's right. Period.

There is no reason to believe that bombing accuracy is proportionate to AAA strength. Rather, there are bombing techniques that can be used in the total absence of AAA that can't be used otherwise. Perhaps there should be a bonus for the (very) rare case where the defenders have no AAA at all.

In the example you site, we don't even know if the Axis planes were operating at low altitude or not. Nor did you do any tests to see how TOAW would actually handle it.


I'd be very surprised if you said anything else. Never mind the factual nature of warfare. Curtis is just going to go his own way with TOAW. What else is new?

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/20/2010 8:07:35 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 596
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 7:42:48 PM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 782
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
... The wadi is a desert feature. That is just the situation it's supposed to be used in.

It's not comparable to a river - it doesn't have any water in it. (See the Rapahannock example above).


Hmmm... No wanting to become involved in the bickering, but it's a bit pointless to be debating what a Wadi is. It's not an abstract feature, it's a real world geological feature, well defined. A wadi is indeed not a river, but that is hardly the gist of the discussion, since that is obvious from the start, a wadi is 'A stream valley in an arid region that is dry except during the rainy season.' As a stream valley they came in many sizes and shapes, and if some are trench size, I would debate that some , like Wadi Rum, could be thought as being a trench. In fact, if we think how we would defend a wadi and how we would defend a significant river valley crossing, we would still defend at the opposite bank. Examples of defending at the banks like in :

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/wadi.htm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yfpozlstWuIC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=defending+in+a+wadi&source=bl&ots=zy6FbxI-Gq&sig=Z7Gnwayc7SszcaYunx7uqzMNq58&hl=en&ei=aFlXS4bFCtW14Qa_1723Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=defending%20in%20a%20wadi&f=false

Now, should a wadi be treated the same as a river? Hardly. Crossing a river poses a series of problems that a wadi does not (water being one of them... some wadis are wide enough for tanks to manoeuvre...) , but if a river is .7 to the attacker, seriously crippling the attacker, short of having 'major and minor wadis', the wadis should still, obviously, add some encumbrance to an attacker. TOAW has:

11.9.3 Additional Land Movement Costs

- Wadi: Mountain units no effect, Motorized and Mixed movement +2, all others +1

13.9.4 Defensive Strengths of Infantry

- Forest, Jungle, Hills, or Wadi (any Deployment), or Defending Deployment (any terrain): x2.0

13.9.5 Defensive Strengths of Static Equipment

- Urban, Urban Ruin, Forest, Jungle, Hills, Bocage, or Wadi (any Deployment), or Defending Deployment (any terrain): x1.5

And for the rivers:

11.9.4 River Movement Costs

Rivers and Canals (as opposed to super rivers or Suez Canal) normally add 2 to the cost of entering a location. ...

13.9.6 Unit Strengths in Water Assaults

Land units attacking from River, Super River, Canal, Suez Canal, or Deep Water (Amphibious Assaults) have all Strengths multiplied by 0.7.

So, in resume, Wadis benefit the defender (as we saw before, defender gets benefit from being at a bank, attacker may potentially have plenty of room to maneuvre at the wadi base), whilst a river creates an encumbrance (obvious) on the attacker.

Conclusions? Each to his own. Given that we only have one type of wadi, and no hex-border rivers , I think the engine actually is correct WITHIN it's own assumptions and limitations. Just my 2p.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 597
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 7:44:13 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You've moved to the point where in your attempt to prevail in any and all arguments, you will simply ignore both geographical reality and the way military units behave.


I'm prevailing because I'm right. You're the one ignoring reality. Let's just review. Who issued this stinker:

quote:

Substantially, the Rapahannock could have been a wadi. Lee would have defended it exactly the same way.


Okay -- suppose the Rapahannock had been a wadi. How would Lee have defended it?

He would have deployed on the heights.

How did he deploy? He deployed on the heights.

And yet you feel this is a 'stinker.'
quote:



That would be you. Your own ignorant example was used to skewer your silly position. The technical term is "hoist on your own petard".

Since it was a river, Lee manned the banks of the Rapahannock to slaughter the Union bridging engineers. Had it been a wadi, well, Colin Wright might have remained there, but not Lee.


You are willfully ignoring the history of the battle. Lee deployed roughly 1% of his men to interfere with the crossing. They successfully delayed the crossing, fell back as planned, and the next day the actual battle took place. It was a preliminary -- and minor -- skirmish.

And you have the gall to describe me as 'ignorant.'
quote:



quote:

All these discussions follow the same pattern. I point out something in OPART with obvious deficiencies: how supply is modeled, how flak is handled, how interdiction works, the switch in how the program treats rivers and wadis. I propose what seems to me to be a workable remedy.


You're a legend in your own mind.

quote:

You then compulsively insist everything is more or less fine as is. In pursuit of this, you will assert literally anything:


Not true. My positions are always reasoned. That generally puts them over your head, though.


If I wasn't so sure of the actual relationship, I might find this insulting.
quote:



quote:

that troops treat wadis as trenches and primarily use them to 'shelter in,' for example. That the riverine defense bonus is 'tiny.'


Both true.


No -- the hill defense bonus, for example, can quickly be gained by entrenching. The riverine attack penalty is unalterable. It's one of the stronger terrain effects in the game.

Even it wasn't, it does penalize the attacker by 30%. And yet you describe this as 'tiny.' And you then are capable of seriously defending this proposition. Let's put it this way: why don't you donate a 'tiny' proportion of your net assets to Haiti relief? Surely that's not too much to ask.
quote:



quote:

There is no rational point to discussing anything with you. It's a pity you're allowed to interfere in the development of TOAW.


Obstructing bad ideas is a good thing.


Obstructing all ideas isn't. That -- for all intents and purposes -- appears to be all you do. That is, unless the ideas are your own. What is depressing is reflecting on the understanding of warfare and the general quality of the thought process lying behind such ideas. I have heard you propound so many transparently foolish and even demonstrably false assertions. It would not surprise me at all to hear you insist that two and two make five. You're perfectly capable of it.

You know, it is perfectly possible to disagree about something in a manner that elucidates the matter at hand and helps to refine the understanding of all parties. See, for example, the discussion 'Golden Delicious' and I had about ant units that I linked to yesterday or the day before.

But this never happens with you. You just dogmatically make some utterly asinine assertion and stick to it come hell or high water. It's like trying to reason with a mule.

And the worst of it is, this particular mule appears to lack all understanding of military reality and is gifted with a position of influence in the development of TOAW.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/20/2010 8:16:48 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 598
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 8:09:57 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Hills and so on multiply the strengths of defending units. Rivers are the only thing which reduces the strength of the attacker.


So what? Only the overall ratio matters. It's still the weakest defense modifier. The important point is that it's weaker than the bonus for defending on a hill. Even if you make the absurd claim that all river banks are backed by hills, how can the bonus be smaller than a hill by itself, if that's what it's supposed to be based on?

Clearly, the river bonus is attributable to something else. Something that is universal to all rivers: the requirement to cross a body of water and the consequences that entails.

quote:

Oh my god. I'm talking about the real world: nine wadis in ten are not comparable to trenches. They are comparable to rivers.


I'm talking about the real world too. Think of a desert. It's flat, featureless, open. Mirages are shimmering in the distance. Units are exposed - except those sheltering in the wadi. The wadi is a desert feature. That is just the situation it's supposed to be used in.

It's not comparable to a river - it doesn't have any water in it. (See the Rapahannock example above).


This is so fantastic. I wonder if there is one example of a unit defending by 'sheltering in the wadi.'

I suppose that had the Rapahannock been a wadi, Lee would have 'sheltered in it.' The Union artillery would then have deployed on Stafford heights, slaughtered the army of Northern Virginia, and that would have been that.

Sadly for the Union of course, General LeMay wasn't in command of the Army of Northern Virginia.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/20/2010 8:19:28 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 599
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 8:23:21 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

So what? Only the overall ratio matters.


This isn't an Avalon Hill game. Everything matters.

quote:

I'm talking about the real world too. Think of a desert. It's flat, featureless, open. Mirages are shimmering in the distance. Units are exposed - except those sheltering in the wadi.


Since you've obviously not been to Google Images like I told you, let's educate a little. The first few results;



Who do you think has the advantage here? The troops on the heights or the troops in the valley?



How is this going to be used as a trench? I suppose if you hid you could fire at the bridge the attacker has laid across the top.



How much shelter would you say this wadi offers?



Check out those indefensible heights. Better set up our machine gun nests right at the bottom.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 1/20/2010 8:30:32 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 600
Page:   <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   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

0.891