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  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 7:03:51 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: desert

quote:

Thinking more seriously about the ship/fire support thing, another consideration that would have to be taken into account is that ships that under the current system, ships that provide fire support from hexes adjacent to the target are prone to sudden evaporation.

One way or another, either that would need to be dealt with (it already may be dealt with by the impending change in bombardment rules), or the range would need to be extended to a minimum of two hexes.

Anyway, we have nowhere to go but up. Right now, ships can do grossly ahistorical things.


Curtis said somewhere that naval and artillery units (the latter if they are made up of 50% or more ranged equipment) will bombard adjacent hexes instead of "assaulting" them in 3.4.

I think.

Correct.

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 751
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 7:11:40 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The problem here is two-fold.

First, merely that the design 'works' does not demonstrate that the data it rests on is valid. See 'Battle of the Bulge' again. Some real howlers in that OOB -- but the design does 'work.' It delivers historical results.

So your assumption that the data contained in a wargame that delivers historical results is necessarily reliable is absolute tripe.


No. It's completely valid. As I said, there can be a long list of metrics to determine if it works - covering every single aspect of the topic. To the extent that it operates correctly for each metric, the factors in the game that resulted in that metric are correct.

This is in contrast to a book, where there is no standard whatsoever, and it doesn't have to achieve anything. All else being equal, a working wargame is more legitimate than any book.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 752
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 7:27:54 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline 		Just a few questions as the patch and the beta team's approach to "feasibility" has been mentioned..there are imho some simple, easy to code things that i'd like to see implemented which can be beneficial to scenario design and dynamics...

Will the following items be incooperated?:

- Movement bias editable by event
- Force proficiency editable by event*
- other force characteristics also editable by event (night combat, electronic support, force communication etc)*
- mechanical attrition (works like pestilence but only affects vehicles)

* this could be of use in campaign games (FitE, Campaign for South Vietnam, CFNA etc)


< Message edited by Telumar -- 2/7/2010 7:28:45 PM >

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 753
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 8:04:49 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The problem here is two-fold.

First, merely that the design 'works' does not demonstrate that the data it rests on is valid. See 'Battle of the Bulge' again. Some real howlers in that OOB -- but the design does 'work.' It delivers historical results.

So your assumption that the data contained in a wargame that delivers historical results is necessarily reliable is absolute tripe.


No. It's completely valid. As I said, there can be a long list of metrics to determine if it works - covering every single aspect of the topic. To the extent that it operates correctly for each metric, the factors in the game that resulted in that metric are correct.

This is in contrast to a book, where there is no standard whatsoever, and it doesn't have to achieve anything. All else being equal, a working wargame is more legitimate than any book.


Lessee...I give a few examples of wargames that manage to achieve historical results by completely altering historical reality.

You insist that if a wargame produces historical results, it must accurately reflect historical reality. Never mind any examples to the contrary.

You might as well assert the world is flat. It's actually a more defensible proposition.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/7/2010 8:34:11 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 754
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 8:07:46 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It doesn't really matter much what the reasons are. The fact of the matter is that it generally didn't happen -- for whatever reason.

Therefore, it shouldn't be allowed to happen in TOAW. Whatever the constraints were that prevented it, all us computer generals shouldn't effectively be permitted to override them by fiat.


Let's see ... the Germans never captured Moscow, therefore, it should be impossible in TOAW, etc. etc.

Let's run down some more reasons:

1. By the time the ground forces get well inland, there are lots of ground artillery that better cooperate with the ground forces. Adding naval elements might actually be counter productive. That's already modeled in TOAW via cooperation levels (or will be once 3.4 is out with the fix for that). So properly modeled naval formations won't cooperate well with ground forces and their use will tail off once ground artillery becomes generally available.


But they can often -- and did -- provide fire support along the shore when needed. Even when lots of shore-based artillery was available as well. See the Axis counterattack at Anzio and the Commonwealth drive on Beirut.

As usual, you come up with a paradigm without referring to historical reality -- and with the usual results. 'Naval formations won't cooperate well with ground forces and their use will tail off once ground artillery becomes generally available' -- well, that's not what actually happened. Even if this change works as advertised, it will make matters worse, not better.
quote:






2. Battleships aren't designed for prolonged shore support. They're designed for short, sharp, ship-to-ship engagements. Their barrels have to have the linings replaced after about 300 rounds or so. That's modeled in TOAW with the Withdrawal Event.


Give me a break. It's a good solution to fix when the ships appear and fix when they withdraw? They were still there -- and given a good and deserving target, they would reappear. You can't model that by event unless you're going to script the whole scenario -- and then you are indeed better off with a book.
quote:




3. (My personal favorite) Just because you can't find a case of it, doesn't mean it never occurred or couldn't have occurred. We seem to have already had a counter example.

Unless you can actually prove that battleships were physically incapable of supporting beyond 5km, I'm sure there is no risk this will ever be implemented. I'm not going to waste another word on it.




There probably were excellent reasons why warships usually couldn't supply effective fire support deep inland. Aside from the one you mention, I doubt if most navies routinely practiced fire control with land forces that were inland out of sight. They wouldn't even normally have maps.

However, whatever the reasons were is really secondary. A general is not God, and he cannot override the limitations of his force simply by fiat. If, historically, warships usually did not provide fire support deep inland even in situations where it obviously would have been extremely helpful, then it shouldn't be possible in TOAW.

But never mind that. We are doomed to having warships in all scenarios capable of doing precisely what warships rarely did.

That's great. It's nice having an intellect of the caliber of yours in charge of things.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/7/2010 11:23:01 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 755
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 8:16:15 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

This is the problem with having you exert such an influence over the development of TOAW. You're simply impervious to either rational argument or fact.


I'm impervious to your crackbrained concept of rational argument and fact. And that's a good thing.

quote:

It's been suggested to you that foot movement rates aren't particularly impacted by 'readiness'


And the person who did so was hilariously wrong.


Usual story. I state a point of view, and produce evidence to support it. You produce no evidence whatsoever -- and are certain that you are right.

I would say you're 'hilariously wrong' -- but it's actually more a matter of you being depressingly obstinate and stupid.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 756
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 8:24:45 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Not to mention the fact that the sea has a tendancy to move in several directions at once making the shells land in a not so precise fashion. I've never had the opportunity to take part in a live fire exercise from a ship so I'm about as far from knowing anything about it as you can get. But if the ships were at anchor in a harbor...


Yet the USS Washington sank a Jap battleship that was over the horizon from it. That's how BB vs. BB action would normally take place.


Sure -- action at sea. That's why I'm averse to simply reducing the range of ships. I'd rather not further ruin the accuracy of TOAW's naval model (which is pretty shaky to begin with). Not to mention, I'm sure warships bombarded targets near the shore from whatever distance from the target they found convenient. I wouldn't be surprised if the West Virginia chose to conduct its bombardment of the beaches at whatever from 20 km out at sea.

However -- for whatever reason -- warships rarely seem to have bombarded targets deep inland, and if they did, I'm not aware of it ever having had a decisive effect.

Therefore -- although I'm confident you won't be able to wrap your head around the concept -- one shouldn't be able to do it in TOAW. It's not historically valid to have an Operation Exporter where the Commonwealth blasts its way up to Beirut simply by shelling the hell out of any Vichy troops within 20 km of the coast. That's not what happened. The Allies weren't able to drive the German defenders 30 km inland across the front at Normandy. Etc. More like 5 km. Hence my proposal.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 757
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 8:32:46 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Just a few questions as the patch and the beta team's approach to "feasibility" has been mentioned..there are imho some simple, easy to code things that i'd like to see implemented which can be beneficial to scenario design and dynamics...

Will the following items be incooperated?:

- Movement bias editable by event
- Force proficiency editable by event*
- other force characteristics also editable by event (night combat, electronic support, force communication etc)*
- mechanical attrition (works like pestilence but only affects vehicles)

* this could be of use in campaign games (FitE, Campaign for South Vietnam, CFNA etc)



All good ideas, in my opinion. It'd be best if the mechanical attrition could be set by type -- i.e., a rating for the weapon itself -- of course, I tend to use the Bioeditor as a matter of routine. Shermans versus Panthers. The Stuarts are going to hold up a lot better than the British cruisers. Etc.

Then too, applying this as a matter of the weapons rating creates some versatility. Although I haven't got a situation in mind at the moment, somebody might find himself wanting to apply this to the rifle squads as well in some scenario.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/7/2010 8:48:25 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 758
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 9:00:36 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		The fact of the matter -- which Curtis will never bother himself with -- is that ships commonly provided really heavy fire support in two situations.

First, in support of a pre-arranged attack along the coast. This was usually a beach landing, but could also be an attack such as those the Commonwealth troops mounted as they drove along the coast road towards Beirut.

Second, in response to a counterattack as the attacking units drew close to the sea. Sicily, Salerno, Anzio. One outstanding fact about these attacks is that the ships did not usually provide fire support when the attacks were deep inland.

If one seeks to simulate this in TOAW, it boils down to saying ships only support operations within 5 km of the sea -- or the coastal hex, if one wants the rule to be simple and easy to apply. The 5 km figure could use some research and refinement, but it's something like that.

Curtis' point about battleships' barrels may or may not be accurate -- the USN was certainly prodigal with its fire support in support of beach landings, so considering the source, I'd be inclined to check the claim.

However, even if it is accurate, the way to deal with that is certainly not by event. Rather, it would be by not allowing warships to automatically regain full supply while at sea. If your 100% supply battleship was going to dwindle in power if you just bang away with it every turn, then one will be less prodigal in using it.

...but one would still have no reason not to use to support inland operations as opposed to operations along the coast. So even if it exists, addressing this problem would be a separate issue, and not directly connected with the phenomenon of ships restricting their fire support to the coast.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 759
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 9:03:26 PM   
golden delicious


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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
An encyclopedia, unlike a wargame, doesn't have to work to be successful. It just has to sound good.


A scenario that works isn't necessarily right.

quote:

If the bridge didn't fall down, and carried its traffic for decades, it's worth studying it.


Excellent example. If you were going to design a better bridge, you had better study engineering- not just copy the last bridge that was built.

quote:

A wargame is an engineering project


Really? I mean.... really?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 760
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 9:07:52 PM   
golden delicious


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

ORIGINAL: dicke bertha

It is absurd that Matrix has no official person to answer the community's questions about future development,


Well, the funds they have available to support what is ultimately a fringe product are extremely limited- possibly zero.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to dicke bertha)
Post #: 761
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 9:10:32 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious




quote:

A wargame is an engineering project


Really? I mean.... really?


It's comic to imagine if the game was a bridge and if Curtis was designing it.

He'd look at the Golden Gate, insist that the cables were just for decoration, and that the only thing that mattered was that the piers be big and strong. There'd be nothing you could say that would dissuade him. He'd take no interest in -- would have no awareness of -- the actual physics of the problem. It'd be a matter of big piers. That would be obvious.

Forget about improving TOAW. We'd never have gotten out of the Stone Age with this guy.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 762
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 9:39:57 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: dicke bertha

It is absurd that Matrix has no official person to answer the community's questions about future development,


Well, the funds they have available to support what is ultimately a fringe product are extremely limited- possibly zero.


Yeah. Surely we can do better than Curtis, though. It's a shame, as he has some areas of expertise I don't have -- but otherwise...

He's a disaster.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 763
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/8/2010 3:57:55 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Lessee...I give a few examples of wargames that manage to achieve historical results by completely altering historical reality.

You insist that if a wargame produces historical results, it must accurately reflect historical reality. Never mind any examples to the contrary.

You might as well assert the world is flat. It's actually a more defensible proposition.


To the extent that the wargame altered reality that would be reflected in some of the metrics. As I said, given enough metrics, the game's accuracy can be established.

This is in contrast to a book, where there is no need to get anything right. A book can be total garbage and there's no way to tell. That's not true for a wargame, because it actually has to work. That fact gives wargames more legitimacy than any book can ever achieve.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 764
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/8/2010 4:04:15 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Sure -- action at sea. That's why I'm averse to simply reducing the range of ships. I'd rather not further ruin the accuracy of TOAW's naval model (which is pretty shaky to begin with). Not to mention, I'm sure warships bombarded targets near the shore from whatever distance from the target they found convenient. I wouldn't be surprised if the West Virginia chose to conduct its bombardment of the beaches at whatever from 20 km out at sea.


And that would be targets that are no more than 100 feet wide, moving erratically, and needing a huge number of hits to be sunk.

All that would be required to support inland would be a radio and a ground observer. Both would be readily available. There is no rational reason why ships wouldn't be physically able to support to the limit of their range.

quote:

However -- for whatever reason -- warships rarely seem to have bombarded targets deep inland, and if they did, I'm not aware of it ever having had a decisive effect.

Therefore -- although I'm confident you won't be able to wrap your head around the concept -- one shouldn't be able to do it in TOAW. It's not historically valid to have an Operation Exporter where the Commonwealth blasts its way up to Beirut simply by shelling the hell out of any Vichy troops within 20 km of the coast. That's not what happened. The Allies weren't able to drive the German defenders 30 km inland across the front at Normandy. Etc. More like 5 km. Hence my proposal.


Your evidence does not rise to the level of proof that it couldn't be done.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 765
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/8/2010 4:12:10 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Usual story. I state a point of view, and produce evidence to support it. You produce no evidence whatsoever -- and are certain that you are right.


Your "evidence" was troops marching less than 20 miles a day. Not enought to cause real fatigue. It is obvious that if the troops were marching continously (without stopping) their rate of march would eventually drop off. That's just physiology.

Furthermore, if you would actually read the post I made, you would see that I was not decreasing the lowest value for foot movement. What I was doing was shifting the determining factors from "50% supply + 50% readiness" to "10% fuel + 90% readiness".

When I said that foot movement rates should be more dependent upon readiness, I meant relative to supply. The reverse should be true for motorized movement rates. Currently, the same formula is used for both.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 766
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/8/2010 4:14:13 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Really? I mean.... really?


Absolutely. It has to actually perform a task - it has to actually work.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 767
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/8/2010 4:22:01 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It's comic to imagine if the game was a bridge and if Curtis was designing it.

He'd look at the Golden Gate, insist that the cables were just for decoration, and that the only thing that mattered was that the piers be big and strong. There'd be nothing you could say that would dissuade him. He'd take no interest in -- would have no awareness of -- the actual physics of the problem. It'd be a matter of big piers. That would be obvious.

Forget about improving TOAW. We'd never have gotten out of the Stone Age with this guy.


Notice that practially every post from Colin Wright is literally filled to the brim with personnel insults. Doesn't really bother me, but ever notice how thin-skinned he is?

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 768
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/8/2010 6:08:38 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It's comic to imagine if the game was a bridge and if Curtis was designing it.

He'd look at the Golden Gate, insist that the cables were just for decoration, and that the only thing that mattered was that the piers be big and strong. There'd be nothing you could say that would dissuade him. He'd take no interest in -- would have no awareness of -- the actual physics of the problem. It'd be a matter of big piers. That would be obvious.

Forget about improving TOAW. We'd never have gotten out of the Stone Age with this guy.


Notice that practially every post from Colin Wright is literally filled to the brim with personnel insults. Doesn't really bother me, but ever notice how thin-skinned he is?




Actually, I kind of like the free-fire zone principle. Normally, I try not to apply it though, because (a) others don't like it, and (b) it pretty much guarantees we won't get anywhere.

But in the current case, (a) you certainly set ground rules that gave me carte blanche, and (b) I can't imagine you proving amenable to either reason or evidence regardless of how it was presented.

When I am arguing with some one that is keeping a civil tongue in their head -- Vahauser or Golden Delicious, for example -- I do my best to do the same. Moreover, in the case of such individuals, while one rarely 'wins,' the discussion does cause both parties to refine their point of view. Some clarification and logical development does occur.

However, there's not much chance of that in your case. Other than the waste of time, there's nothing to be lost.

What I wrote does pretty much describe the spectacle of Curtis 'improving' TOAW. There's the same willful refusal to understand how wars have usually gone, and to understand the actual principles driving their outcome. The difficulty is not that it cannot be considered an engineering problem, but that you're hardly approaching this as an engineer.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/8/2010 6:46:22 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 769
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/8/2010 6:13:06 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Usual story. I state a point of view, and produce evidence to support it. You produce no evidence whatsoever -- and are certain that you are right.


Your "evidence" was troops marching less than 20 miles a day. Not enought to cause real fatigue. It is obvious that if the troops were marching continously (without stopping) their rate of march would eventually drop off. That's just physiology.


Sigh. In TOAW, the troops can't march more than about 20 miles a day -- not unless the unit has been supplied with so much transportation equipment that its movement rate is getting inflated beyond the leg movement rate. A fully rested unit of rifle squads will have a movement rate of about 35 km per day. That's 21 miles.

So indeed the unit speed would drop off if they were force marching. But they can't force march in TOAW in the first place.

You really have taken a logically indefensible position here. Surely even you can see that.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 770
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/8/2010 6:22:44 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Your evidence does not rise to the level of proof that it couldn't be done.


TOAW is not about what could or couldn't be done. It is about what usually was done. That's what determines unit and weapons capabilities.

Michael Witt knocked out 64 British tanks in one day with his Tiger I. Obviously, this 'could be done.' Should we rate a Tiger I accordingly? When he crossed the Somme, Manstein led his leg infantry corps on an advance where it covered over a hundred kilometers in two days. Should we up the default movement rate for rifle squads accordingly? Chuck Yeager shot down five German fighters in one day in his P-51. Rate the P-51 and set air combat mortality accordingly?

No...we want a simulation that is as accurate as possible. The best way of getting that is to simulate what usually did happen -- not what 'could have happened.'

No doubt generals would have been happy to have had properly placed, correctly timed sixteen inch shells crashing into the position they were about to attack 30 km inland. However, since they rarely got that in real life, they shouldn't be able to get it in TOAW.

It's not complicated. You just refuse to see it.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 771
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/8/2010 6:31:20 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		On the ship thing. I was checking Curtis' barrel thing, and he's right: at least the big guns do wear out fast.

One thing that happens right now is that ships resupply in any ocean hex. That means they can just sit off a front and keep banging away.

As well as restricting their fire to coastal hexes, it'd improve matters if they could only regain supply if they were in an anchorage. It's not a complete fix -- but it would at least give players an incentive not to pound away with them if they wanted the ships to be useful for providing defensive fire support.

This would become even truer if the supply model was altered to reflect the greater impact of running out of supplies on mechanized and artillery units. If your ships were virtually useless once they ran out of supplies and had to go park themselves in port for a few turns to recover, you'd have an incentive not to just keep blazing away.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/8/2010 7:13:58 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 772
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/8/2010 7:06:56 PM   
golden delicious


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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Absolutely. It has to actually perform a task - it has to actually work.


Yeah, but, by God there are dozens of scenarios that "work" yet are total junk.

It's like saying that a statue is an engineering project because it has to stand up. Well sure but...


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 773
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/8/2010 7:21:14 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Absolutely. It has to actually perform a task - it has to actually work.


Yeah, but, by God there are dozens of scenarios that "work" yet are total junk.

It's like saying that a statue is an engineering project because it has to stand up. Well sure but...



Just speculating here, but so much of what Curtis says is obviously driven by egotism as opposed to any concern for external reality. This isn't to say the rest of us are paragons of impersonal objectivity -- but at least we're able to keep a weather eye cocked on the facts of the matter.

I don't think Curtis can do that. It's my feeling that he has told himself that his scenarios are fine scenarios because they produce historical results -- therefore, this is has to be the yardstick. He doesn't even want to think about whether they're actually simulating what actually happened. See that Waterloo discussion for a good example.

He can't revise his dogma concerning what is or isn't a good scenario. To do so would force him to cast a critical eye upon his own work.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 774
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/8/2010 7:27:27 PM   
golden delicious


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Just speculating here, but so much of what Curtis says is obviously driven by egotism as opposed to any concern for external reality. This isn't to say the rest of us are paragons of impersonal objectivity -- but at least we're able to keep a weather eye cocked on the facts of the matter.

I don't think Curtis can do that. It's my feeling that he has told himself that his scenarios are fine scenarios because they produce historical results -- therefore, this is has to be the yardstick. He doesn't even want to think about whether they're actually simulating what actually happened. See that Waterloo discussion for a good example.

He can't revise his dogma concerning what is or isn't a good scenario. To do so would force him to cast a critical eye upon his own work.


Well, notably when it comes to situations where TOAW is well-suited, Bob's scenarios work out pretty well. I'd rank him as one of the better designers in the history of the game for what it's worth. But he really has a hard time accepting that when one steps outside of the game's comfort zone, historical results are not evidence of simulation.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 775
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/8/2010 7:48:21 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Just speculating here, but so much of what Curtis says is obviously driven by egotism as opposed to any concern for external reality. This isn't to say the rest of us are paragons of impersonal objectivity -- but at least we're able to keep a weather eye cocked on the facts of the matter.

I don't think Curtis can do that. It's my feeling that he has told himself that his scenarios are fine scenarios because they produce historical results -- therefore, this is has to be the yardstick. He doesn't even want to think about whether they're actually simulating what actually happened. See that Waterloo discussion for a good example.

He can't revise his dogma concerning what is or isn't a good scenario. To do so would force him to cast a critical eye upon his own work.


Well, notably when it comes to situations where TOAW is well-suited, Bob's scenarios work out pretty well. I'd rank him as one of the better designers in the history of the game for what it's worth. But he really has a hard time accepting that when one steps outside of the game's comfort zone, historical results are not evidence of simulation.




I'd say one has to look honestly at what one did to get the historical results -- as the SPI games I mentioned unintentionally demonstrate. In TOAW, there's a disc scenario that hammers the Japanese with 60% shock. I imagine it could well produce historical results -- but I doubt if it could be accurate. That the designer had to use 60% shock suggests just the opposite. It must be totally out of kilter otherwise.

Also, obtaining historical results doesn't provide a blanket justification for everything in the scenario. I have a Holland 1940 scenario in the works, and it happens to have a unit of Hs-123's. If I felt like it, I probably could give them an AP rating of 50 without materially affecting how the scenario plays out. It would not follow that that rating of 50 was justified.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/8/2010 10:16:02 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 776
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/9/2010 4:20:49 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Sigh. In TOAW, the troops can't march more than about 20 miles a day -- not unless the unit has been supplied with so much transportation equipment that its movement rate is getting inflated beyond the leg movement rate. A fully rested unit of rifle squads will have a movement rate of about 35 km per day. That's 21 miles.

So indeed the unit speed would drop off if they were force marching. But they can't force march in TOAW in the first place.

You really have taken a logically indefensible position here. Surely even you can see that.


The fact that they can't force march is irrelevant. There are other sources of fatigue: Combat losses. What matters is that units can reach a condition of extreme fatigue, just as if they had force marched. That's what 33% readiness represents.

It's your position that is indefensible.

And, if you would actually read the post, you would see that I'm not changing the maximum impact of that fatigue. What I was doing was backing out most of the impact of supply on foot movement.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 777
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/9/2010 4:32:38 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Your evidence does not rise to the level of proof that it couldn't be done.


TOAW is not about what could or couldn't be done.


Of course it is. Historical commanders make this decision; players make that decision. That's what wargaming is all about. And there has been no evidence to suggest that what you are seeing is anything other than command decisions - if it's even that. My gut feeling is that it's mostly a mirage. Just because you can't find an explicit example is not proof of anything. We already have that Soviet counterexample.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 778
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/9/2010 4:36:34 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Yeah, but, by God there are dozens of scenarios that "work" yet are total junk.


See my definition of "work", though. Use as many metrics as necessary. If it really is junk, then it will fail multiple metrics. This is a feedback loop that only wargames have. That's why, all else being equal, they're better than books.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 779
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/9/2010 5:11:27 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Actually, I kind of like the free-fire zone principle. Normally, I try not to apply it though, because (a) others don't like it, and (b) it pretty much guarantees we won't get anywhere.


You're the only one in free-fire here.

quote:

But in the current case, (a) you certainly set ground rules that gave me carte blanche, and (b) I can't imagine you proving amenable to either reason or evidence regardless of how it was presented.


No. You set the ground rules, even before this discussion began. Readers can see for themselves. This discussion started with post #75 in the FITE Opinions thread. Check out Colin's insulting comments in posts numbers 62, 64, 69, 78, 79, and 88 in that thread. They continued in this thread with 682, 709, 712, 717, 721, 739, 755, 756, 757, 762, 763, 769, and 774.

It's just the way you operate.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 780
Page:   <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   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  24 25 [26] 27 28   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

1.172