Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Not adding anything to the discussion, but this thread is just like a parliament.

A lot of nit-picking, meaningless discussions, relevant discussions lost in the noise, and in the end, very little get's done.

Yeah. Maybe I'm being partial, but I see it as a matter of Roadblock LeMay preventing all significant forward progress.

No. The problem is you. And that's been proven everywhere you turn up. Even on the boards you haven't been kicked off of. Look up the word "Troll" in the dictionary and your picture is being used.

As for my "preventing all significant forward progress" see 3.4.

Now, blocking bad ideas - that's a good thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact

Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Now, I ask you. If it took more time to get the last unit to the locaticon it is in how can it possibly effect the defending units path of retreat if it is not involved in the combat? It's not there if all of the other units attack. It is there if it is included in the attack. Movement = Time Consumed. All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact. Just asking if the game can't do the same when retreats are blocked by moved units that are not taking part in the attack and got there 'too late' to prevent a retreat.

BTW, sorry if I seemed to have spammed the forum. Won't allow more than one picture per post.

I'm perfectly aware how the system works, and I'm certain your "fix" would brake the game.

Consider this picture with the new system:


with your new rule and the overrun check by weak units.

Despite holes of 20km, it would be impossible to advance more then 2 or 3 hexes in the Red line, as due to ZOC MP cost it would be impossible to move strong enough units for encirclement. The only way would be to bash with frontal assaults, pushing the units back. Which would eat the turn away quickly.

Your "fix" would make the game far less realistic. Making such defense lines far to powerful and encirclement far to impractical.

What is more realistic:
a) the isolated unit is quickly pushed aside and the advance continues fairly quickly whit some units tasked with mopping up the unit.
b) Panzerarmy 1, 2, 3 and 4 are stopped by 4 rifle divisions for half an week.

You fail to recognize that due to moving in ZOC the units paid the heavy cost in MP. That was a design choice to make encirclement more costly and harder to pull off. Now you want to make the units pay twice for it.
Which boardgames recognize this and operate at the same scale?

So, what you are saying is that a unit that moves into a hex today should be able to block the retreat of a unit that retreated through that hex last week? If that is true and time and space should not be considered then it's pointless going on, isn't it?

I'm going to shoot this AP round in that direction today. Next week when some tanks drive by I'm sure to hit one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact

Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.

That's debatable. At least in the old wargames, your turn or phase was over. One could argue the attack had been delayed until the encirclement had been completed.

Looked at in that way, TOAW has moved further away from reality, not closer. Now the attack goes forward and the 'surrounded' defenders are annihilated a day before they were actually surrounded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner


I'm perfectly aware how the system works, and I'm certain your "fix" would brake the game.

...

with your new rule and the overrun check by weak units.

Despite holes of 20km, it would be impossible to advance more then 2 or 3 hexes in the Red line, as due to ZOC MP cost it would be impossible to move strong enough units for encirclement. The only way would be to bash with frontal assaults, pushing the units back. Which would eat the turn away quickly.

Your "fix" would make the game far less realistic. Making such defense lines far to powerful and encirclement far to impractical.

What is more realistic:
a) the isolated unit is quickly pushed aside and the advance continues fairly quickly whit some units tasked with mopping up the unit.
b) Panzerarmy 1, 2, 3 and 4 are stopped by 4 rifle divisions for half an week.

You fail to recognize that due to moving in ZOC the units paid the heavy cost in MP. That was a design choice to make encirclement more costly and harder to pull off. Now you want to make the units pay twice for it.
Which boardgames recognize this and operate at the same scale?

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact

Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.

That's debatable. At least in the old wargames, your turn or phase was over. One could argue the attack had been delayed until the encirclement had been completed.

Looked at in that way, TOAW has moved further away from reality, not closer. Now the attack goes forward and the 'surrounded' defenders are annihilated a day before they were actually surrounded.

In reality the encircling forces wouldn't need 3 days to move 10-20 km trough unopposed areas, and would be able to complete the encirclement much sooner then the MP in TOAW show.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Okay -- so argue for reduced ZOC costs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Let me point out something. A hex located next to a unit is not unopposed. It is assumed that a unit occupying a hex is contesting the adjacent hexes through active patrols and zones of fire. This has been a wargame standard since zones of control have been used. It just happens to be a fairly accurate representation of the real world.

So, a hex adjacent to a unit is not easily traversed and since it's not a stroll in the park but a stroll through a combat zone care must be taken and that consumes time. More time equals more movement points since movement = time which is what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? That's why there are things like disengagement attacks even when moving on the flank of a unit hex to hex. To represent the fact that the hex is not unopposed.

Let me add, even if you wouldn't let me.

The discussion has nothing to do with ZOC costs. I don't give a hoot about ZOC costs. The problem is a unit having an effect on a hex before it's even there in a movement/time sort of way. Combat takes place on round one of ten and consumes one round. Blocking unit takes 75% of it's movement to get to blocking position which in a half week turn is a couple days after the defending unit retreats yet it somehow manages to prevent the retreat. Beam me over Scotty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Okay -- so argue for reduced ZOC costs. Don't argue for a system where units are blocking hexes they haven't entered yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Let me point out something. A hex located next to a unit is not unopposed. It is assumed that a unit occupying a hex is contesting the adjacent hexes through active patrols and zones of fire. This has been a wargame standard since zones of control have been used. It just happens to be a fairly accurate representation of the real world.

So, a hex adjacent to a unit is not easily traversed and since it's not a stroll in the park but a stroll through a combat zone care must be taken and that consumes time. More time equals more movement points since movement = time which is what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? That's why there are things like disengagement attacks even when moving on the flank of a unit hex to hex. To represent the fact that the hex is not unopposed.

Let me add, even if you wouldn't let me.

The discussion has nothing to do with ZOC costs. I don't give a hoot about ZOC costs. The problem is a unit having an effect on a hex before it's even there in a movement/time sort of way. Combat takes place on round one of ten and consumes one round. Blocking unit takes 75% of it's movement to get to blocking position which in a half week turn is a couple days after the defending unit retreats yet it somehow manages to prevent the retreat. Beam me over Scotty.

What war game standard . That is a logical fallacy, you are trying to avoid arguing by claiming some sort of conses on the issue.

I'm just appalled that you have an issue with encirclement due to realism but take mp issue on that. Combat zone due to field of fire and active patrols in a hex that can be as large as 50x50km
The typical German brake trough frontage for a panzer division was about 2km.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner



What war game standard . That is a logical fallacy, you are trying to avoid arguing by claiming some sort of conses on the issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

Again I'm perfectly aware what ZOC is, I'm asking you to start providing arguments for your propositions.
"Wargame standard" isn't one, it is a appeal to popular belief, one of the many fallacies in arguing (or if you prefer debating).

If you want to make a point then by all means provide the name of the games and what they achieve with the concept.

It makes perfect sense in a game like steel panthers, but in a game where a hex can represents enough space to fit several corps in, it isn't realistic. But it produced very good results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Bugger. See what I meant?

There were more replies to my previous useless post, than to Curtis (rather good) supply system proposal.

C'mon guys, focus!

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Okay -- so argue for reduced ZOC costs. Don't argue for a system where units are blocking hexes they haven't entered yet.

I would rather not brake something that isn't broken...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Some armies, most notably the Germans, were very good at forming task oriented Kampfgruppen. They were also very good at forming Kampfgruppen out of remnants of units after a battle.

Given this maybe, when dividing German WW2 units voluntarily or through combat results, German units should be allowed to keep their full proficiency instead of reducing it by 20%.

Perhaps extend the same thing to other armies of other eras that have actively demonstrated this organizational flexibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama



Addendum:

It would be nice if a scenario designer could decide how 'sticky' ZOC were in a scenario.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Some armies, most notably the Germans, were very good at forming task oriented Kampfgruppen. They were also very good at forming Kampfgruppen out of remnants of units after a battle.

Given this maybe, when dividing German WW2 units voluntarily or through combat results, German units should be allowed to keep their full proficiency instead of reducing it by 20%.

Perhaps extend the same thing to other armies of other eras that have actively demonstrated this organizational flexibility.

In any case, I've always found the proficiency drop a rather irritating feature. I don't think it models anything that happens in reality with any particular fidelity...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Hex ownership has some effect -- and the effect is often legitimate -- on supply and reconaissance. For that reason, it should perhaps be retained. However, at a minimum, designers should have the ability to dispense with its effects on movement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Hex ownership has some effect -- and the effect is often legitimate -- on supply and reconaissance. For that reason, it should perhaps be retained. However, at a minimum, designers should have the ability to dispense with its effects on movement.

But they have in 3.4.

XII.3 Enemy-Hex Conversion-Costs. Default is 100, where each enemy hex converted costs the moving
friendly unit the original 10% of its movement allowance (reducible by high recon levels, though). A value
of 50 would mean each hex costs 5% of the unit’s movement allowance (same effect of recon as above),
and a value of 200 would mean that each hex converted would cost 20% of the unit’s movement allowance.
A value of 0 would mean that there wouldn’t be any cost of hex conversion, no matter what the unit’s
movement allowance or recon level was. Actual cost to the unit is still rounded down. And there is still a
minimum cost of one, with the single exception for the setting of 0.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Hex ownership has some effect -- and the effect is often legitimate -- on supply and reconaissance. For that reason, it should perhaps be retained. However, at a minimum, designers should have the ability to dispense with its effects on movement.

But they have in 3.4.

XII.3 Enemy-Hex Conversion-Costs. Default is 100, where each enemy hex converted costs the moving
friendly unit the original 10% of its movement allowance (reducible by high recon levels, though). A value
of 50 would mean each hex costs 5% of the unit’s movement allowance (same effect of recon as above),
and a value of 200 would mean that each hex converted would cost 20% of the unit’s movement allowance.
A value of 0 would mean that there wouldn’t be any cost of hex conversion, no matter what the unit’s
movement allowance or recon level was. Actual cost to the unit is still rounded down. And there is still a
minimum cost of one, with the single exception for the setting of 0.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Hex ownership has some effect -- and the effect is often legitimate -- on supply and reconaissance. For that reason, it should perhaps be retained. However, at a minimum, designers should have the ability to dispense with its effects on movement.

But they have in 3.4.

XII.3 Enemy-Hex Conversion-Costs. Default is 100, where each enemy hex converted costs the moving
friendly unit the original 10% of its movement allowance (reducible by high recon levels, though). A value
of 50 would mean each hex costs 5% of the unit’s movement allowance (same effect of recon as above),
and a value of 200 would mean that each hex converted would cost 20% of the unit’s movement allowance.
A value of 0 would mean that there wouldn’t be any cost of hex conversion, no matter what the unit’s
movement allowance or recon level was. Actual cost to the unit is still rounded down. And there is still a
minimum cost of one, with the single exception for the setting of 0.

I'm beginning to believe 3.4 is a cruel hoax or an unachievable fictional place like utopia.

BTW. In a game where movement is expressed in positive integers why oh why are percentages used in the above?