What about the convoys?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

What about the convoys?

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 >> What about the convoys?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

What about the convoys? - 7/10/2011 8:33:23 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

To understand what I mean, one must look at the map to the scenario 'War in the West'.

I don't know what creativity the bioed gives you with regards to unit design, but if you modeled a submarine to have high enough recon value to be stealthy like a commando/guerrilla(often invisible now), yet make it an 'armored' target, no ships would be able to attack it. Then use the anti-armor value to sort of double as an anti-submarine value. Then give certain ships (destroyer squadrons) an anti-armor value. There are anti armor planes, but these characteristics would make them good anti-sub platforms as well. Just as destroyer units in close along the coast can wreck havoc on armored units if willing to expose themselves.

Now we take the most common convoy route; between say, Liverpool and either Halifax or New York and make a chain of one-hex islands, every 12-15 hexes. That would give you like 6-7 islands, very tough for the Allies to defend. On these islands would appear replacement units that would remain for a certain number of turns, then allow the player to disband their contents into the forcepool, as is done already in some scenarios. Make a house rule that Allied escorts cannot move adjacent to any of these islands, and it makes it that much more difficult for the Allies to defend. Lastly, you give submarines a value that will allow them to bombard these islands, just like surface 'raiders' already would be able to, in addition to an anti-ship value, and hopefully you see the kind of simulation I'm representing. You could even model the long-range FW200 Condor with enough range to reach an island or two. Though naturally to actually implement this, you'd need much more specificity.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 7/10/2011 8:34:59 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: What about the convoys? - 7/10/2011 10:50:47 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

For being able to move on water hexes, equipment needs to be flagged as one of the naval equipment types (light, medium, heavy) which will make them subject to the naval combat rules (obviously) which means the armor and AT routines will not be used. Sorry.

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 2

RE: What about the convoys? - 7/11/2011 7:49:59 AM

USXpat

Posts: 388
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline

The naval component has always been problematic for TOAW. I'd like to represent it more, but for now am just abstracting it to historical results.

The complicating issue is that ships are treated as distinct pieces of equipment instead of units with equipment. One solution might be to use bio ed to create ship components such as "destroyer hull points" or "cruiser hull points" and then add its armaments. Figure even a destroyer has a crew of up to 300 men, so it's really not too much of a stretch to look at it this way. Certainly, it would require lots of tweaking and a lot more testing. Just an idea for anyone going down this road.

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 3

RE: What about the convoys? - 7/11/2011 2:52:38 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

For being able to move on water hexes, equipment needs to be flagged as one of the naval equipment types (light, medium, heavy) which will make them subject to the naval combat rules (obviously) which means the armor and AT routines will not be used. Sorry.

Wait a minute! What about what Jason Mallette did with 'Countdown to Infamy'? He made his own vessels seemingly with whatever armaments he wanted on them. If there is a value, why can't it be edited?

Well if that's true I'd like to think it's not too much trouble for Ralph to fix this. This can still be worked around with some house rules restricting what units can attack submarines.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 7/11/2011 2:56:28 PM >

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 4

RE: What about the convoys? - 7/11/2011 4:49:41 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USXpat

The naval component has always been problematic for TOAW.� I'd like to represent it more, but for now am just abstracting it to historical results.�

The complicating issue is that ships are treated as distinct pieces of equipment instead of units with equipment.� One solution might be to use bio ed to create ship components such as "destroyer hull points" or "cruiser hull points" and then add its armaments.� Figure even a destroyer has a crew of up to 300 men, so it's really not too much of a stretch to look at it this way.� Certainly, it would require lots of tweaking and a lot more testing.� Just an idea for anyone going down this road.

Yes, look at Anzio 1km or at Erik Nygaards Weser�bung or any other of his scenarios to see what can be done - or what can be done better ;). Still it's the best to model it abstractly though there are situation whee this can't be done. I.e. the battle of the Atlantic should better be simulated by events (supply going up/down i.e.) but an invasion, be it in the Pacific or in the Med, where naval fire support played a significant role you should have ships in the OOB.

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to USXpat)

Post #: 5

RE: What about the convoys? - 7/11/2011 4:56:49 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

For being able to move on water hexes, equipment needs to be flagged as one of the naval equipment types (light, medium, heavy) which will make them subject to the naval combat rules (obviously) which means the armor and AT routines will not be used. Sorry.

Wait a minute! What about what Jason Mallette did with 'Countdown to Infamy'? He made his own vessels seemingly with whatever armaments he wanted on them. If there is a value, why can't it be edited?

Well if that's true I'd like to think it's not too much trouble for Ralph to fix this. This can still be worked around with some house rules restricting what units can attack submarines.

As i understand the current naval combat model there are no armor/AT routines, at least in ship vs ship.

Implementing enhancements to the combat model is more work than you might think. Believe me. Said this before and i still say so.

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 6

RE: What about the convoys? - 7/11/2011 6:59:11 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Implementing enhancements to the combat model is more work than you might think. Believe me. Said this before and i still say so.

Implementing enhancements...is more work than you might think.

Take out the specific reference to TOAW, and you've got a fine general principle. Ask Obama about 'change'. Go try to fix your car problems yourself. Or work out exactly how to simulate something in TOAW.

More work than you might think. As far as improvements to the design of TOAW go, I vote heavily for first addressing the still remaining and substantial deficiencies in the operational-level combat model before going on to attempt to simulate convoys and such.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 7

RE: What about the convoys? - 7/11/2011 7:04:22 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

...but an invasion, be it in the Pacific or in the Med, where naval fire support played a significant role you should have ships in the OOB.

Here the problem I see is that as a rule, ships guns didn't function as floating divisional artillery, flailing all targets within 20 km of the coast.

Generally, they seem to have played a more restricted role. I'm not sure whether this owed most to (a) their limited ammunition supply, (b) their tradition of firing at what they could physically see, or (c) no effective system for observing and adjusting fire in coordination with the ground troops.

But the limitation was there. Montgomery didn't open up El Alamein by having the Mediterranean Fleet flail Rommel's positions.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 7/11/2011 7:47:16 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 8

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> What about the convoys?

Page: [1]