ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
|
All this should be in 'Comprehensive Wishlist'...and now it is.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
If there were an equipment flag for "anti-entrenchment ability" then designers could make their own Flamethrower/Sapper squads as they desired. They could even give some extra purpose to all those Flamethrower Tanks as well. And it would be up to them, not affecting earlier stuff.
I kind of agree that it might be good to have another stage before reaching Fortified deployment. Perhaps with a x6 benefit. In fact, you could subdivide the whole thing into more stages than that, even. PacWar had 9 stages of entrenchment, for example.
I don't really agree that it should be proscribed without engineers, though - that level of fortification would be the "Fortified Line" terrain. Ultimately, of course, we'd like engineers of some sort to be able to construct stuff like that (as well as airfields and ports, etc.). But that has to be well thought out - or we'll end up with Maginot Line hexes on every hex of the scenario.
But, for me, a more serious remaining entrenchment issue is that it isn't prorated for MPs left. Ralph didn't want to do that last time - I can't remember exactly why, but I think it was something to do with the PO.
On the bridge issue, an engineer with 25% engineering should take 4 turns to repair the bridge. And, as it currently works, it may take longer or shorter to do so. But, if you're repairing 100 bridges over the course of the game, it's going to average out about the same. So I don't think there would be much real benefit to the difficulty of keeping track of how many repair levels a blown bridge has gone through.
Again, for me, a more serious bridge issue is that bridges over normal rivers are as easy to blow/repair as bridges over super rivers. There ought to be a difference of some level.
No particular disagreement...but I'll repeat/qualify some things.
1. Yeah. No particular reason to object to a special 'assault engineer' weapon. If you don't like the effect, don't put them in. In fact, putting some in various engineer units should allow one to more or less modulate the effect.
2. I don't see a particular need for yet another level of entrenchment. It wouldn't actually hurt, but...
Mainly, I'd just like to see it take longer to reach that final level, and I would like the status to be more promptly heritable. Units do relieve each other in fortified lines -- and a week after taking over a sector, the new unit isn't still struggling to reach 'entrenched' status. It jumps all the way to fortified in about a day, I would think.
3. I think people are missing a key point on the 'bridges' thing. Given the information that TOAW provides, bridge repair is indeed a crapshoot. 'Blown bridge' and no other information -- you indeed don't know how long it will take to fix. I suppose you could have it 'blow' with some random level of damage you could ascertain and then assign engineers to accordingly, but really...
Examples of blown bridges that come to mind.
Bridge blown by the Dutch at Maastricht in 1940. As I recall, they neatly dumped exactly one span in the river...and in a day or so, the Germans had it partially replaced and were on their way. Lots of materials in the vicinity, lots of bridging supplies on hand, and an expectation this would happen. The Germans probably had blueprints for what they were going to do.
Bridges blown by the Germans in Sicily. The Americans were very frustrated. Wrecked from abutment to abutment. Probably substantial canyons and no local materials, to boot. Also, (at a guess) little idea what the bridges were until they came to them.
Bridge blown by the Germans at Remagen. Whoops...
And this last brings up a point. For whatever reason, a lot of bridges that were supposed to get blown, didn't get blown. That isn't exactly simulated in TOAW -- but a random rate of repair is a start.
Point is, that while in a perfect system one could come up to the blown bridge in TOAW and know just about how long it is going to take to fix, as matters stand, one doesn't know -- nor should one. The bridge could be 'blown' as in completely destroyed in a remote location with hellish access and some serious engineering problems to be solved -- or it could be 'blown' as in actually, the charges failed to go off in time and it's quite intact. That'll get simulated when yer engineer unit moves onto the bridge, promptly repairs it, and yer panzers are on their way without ever expending an extra MP.
Point is, that as the system stands, a 'blown bridge' creates the same problem a mechanic faces if you call him up and say 'my car won't start. How much will it cost to fix it?'
No other information. Now, supply him with some more details, and he can figure 'sounds like a broken timing belt' or alternatively, 'sounds like the doofus left his lights on.' Then he can give you a pretty accurate figure.
But as it is -- it is indeed a more or less random amount. It could be the $50.00 he'll bone you for the jump, or it could be $800.00. You can't say, 'well, the mechanic should be able to fix the car in four hours.' From the information given, it's entirely unknowable.
< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/26/2011 8:35:38 PM >
_____________________________
I am not Charlie Hebdo
|
Printable Version
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 
) of a complete rebuilt of the scenario editor. Seperating the editor from the game. Using some Windows API/Menues/GUI instead of the TOAW like GUI. Like most games - where the editor is an extra executable. 
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 
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