Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

A General Observation

 
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 >> A General Observation Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A General Observation - 1/14/2015 1:52:52 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		From the designers notes 'Road to Moscow I'

quote:

If the foot infantry is assigned their TOE number of trucks (approx 500 for supply and admin), their movement is faster than armor ! So- TOE admin transportration should not be included in TOAW units.



I think this is a problem with numerous scenario's. And an observation I made decades ago about TOAW. Foot units movement rates relative to Motorized units in many cases seem to high. Could this be the reason why? Designers putting Admin/Supply vehicles in to the TOE of Foot units when its not appropriate for this game system?

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: A General Observation - 1/14/2015 2:17:37 AM   
r6kunz


Posts: 1103
Joined: 7/4/2002
From: near Philadelphia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

From the designers notes 'Road to Moscow I'

quote:

If the foot infantry is assigned their TOE number of trucks (approx 500 for supply and admin), their movement is faster than armor ! So- TOE admin transportration should not be included in TOAW units.


I think this is a problem with numerous scenario's. And an observation I made decades ago about TOAW. Foot units movement rates relative to Motorized units in many cases seem to high. Could this be the reason why? Designers putting Admin/Supply vehicles in to the TOE of Foot units when its not appropriate for this game system?

Thanks for the observation.
When I started playing TOAW, I played Smolensk 41 (now in the Classic scenario folder). The relative rates of advance made no sense. The German Infantry Divisions greatly outpaced the Panzers. The S&T Panzergrouppe Guderian had been on of my favorite board games. I pulled it out, and sure enough, Smolensk 41 was a direct conversion from the board game. The problem was the units all had their full TOE allotment to trucks. I started making modifications to Smolensk, but soon found it was easier to start from scratch and that was the genesis of the Road to Moscow series...

As has been discussed previously, but not clearly stated in Norm's notes, a "Truck" in actually a "Truck Unit", and even allocating one Truck unit per motorized infantry squad will give an unrealistic rate of march.
Cheers

_____________________________

Avatar image was taken in hex 87,159 Vol 11 of
Vietnam Combat Operations by Stéphane MOUTIN LUYAT aka Boonierat.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 2
RE: A General Observation - 1/14/2015 2:50:07 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		I very much agree with your take on this. And your experience mirrors my own. Except I removed TOAW from my HD in disgust at the silly relative movement rates I observed when the game was first released. Little did I know back then that this was not a game system problem but a scenario design problem. This is my first look at it again since then.

Looking at your Road To Moscow scenario's it is so refreshing to see relative movement rates that fall in to line with my experiences with board games I have played, and my perceived view of reality.

Do you have any plans to design some East Front games ala Road to/from Stalingrad?

_____________________________


(in reply to r6kunz)
Post #: 3
RE: A General Observation - 1/14/2015 3:06:01 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		Looking at Road To Moscow I, I think this German ID might have a tad too many MG's assigned :)




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 4
RE: A General Observation - 1/14/2015 3:47:14 AM   
Lobster


Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline 		To confuse things even more, as a transport unit halftracks are treated the same way as trucks, it's an unspecified number of vehicles, but when halftracks are involved in combat one halftrack is one halftrack.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t come back?
A: A stick.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 5
RE: A General Observation - 1/14/2015 1:04:46 PM   
r6kunz


Posts: 1103
Joined: 7/4/2002
From: near Philadelphia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Looking at Road To Moscow I, I think this German ID might have a tad too many MG's assigned :)




Which Road to Moscow I are you using? I just checked v2.0 and it has 97/112 MMG (apparently in v1.2 there was an go-getter G4 that cornered the market in MMG). There should be the latest versions in the RtM thread- but I will see if I can repost.
Thanks for your review of the data. Herr Oberst has also been helpful in checking these scenarios.
cheers

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 6
RE: A General Observation - 1/14/2015 1:10:37 PM   
r6kunz


Posts: 1103
Joined: 7/4/2002
From: near Philadelphia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

To confuse things even more, as a transport unit halftracks are treated the same way as trucks, it's an unspecified number of vehicles, but when halftracks are involved in combat one halftrack is one halftrack.


Quite correct that transport units can be confusing. I usually assign truck units on a 1:3 ratio truck:combat unit, and then adjust to give what I feel is a reasonable rate of march in the time/distance of a given scenario. I treat halftracks as one halftrack.
cheers

_____________________________

Avatar image was taken in hex 87,159 Vol 11 of
Vietnam Combat Operations by Stéphane MOUTIN LUYAT aka Boonierat.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 7
RE: A General Observation - 1/14/2015 3:26:02 PM   
r6kunz


Posts: 1103
Joined: 7/4/2002
From: near Philadelphia
Status: offline 		Thanks for your comments and interests. My favorite is the What if? scenario...

I have not looked at Stalingrad except played Wintergewitter 1942 by Pelle. 5 km/hex at one-day turns. Six weeks, starting 11Dec42. I did not think I could improve on his scenario.

I have a pre-beta Kursk that I worked on a while back. I felt a bit overwhelmed by the Kursk scenarios (of course, the battle was overwhelming), and wanted to reduce the scope somewhat. SPI had a board game Kurst that was one of their earlier games, that was more or less on the Road to Moscow scale. It was designed by Sterling Hart, who was actually the guy who introduced me to wargaming. We were on a CPX in Germany and he had a copy of Avlon Hill's Afrika Korps...

Cheers

< Message edited by HPT KUNZ -- 1/14/2015 5:39:05 PM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 8
RE: A General Observation - 1/14/2015 8:22:54 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		Ok, I am using the version that came with the game. I will grab V2. Thanks :)

_____________________________


(in reply to r6kunz)
Post #: 9
RE: A General Observation - 1/14/2015 8:24:43 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		Would be nice if there were a sticky thread that had updated scenario's for all the 'official' versions in the game. I am wondering what other scenario's I am looking at that have perhaps been updated??

_____________________________


(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 10
RE: A General Observation - 1/15/2015 7:34:51 PM   
golden delicious


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

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

I have not looked at Stalingrad except played Wintergewitter 1942 by Pelle. 5 km/hex at one-day turns. Six weeks, starting 11Dec42. I did not think I could improve on his scenario.


Playing this right now. It's a good scenario, but off the top of my head;

Transport levels need to be slashed (ironically, given the thread we're in) as they cause major and unrealistic traffic penalties.

The fortified status of initial deployments needs to be reviewed, as it's very hard for either side to make the kind of rapid progress they historically did in the opening phase of the scenario.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to r6kunz)
Post #: 11
RE: A General Observation - 1/15/2015 7:36:23 PM   
golden delicious


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

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Would be nice if there were a sticky thread that had updated scenario's for all the 'official' versions in the game. I am wondering what other scenario's I am looking at that have perhaps been updated??


The disk Rhodes was updated to clarify a house rule- that's my contribution to the world of updates.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 12
RE: A General Observation - 1/16/2015 9:56:20 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

I have not looked at Stalingrad except played Wintergewitter 1942 by Pelle. 5 km/hex at one-day turns. Six weeks, starting 11Dec42. I did not think I could improve on his scenario.


Playing this right now. It's a good scenario, but off the top of my head;

Transport levels need to be slashed (ironically, given the thread we're in) as they cause major and unrealistic traffic penalties.

The fortified status of initial deployments needs to be reviewed, as it's very hard for either side to make the kind of rapid progress they historically did in the opening phase of the scenario.

The pre-3.4 scenarios can (of course with the permission of the original creators) be easily reviewed and adjusted. There are the following points that pop into my mind-

a) transports level and amount of trucks for most non-motorized units (already mentioned)
b) replacement levels in most scenarios, especially the short campaigns with less than 1 week/turn, are too high
c) entrenchment/engineering rates, especially in short scenarios, too high, in particular where the weather conditions and the terrain would make it impossible anyway to built fortress like hexes in less than half a week

My solution(s), not perfect I mind you, are:

a) Trucks or halftracks for the purpose of transport in pure Inf.Div to be assigned for heavy equipment only, e.g. guns with calibres 75mm or more. Naturally, most artillery pieces for Axis Inf.Div and Soviet Rfl.Div were horse drawn. For logistic purposes and the transport sharing, trucks and horses can be assigned to Korps or divisional logistic units with the size of a Btl. or Rgt. (see Pelle's Wintergewitter and the updated Kharkov '43)
b) 1-2% max to compensate for infantry and light equipment, unless of course there are good estimates available how much manpower was funnelled to the front in a particular scenario for each side. Ad-hoc or batches of replacement can be simulated with dummy units (off map) that can or will be disbanded by the player or events to fill up the replacement pool.
c) As a rule of thumb and my tests, for <1week/turn scenarios, depending on the theatre/terrain and what historical documents hint, 25%/33%/50% rate (again, depends on the time-span/turn)

Together with the movement bias, supply consumption/readiness most old scenarios can be nicely tweaked.

Klink, Oberst




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Oberst_Klink -- 1/16/2015 11:02:28 AM >

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 13
RE: A General Observation - 1/16/2015 11:56:33 AM   
shunwick


Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
The pre-3.4 scenarios can (of course with the permission of the original creators) be easily reviewed and adjusted.


Michael T,

Just to clarify that...

Permission from the original creators is only required if the modder intends to publish the resulting scenario. Modifying a scenario for their own use requires no permission.

It is always best not to modify the original scenario but to create a copy and work on that.

Best wishes,
Steve

< Message edited by shunwick -- 1/16/2015 12:57:28 PM >

_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 14
RE: A General Observation - 1/16/2015 6:14:01 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		Ok thanks for info :)

_____________________________


(in reply to shunwick)
Post #: 15
RE: A General Observation - 1/16/2015 11:08:31 PM   
viridomaros

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 10/14/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Transport levels need to be slashed (ironically, given the thread we're in) as they cause major and unrealistic traffic penalties.



i agree with you for the other point
for this one you can use the hq who have high military police rating to reduce the penalties.
unless i missed something

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 16
RE: A General Observation - 1/18/2015 12:43:23 PM   
golden delicious


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

ORIGINAL: viridomaros

i agree with you for the other point
for this one you can use the hq who have high military police rating to reduce the penalties.
unless i missed something


One can, but having to drag an HQ around the map so a panzer regiment can pass through the lines of an emplaced infantry regiment is both ridiculous and annoying. And since the HQ will always pay the full movement penalty (since there are no MPs in the hex until after the HQ has moved in), it's rare that the HQ will be able to move far enough.

Moreover a lot of HQs in this scenario contain artillery or other useful combat elements. Exhausting the supply and readiness of these elements for the benefit of a platoon of military police is not helpful.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to viridomaros)
Post #: 17
RE: A General Observation - 2/3/2015 2:08:07 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		And while we're talking about things that need to be changed I've found one in my TGW game: This was pointed out by scenario designer Steve Still. When a ground unit moves into an enemy airfield hex that contains airplanes the airplanes bug out as expected.
But when you move some arty unit(s) adjacent the airplanes just sit there and allow themselves to be bombarded instead of bugging
out. And when you're fighting the PO the airplanes sometimes stay at the airfield in question and allow themselves to be bombarded
turn after turn. I'm seeing that behavour from Elmer in my game so I know it happens.

_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 18
RE: A General Observation - 2/3/2015 4:01:22 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

And while we're talking about things that need to be changed I've found one in my TGW game: This was pointed out by scenario designer Steve Still. When a ground unit moves into an enemy airfield hex that contains airplanes the airplanes bug out as expected.
But when you move some arty unit(s) adjacent the airplanes just sit there and allow themselves to be bombarded instead of bugging
out. And when you're fighting the PO the airplanes sometimes stay at the airfield in question and allow themselves to be bombarded
turn after turn. I'm seeing that behavour from Elmer in my game so I know it happens.

Well, which version, Onkel Larry? The beta in process or 3.4.022? Got to check this now... never realised that Ari can capture an airfield...

Klink, Oberst

Test: Aye, pure Ari icons ain't do 'overrun' attacks. Well, would they IRL?

< Message edited by Oberst_Klink -- 2/3/2015 5:10:12 PM >

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 19
RE: A General Observation - 2/3/2015 4:07:15 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Which version? I'm guessing that this kind of behavior is an artifact of ALL versions of TOAW. I'm seeing
this behavior in 3.6.0.115 but I'm pretty sure they all do it.

_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 20
RE: A General Observation - 2/3/2015 4:10:41 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Which version? I'm guessing that this kind of behavior is an artifact of ALL versions of TOAW. I'm seeing
this behavior in 3.6.0.115 but I'm pretty sure they all do it.

Aye, Onkel Larry. Confirmed - see above.

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 21
RE: A General Observation - 2/3/2015 6:38:07 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline 		The air side of this game is very abstract just as the naval and transport sides are. In reality when an airfield is over run you lose all of the support equipment. It's too big to fly out. Either that or the airfield is evacuated long before the bad guys show up. But because the game is concentrated on the ground combat units everything else is modeled just kind of. How long have people been trying to get a better naval model in the game? That's how long it will take to fix the air side.

Personally I'd like to see other things fixed first. The encircled unit rule is in sore need of fixing. Ant units still run amok, for instance, an Army HQ cutting off entire divisions or more. One truck unit moving an entire division. One cut off supply source supplying an infinite number of units. And the list goes on.

Still, it's the best all around operational level game out there. Don't know why Matrix ignores it so much.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t come back?
A: A stick.

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 22
RE: A General Observation - 2/4/2015 3:30:34 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

airplanes just sit there and allow themselves to be bombarded instead of bugging out.


My thought was that this type of result isn't very realistic. Although there are historic cases of planes being lost to bombardments, I think that most often the planes would relocate. Loss of the base may cause a TOAW Air Unit to go into reorg, but shouldn't cause the loss of many planes [unless there is no base available to relocate to].

It may be more realistic for ground or naval bombardments of air bases that contain air units to cause the air unit to lose a variable percentage of their aircraft, relocate to the nearest airfield, and go into reorg for the next player turn. I guess the same could be said for Air Units making Airfield Attacks [which I think may be resolved as bombardments anyway].

Maybe my thinking is out of whack, some others might weigh in with their opinion. Then maybe those in charge can make a decision as to whether a change might be valid for a future version.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 23
RE: A General Observation - 2/4/2015 3:56:54 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		Think Henderson Field!

Over-running airbases could also cause serious losses of aircraft that wee being serviced and/or still in their crates - eg as at Stalingrad plus losses of ground support equipment, spares, fuel and perhaps mechanics.

Even without actual over-runs a retreat could cause the loss of a lot of equipment, such as the RAF in France in 1940 - much equipment and spares could be evacuated, but that which couldn't be had to be destroyed (eg see Bombing of Souge Airfield here)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 24
RE: A General Observation - 2/4/2015 4:00:25 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

And while we're talking about things that need to be changed I've found one in my TGW game: This was pointed out by scenario designer Steve Still. When a ground unit moves into an enemy airfield hex that contains airplanes the airplanes bug out as expected.
But when you move some arty unit(s) adjacent the airplanes just sit there and allow themselves to be bombarded instead of bugging
out. And when you're fighting the PO the airplanes sometimes stay at the airfield in question and allow themselves to be bombarded
turn after turn. I'm seeing that behavour from Elmer in my game so I know it happens.


I see nothing particularly wrong with that - such bombardments cause a % loss, and units did not simply "bug out" from airfields - moving air units was not a trivial task, and if a turn is a day hten moving them the next day is perfctly reasonable.

If a turn is longer then the % loss represents aircraft not always being on the airfield - "realistically" if you had an artillery Bn or 2 zeroed in on an airfield for several days you would probably obliterate every aircraft on it....that can happen sometimes, but not usually!

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 25
RE: A General Observation - 2/4/2015 6:36:38 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Think Henderson Field!


I'm not much on the Pacific, but I think there was no available airfield to transfer to, so once the planes were based at Henderson they were resigned to their fate.

quote:

Over-running airbases could also cause serious losses of aircraft ...


But in TOAW, over-running an airbase causes the air unit(s) to relocate.

quote:

such as the RAF in France in 1940


The RAF in France was a special case. They had very small support elements. The pilots actually did most of the work. In this case I can see the crews abandoning planes at the airfields based on the speed of the German advance, but this wasn't a typical situation. And we aren't talking about ground units over-running airfields, we are talking about parking artillery within range and shelling an airfield round after round while the planes sit idle and take it.

quote:

units did not simply "bug out" from airfields


I think that in most cases airfields were relocated well ahead of the enemy's advance. One can point to a few special cases where this didn't happen, but it wasn't the norm.


I'm glad to hear someone else's opinion, because I've disliked this behavior for years, yet I've seen no one else ever mention it. So maybe I am being too particular.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 26
RE: A General Observation - 2/4/2015 7:23:46 PM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		Yes one of the main issues I have is that over-running airfields does NOT cause more serious aircraft loses - to some degree in TOAW you can ignore it as a risk!!

Artillery bombardment is somewhat a result of that I think - players know that if they over-run the airfield they will inflict few if any losses - whereas bombarding does some actual damage!

the a/c at Henderson certainly could have flown away - they flew there in the first place - but it was eth only airfield and if they wanted to have any air power they had to have the planes on that airfield.

I don't think the size of RAF units in France was particularly important - many front line airfields in WW2 had limited facilities an major maintenance was performed at depots well to the rear - to some extent the experience of the USAAF & RAF in Europe post-France was not-typical in that they often got to operate from large bases with considerable resources.

Here's and example of an airfield that was bombarded by the Soviets in 1945 - Baltiysk - East Prussia, now in Kaliningrad and another near Moscow 1941

I think there are plenty of examples of airfields being bombarded by artillery if you go looking - here's my google search for "airfield artillery fire" - and if there is a problem (I'm not sure there is) it probably comes back to not being able to build airfields when scenarios should allow for it (which is not always of course) and also the lack of other damage to air units from over-running.


< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 2/4/2015 8:30:08 PM >

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 27
RE: A General Observation - 2/5/2015 8:19:55 AM   
USXpat

 

Posts: 388
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline 		I make it a high priority to use artillery to bomb airfields at every opportunity. Aircraft range is always greater than artillery range (barring things like ICBMs). There's no real need for aircraft to be positioned so close to the front that they can be hit by artillery - and perhaps one major reason why the # of historical incidents is infrequent.

There can be an issue with a scenario that has a large number of air units with too few airfields. There's usually enough though, so the #1 remedy is just keeping out of range of artillery.

Given that so many scenarios involve WW2 East Front and include rail artillery -- and can easily be the "most effective fighter group of the Luftwaffe" (heh)... it does make sense to limit their use somehow, perhaps using options to activate them for a X number of turns with a lengthy inactive period before they can be used again, possibly disbanding them after a Y number of uses.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 28
RE: A General Observation - 2/5/2015 8:53:55 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: USXpat

I make it a high priority to use artillery to bomb airfields at every opportunity. Aircraft range is always greater than artillery range (barring things like ICBMs). There's no real need for aircraft to be positioned so close to the front that they can be hit by artillery - and perhaps one major reason why the # of historical incidents is infrequent.

There can be an issue with a scenario that has a large number of air units with too few airfields. There's usually enough though, so the #1 remedy is just keeping out of range of artillery.

Given that so many scenarios involve WW2 East Front and include rail artillery -- and can easily be the "most effective fighter group of the Luftwaffe" (heh)... it does make sense to limit their use somehow, perhaps using options to activate them for a X number of turns with a lengthy inactive period before they can be used again, possibly disbanding them after a Y number of uses.


... or simply base them off-map :)

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to USXpat)
Post #: 29
RE: A General Observation - 2/6/2015 11:48:06 PM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline 		The discussion about abstract modeling of airfields and deployed air squadrons is interesting.

For aircraft, maybe the existing concept of "support units" can be extended by the introduction of support units dedicated to aircraft support.

Such units would be deployed to airfields to service and repair aircraft units, thereby impacting aircraft availability and combat status. The more aircraft support units available, the quicker aircraft would be turned around from off-line to combat readiness. If aircraft support units are destroyed by enemy action, there is a loss of aircraft combat availability until support is restored, i.e. aircraft support units are either reconstituted or reinforced from reserves.

This concept can also be extended to cover the needs of naval and mechanized units. These units have unique support needs outside of the generic "Support Unit" modeling.

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 Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> A General Observation Page: [1] 2   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

1.328