RE: Turned flank

RE: Turned flank (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III

Message

JAMiAM -> RE: Turned flank (1/27/2007 4:31:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zort Thanks, so if A and B attack in the first round do they get the flanking bonus on round two? Yes. Even if C attacks, by itself, on round two, it will cause the flanking penalty. You really should think of it as more of a penalty than a bonus. One that is inflicted on a unit anytime that it remains stationary through combat across two (or more) non-adjacent hexsides within the same full turn.

ralphtricky -> RE: Turned flank (1/27/2007 4:50:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers quote: Orig: Ralphy ....as far as I know... Is this a good thing to be hearing form the guy that is editting our beloved game??? [:D] Think of it as 'Objectivity'<g>. I don't have a clear idea of what is 'right.'

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (1/27/2007 5:17:39 AM)
Player 1-2 assymetries are being worked on in the next patch, right, Ralph? [;)]

JAMiAM -> RE: Turned flank (1/27/2007 5:58:40 AM)
Not in the next patch, but they are on the drawing board.

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (1/27/2007 6:48:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM Not in the next patch, but they are on the drawing board. Good to hear. [:)]

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/2/2007 9:59:53 PM)
Does a unit doing a 'limited attack' count as a unit doing an attack when calculating flanking penalties?

JAMiAM -> RE: Turned flank (2/2/2007 10:23:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers Does a unit doing a 'limited attack' count as a unit doing an attack when calculating flanking penalties? Yes.

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/2/2007 10:29:31 PM)
Danke, James.

JAMiAM -> RE: Turned flank (2/2/2007 10:52:20 PM)
No problem. "Yes or no" questions are my favorites...[;)]

SMK-at-work -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 12:45:56 AM)
What is a player 1-2 assymetry??!

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 12:54:17 AM)
Well,the fact that player 2's retreated units can't dig in is a player 1-2 assymetry. The fact that player 1 has full movement at the beginning of his turn, no matter what, but player 2 has only what's left if his units have been pushed around is a player 1-2 assymetry. The list goes on. Ralph and James are going to be so kind as to fix each and every one of them for us. [;)]

JAMiAM -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 1:01:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work What is a player 1-2 assymetry??! I wouldn't know. However, an example of player 1-2 asymmetry ...[;)]... would the effect of player two units that were retreated by player one's attacks during his turn, having less than their full compliment of movement points left over, at the start of player two's player turn. The units of player one that are retreated by player two's attacks have full movement at the start of his turn, since his turn follows the Automatic Bookkeeping Phase, where the movement allowances for all units are reset. There are many other examples, where the strict turn order of pbem and hotseat games impose an asymmetry between player one and player two. If players were more open to variable initiative, and it was available in pbem/hotseat, and it was a little more interactive, or "influence-able" it wouldn't be such a problem. However, it seems that most players (especially ladder players) seem to loathe that feature...[:(]

JAMiAM -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 1:04:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers Well,the fact that player 2's retreated units can't dig in is a player 1-2 assymetry. Sure they can, and we even told everyone how to do it in the manual. True, it's a "workaround" until we do things in more depth later, but still...[;)]

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 1:04:51 AM)
Much better put. What are your feelings on variable initiative, James?

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 1:07:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM quote: ORIGINAL: Veers Well,the fact that player 2's retreated units can't dig in is a player 1-2 assymetry. Sure they can, and we even told everyone how to do it in the manual. True, it's a "workaround" until we do things in more depth later, but still...[;)] Yeah, of course, I just meant that it is an assymetry, though we have a work around that works most of the time.

JAMiAM -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 3:54:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers What are your feelings on variable initiative, James? Oh, I think it's great. In fact, I would like to get it even more entrenched as a usable option in PBEM. Especially as a big emphasis since day one, with Matrix, has been to close the cheat loopholes in TOAW. Where I think that Variable Initiative (VI) would truly shine, is on those longer, more strategic level scenarios, where a turn flip-flop, or ten, won't suddenly cause a player to have their entire force wiped out, and the game totally lost. It may take some further refinement of the engine to convince people of VI's benefits, but I think it can be done. Then again...given how much people bitch, gripe, moan and complain about early turn endings...[:D] Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...[;)]

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 4:13:42 AM)
quote: James: Where I think that Variable Initiative (VI) would truly shine, is on those longer, more strategic level scenarios, where a turn flip-flop, or ten, won't suddenly cause a player to have their entire force wiped out, and the game totally lost. It may take some further refinement of the engine to convince people of VI's benefits, but I think it can be done. True, it would be nice in EA, for example to have the initiative switch about half way through the war. Howevers, regarding EA. The initiative switches prior to when it all-out switches (ie: Soviet winter offensives). EA has many units that are sitting out the war (or parts of it) that would add to each side's initiative variable (whatever it is that determines who has the first turn). In its current state, would VI work for EA by flipping somewhere in 43-ish to the Allies? In its current state is it totally broken because of the Spanish/Swedish/Swiss/Turkish neutrals? In the future would you like it to: Be able to flip over when the Allies had the momentive, but not for the rest of the war (winter '41, winter '42)? Perhaps it could be partially (or fully) driven by the Event Engine, with the designer choosing when the initiative should switch from one side to the other? (The obvious drawback being that a designer can rarely judge just when the initiative should switch on a large strategic scenario). Sorry this isn't your favourite kind of question, as a yes or no wouldn't really do it justice. (Of course now you will just give me one of those simple answers, eh?[:D]) Editted twice for clarity.

ralphtricky -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 5:59:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...[;)] Onwards Alonso.[&o] -- Pancho

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 6:03:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ralphtrick quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...[;)] Onwards Alonso.[&o] -- Pancho Ok, I'll admit, what's with the windmills?

JAMiAM -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 6:44:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers quote: ORIGINAL: ralphtrick quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...[;)] Onwards Alonso.[&o] -- Pancho Ok, I'll admit, what's with the windmills? Wiki is your friend...

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 7:24:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM quote: ORIGINAL: Veers quote: ORIGINAL: ralphtrick quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...[;)] Onwards Alonso.[&o] -- Pancho Ok, I'll admit, what's with the windmills? Wiki is your friend... You know, I had a hunch, but after searching for both names together I got nothing, so I had to admit defeat. [:D] Now about that other long post I made...?[;)]

saintsup -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 11:35:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM quote: ORIGINAL: Veers What are your feelings on variable initiative, James? Oh, I think it's great. In fact, I would like to get it even more entrenched as a usable option in PBEM. Especially as a big emphasis since day one, with Matrix, has been to close the cheat loopholes in TOAW. Where I think that Variable Initiative (VI) would truly shine, is on those longer, more strategic level scenarios, where a turn flip-flop, or ten, won't suddenly cause a player to have their entire force wiped out, and the game totally lost. It may take some further refinement of the engine to convince people of VI's benefits, but I think it can be done. Then again...given how much people bitch, gripe, moan and complain about early turn endings...[:D] Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...[;)] Could anyone explain me how this 'workaround' works ?

shunwick -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 12:36:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM quote: ORIGINAL: Veers What are your feelings on variable initiative, James? Oh, I think it's great. In fact, I would like to get it even more entrenched as a usable option in PBEM. Especially as a big emphasis since day one, with Matrix, has been to close the cheat loopholes in TOAW. Where I think that Variable Initiative (VI) would truly shine, is on those longer, more strategic level scenarios, where a turn flip-flop, or ten, won't suddenly cause a player to have their entire force wiped out, and the game totally lost. It may take some further refinement of the engine to convince people of VI's benefits, but I think it can be done. Then again...given how much people bitch, gripe, moan and complain about early turn endings...[:D] Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...[;)] Guys, I love VI. It always surprises me when people complain about it. Real war is a mess and it doesn't progress in neat UgoIgo packages. Best wishes,

rhinobones -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 6:33:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work What is a player 1-2 assymetry??! However, an example of player 1-2 asymmetry... would the effect of player two units that were retreated by player one's attacks during his turn, having less than their full compliment of movement points left over, at the start of player two's player turn....[:(] Sounds like the house keeping calculations that are performed at the start of player #1 turn actually need to be performed at the start of both the #1 and #2 player turns. In this way both players would always start with an entire compliment of turns. Think this would make the use of Tactical and Local Reserve a much more realistic option. This would obviously alter game play (for the better I think), but I don�t think it would break any existing scenarios. If you think about it, aircraft already enjoy this type of movement. Player #2 aircraft that participate in combat during the player #1 turn begin the player #2 turn with a full load of movement. Ground units should enjoy the same movement allowance. The same should be true of naval units if they are ever provided with an �interdiction� mode. Since this reply is addressing house keeping calculations, I would like to insert another suggestion. Think the calculation (or whatever the control might be) for whether a unit is in the state of Reorganization, or Retreated, should be performed at the beginning of each combat pulse, not the single occurrence at the start of player #1 turn. I have a difficult time believing that a unit is required to spend an entire turn in such a helpless state. Would expect units with above average characteristics to recover quicker from heavy combat instead of spending the entire time period incapacitated. Units should also go into, and out of, reorganization/retreated status during the course of a turn depending on their readiness, communications check, combat losses and proximity to a Headquarters. Again, I don�t see how this would break any existing scenarios. Regards, RhinoBones

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 7:12:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM Oh, I think it's great. In fact, I would like to get it even more entrenched as a usable option in PBEM. Especially as a big emphasis since day one, with Matrix, has been to close the cheat loopholes in TOAW. Where I think that Variable Initiative (VI) would truly shine, is on those longer, more strategic level scenarios, where a turn flip-flop, or ten, won't suddenly cause a player to have their entire force wiped out, and the game totally lost. It may take some further refinement of the engine to convince people of VI's benefits, but I think it can be done. Then again...given how much people bitch, gripe, moan and complain about early turn endings...[:D] Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...[;)] The problem with VI as it now stands, is that it is so unrealistic, being based upon average movement allowance. So the side with more air, naval, and entrained units gets the initiative. That means the Commonwealth have it during Rommel's First Offensive (they have a navy and a rail line), and the Soviets have it in Barbarossa (due to entrained units). A better way to do it would be to base initiative on which side was gaining ground. Just keep track of the total hex ownership count for each side, and the side which increased its count in the last turn would be favored to get the initiative in the next.

JAMiAM -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 9:59:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM It may take some further refinement of the engine to convince people of VI's benefits, but I think it can be done. The problem with VI as it now stands, is that it is so unrealistic, being based upon average movement allowance. So the side with more air, naval, and entrained units gets the initiative. That means the Commonwealth have it during Rommel's First Offensive (they have a navy and a rail line), and the Soviets have it in Barbarossa (due to entrained units). I agree here, Bob, which is why I threw in the above statement, now bolded for emphasis. quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay A better way to do it would be to base initiative on which side was gaining ground. Just keep track of the total hex ownership count for each side, and the side which increased its count in the last turn would be favored to get the initiative in the next. There are several parameters that I have in mind that will contribute to influencing initiative, and I would like to make it part of a separate EEV-like tracking system, so that events/TO's/etc can all factor into shifting initiative. We'll hash this out more in the private development forum, when we get to that stage.

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/3/2007 10:11:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM There are several parameters that I have in mind that will contribute to influencing initiative, and I would like to make it part of a separate EEV-like tracking system, so that events/TO's/etc can all factor into shifting initiative. We'll hash this out more in the private development forum, when we get to that stage. Sounds great!

SMK-at-work -> RE: Turned flank (2/4/2007 12:44:07 AM)
VI is, quite frankly, a pain in the butt from this player's pov. It really does nothing to simulate simultaneous movement by both sides - all you really get is alternative movement punctuated by "random" double moves by one side or other. At an extreme you get double moves almost every move!! I've played many games with it and would strongly advise game designers to avoid it and see if there can't be some means of making things a bit more equitable by other means. Assymetry or not! [:'(]

shunwick -> RE: Turned flank (2/4/2007 1:21:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work VI is, quite frankly, a pain in the butt from this player's pov. It really does nothing to simulate simultaneous movement by both sides - all you really get is alternative movement punctuated by "random" double moves by one side or other.� At an extreme you get double moves almost every move!! I've played many games with it and would strongly advise game designers to avoid it and see if there can't be some means of making things a bit more equitable by other means. Assymetry or not! [:'(] SMK-at_work, It's supposed to be a pain in the butt. Operationally, I think of it as one commander getting inside the planning cycle of the opposing commander. I agree that it needs refining but it's something that should be a part of any turn-based simulation of war. Real war is not strictly predictable or strictly linear. Best wishes,

Telumar -> RE: Turned flank (2/4/2007 2:54:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM We'll hash this out more in the private development forum, when we get to that stage. Sounds like a Nemeton for TOAW fanatics. [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.375