RE: Features for ToaW 4

RE: Features for ToaW 4 (Full Version)

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

Message

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/15/2007 6:12:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work quote: ORIGINAL: Veers quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work Not quite - they had information that elements of 2 Panzer divisions rewere refitting in the area, but they dismissed it - they didn't "decide to drop anyways" - they decided the intell was wrong. And the differance between deciding to drop anyways, and deciding that the intel was wrong are...what? Cause to me they look pretty uch the same. They sure are if you're one of the people dropping!! But not in terms of what you said - you said they knew there were panzers in the area - by which I'm taking "panzers" to mean the 2 divisions and not jsut a few stray tanks that they did "know" about. In fact what they knew was that there were REPORTS of panzer divisions in the area - the disregarded them as inaccurate and therefore they actually thought there were not panzer divisions in the area. Exactly. No member of Monty's intel staff walked into his office and told him that the official position of the intel staff was that there were Panzer divisions in Arnhem. From his perspective (and that would be the perspective represented in TOAW) there were no panzer divisions spotted in Arnhem. Spotting some tanks is not the same as spotting a panzer division. I've proposed that paradrops be executed as a combat action in the combat phase, rather than movement. As such, units landing on an enemy unit would not require a RBC to survive. Rather, they would engage in full combat (under serious debilitation, of course), giving them much better chances of survival, but without the gamey ability to reschedule other drops on the intel gathered from earlier drops.

Veers -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/15/2007 9:06:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work quote: ORIGINAL: Veers quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work Not quite - they had information that elements of 2 Panzer divisions rewere refitting in the area, but they dismissed it - they didn't "decide to drop anyways" - they decided the intell was wrong. And the differance between deciding to drop anyways, and deciding that the intel was wrong are...what? Cause to me they look pretty uch the same. They sure are if you're one of the people dropping!! But not in terms of what you said - you said they knew there were panzers in the area - by which I'm taking "panzers" to mean the 2 divisions and not jsut a few stray tanks that they did "know" about. In fact what they knew was that there were REPORTS of panzer divisions in the area - the disregarded them as inaccurate and therefore they actually thought there were not panzer divisions in the area. Exactly. No member of Monty's intel staff walked into his office and told him that the official position of the intel staff was that there were Panzer divisions in Arnhem. From his perspective (and that would be the perspective represented in TOAW) there were no panzer divisions spotted in Arnhem. Spotting some tanks is not the same as spotting a panzer division. I've proposed that paradrops be executed as a combat action in the combat phase, rather than movement. As such, units landing on an enemy unit would not require a RBC to survive. Rather, they would engage in full combat (under serious debilitation, of course), giving them much better chances of survival, but without the gamey ability to reschedule other drops on the intel gathered from earlier drops. Good points, lads. However, I still think that until we geta more realistic system where reconnaisance assets can be concentrated on an area (Which was done at Arnhem, though it failed), and give us right or wrong itelligence, the only way to do any reconnaisance of the area is through the 'gamey' technique of landing 1/3 at a time.

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/15/2007 10:20:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work quote: ORIGINAL: Veers Heh heh heh. Recon is currently totally random, which is bullshit. The Soviets may have chosen not, or been unable, to recon properly, but, if you recal, the Allies famously knew that there were tanks at Arnhem, and decided to drop anyways. Not quite - they had information that elements of 2 Panzer divisions rewere refitting in the area, but they dismissed it - they didn't "decide to drop anyways" - they decided the intell was wrong. That's not somethign you get from recon in ToaW - if you get intel it is always 100% correct....it may not be complete but you know that whatever yoo do get is accurate. Now if you could factor in false intel you'd have a good point. But until then you are still wrong [8D] So I must teach history here... Ok. Allies did know that in vicinity of Arnhem were two panzer divisions. 9th SS and 10th SS. You forget on thing. Those two divisions got a very BLOODY NOSE in Normandy and were REFITTING near Arnhem. For example 9th SS had all personell at 2500! Do you call that complete divisions? So Allies choosed to deploy paras because they knew that those two divisions were understregth. They didn't reckoned with Model good improvisation and speedy response. And Germans did much with even those two divisions that were weak. Also, British XXX corps. didn't advanced so fast and suffered I think of weak flanks and very narrow breaktrough corridor which was cut many times by Germans... I was thinking that you knew that. c-c-c-c... Mario

freeboy -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/15/2007 10:23:50 PM)
In regard to wether to allow para during movement, I suppose something is to be said for scale.. in a gmae for ww2 certainly intellon a drop the next day or two is reallistic, in modern times almost instantanious so I do take exceiption to the comment re dropping during combat.

Veers -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/15/2007 10:26:50 PM)
quote: Allies did know that in vicinity of Arnhem were two panzer divisions. 9th SS and 10th SS. I'm not one hundred percent sure on this. And, in fact, from what I've read, the Allies did not, in fact, know for certain that they were there. quote: You forget on thing. Those two divisions got a very BLOODY NOSE in Normandy and were REFITTING near Arnhem. No, we (well, I, anyways, and I'm sure SMK and Bob also did not forget) did not forget that. It was irrelevant to the discussion, so it was not brought up. quote: Also, British XXX corps. didn't advanced so fast and suffered I think of weak flanks and very narrow breaktrough corridor which was cut many times by Germans... This one is common knowledge, spelling this one out to people is likely to just make them think you're tryign to insult their intelligence, Mario. quote: I was thinking that you knew that. c-c-c-c... Well, you were right about this, at least.

Veers -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/15/2007 10:29:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freeboy In regard to wether to allow para during movement, I suppose something is to be said for scale.. in a gmae for ww2 certainly intellon a drop the next day or two is reallistic, in modern times almost instantanious so I do take exceiption to the comment re dropping during combat. Good point. When I speak, I speak in regards to large scale scenarios (Div up), because those are what I play.

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/15/2007 10:35:30 PM)
quote: I'm not one hundred percent sure on this. And, in fact, from what I've read, the Allies did not, in fact, know for certain that they were there. Yes, confusion is that one source tells that they didn't know but later research showed that Dutch resistance did in fact send them info about those two divisions. But combat strenght of both were more like kampfgruppe. If XXX corps. was faster then paras would not be butchered there. Anyway whole operation was big fiasco and based on many what if's. The biggest fantasy was that it would bring war to the end. That was in fact real fantasy. Maybe next goal would be paras jump on Berlin? Mario

Veers -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/15/2007 10:40:13 PM)
quote: I'm not one hundred percent sure on this. And, in fact, from what I've read, the Allies did not, in fact, know for certain that they were there. quote: Yes, confusion is that one source tells that they didn't know but later research showed that Dutch resistance did in fact send them info about those two divisions. But combat strenght of both were more like kampfgruppe. Not debating that there was intelligence (aerial and Dutch underground), but just because there is intelligence, doesn't mean you know there is or is not something there. I mean, I could have phoned up Bush and told him going into Iraq would just result in a massive cluster-***, doesn't mean he'd believe me. [:D] quote:* If XXX corps. was faster then paras would not be butchered there. True. But this has nothing to do with how recon and paras work in TOAW.

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/15/2007 10:43:37 PM)
quote: This one is common knowledge, spelling this one out to people is likely to just make them think you're tryign to insult their intelligence, Mario. What's this a rebellion? [:D] Are you here for a fight with me? Haha Relax a bit. Nobody is trying to insult anybody's intelligence. I am just telling that 2500 men division is more kampfgruppe and on many boards people say divisions. Division is something 10000+. I suspect that Allies knew that there were some elements of panzer divisions that's why they jumped there. War is also a risk and a chance. They would never made a jump if they would have been suspicious that they didn't had enough forces to deal with threat on the ground. And forces that were landed were not so small. So they just miscalculated. I am also suspicious that Allies fabricated lies about not knowing about 2ss corps to mask they not glorious defeat there after the war. My 2 euro cents Mario

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/15/2007 10:45:30 PM)
quote: Not debating that there was intelligence (aerial and Dutch underground), but just because there is intelligence, doesn't mean you know there is or is not something there. I mean, I could have phoned up Bush and told him going into Iraq would just result in a massive cluster-****, doesn't mean he'd believe me. [:D] I have no problem with that. So there was just partial intelligence.

Telumar -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/15/2007 11:28:08 PM)
"Die Geister die ich rief.." - The ghosts that i evoked.... I like Bob's idea of conducting Para drops in the combat execution phase. That Arnhem stuff takes us nowhere btw.

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/15/2007 11:35:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Telumar "Die Geister die ich rief.." - The ghosts that i evoked.... I like Bob's idea of conducting Para drops in the combat execution phase. That Arnhem stuff takes us nowhere btw. I agree.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/16/2007 12:17:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain quote: So I must teach history here... Ok. <snip> I was thinking that you knew that. c-c-c-c... And I was thinking that everyone knew it so I didn't have to repeat all the detail and just gave a brief outline.....looks like we were both wrong.......

freeboy -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/16/2007 10:17:23 PM)
ok, In a patch or in the next comming of TOAW3, when a unit is destroyed the enemy that destroys it should get a small percentage of equipment if unit is in supply. If unit is not in supply, ie surrounded, then a very large percentage of equipment should be added to the attacker.

Veers -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/16/2007 11:00:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freeboy ok, In a patch or in the next comming of TOAW3, when a unit is destroyed the enemy that destroys it should get a small percentage of equipment if unit is in supply. If unit is not in supply, ie surrounded, then a very large percentage of equipment should be added to the attacker. This is a very complex issue. Some inclusion of the principal of the thought should be included, however.

m5000.2006 -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/16/2007 11:20:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freeboy ok, In a patch or in the next comming of TOAW3, when a unit is destroyed the enemy that destroys it should get a small percentage of equipment if unit is in supply. If unit is not in supply, ie surrounded, then a very large percentage of equipment should be added to the attacker. but what if the attacker uses completeley different equipment? would you suggest the enemy equipment should appear in the attacking unit as something extra, additionally to what has been officially assigned?

Veers -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/16/2007 11:29:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m5000.2006 quote: ORIGINAL: freeboy ok, In a patch or in the next comming of TOAW3, when a unit is destroyed the enemy that destroys it should get a small percentage of equipment if unit is in supply. If unit is not in supply, ie surrounded, then a very large percentage of equipment should be added to the attacker. but what if the attacker uses completeley different equipment? would you suggest the enemy equipment should appear in the attacking unit as something extra, additionally to what has been officially assigned? Hence why it's a very complex issue.

Telumar -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/17/2007 12:42:09 AM)
Haha imagine a german security battalion with T34's! Not to mention modern conflicts..there is probably not much that a US Marine Bn can use from surrendering Irakis....maybe some Khouzi and Rice..bon appetit! [:'(] Another thing is supply (and to a certain degree ammunition) - Rommel lived quite well from british supply on a few occasions.. Maybe this should be something that the scenario designer should set up (or let it out). Captured equipment could go to the pools and be used as a substitute for a 'national' equipment (7.62mm Russian AT Gun instead of the 75mm PAK40 i.e.). Which equipment could be used to substitute certain own systems/equipment pieces in which units could be set up by the designer. On the other hand transport assets could be used immediately by the capturing unit to a certain degree (i think mainly of trucks, halftracks, scout cars, jeeps, tractors and such light stuff) As Wyatt says, this is a complicated issue.

Veers -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/17/2007 12:48:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Telumar Maybe this should be something that the scenario designer should set up (or let it out). Captured equipment could go to the pools and be used as a substitute for a 'national' equipment (7.62mm Russian AT Gun instead of the 75mm PAK40 i.e.). Which equipment could be used to substitute certain own systems/equipment pieces in which units could be set up by the designer. The problem here being that it could take many, many events to set something like this up, if it can be done at all. As well, the designer cannot forsee everythign that could possibly happen in a scenario, making it very hard to do events for every possibility. quote: ORIGINAL: Telumar As Wyatt says, this is a complicated issue. As well it has been discussed before, with well thought out points. Maybe some links to the discussions over at GS and TDG could be posted, (I would, but I can't seem to find them) for people's reading.

Telumar -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/17/2007 12:55:16 AM)
I also don't remember where it was discussed, someone who is interested might go through the various disputes between Bob Cross and Colin Wright over at the tdg. It wouldn't take events, btw, this could be something that can be regulated by the replacement system. All in all i don't regard this as that important, it would ne a nice extra gift but nothing ultimatively neccessary.

Veers -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/17/2007 1:33:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Telumar It wouldn't take events, btw, this could be something that can be regulated by the replacement system. To do it right would require events. To have it just trickle in is what you can do, but that doesn't adequately explain why you've been getting foreign equipment when you haven't fought a battle with them in 6 months...To do it right, ti would have to be dependent on different things that could nto be handled alone by the replacements editor. quote: All in all i don't regard this as that important, it would ne a nice extra gift but nothing ultimatively neccessary. Personally, I'd love to see soem form of it implemented. :D

Telumar -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/17/2007 4:28:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers quote: ORIGINAL: Telumar It wouldn't take events, btw, this could be something that can be regulated by the replacement system. To do it right would require events. To have it just trickle in is what you can do, but that doesn't adequately explain why you've been getting foreign equipment when you haven't fought a battle with them in 6 months...To do it right, ti would have to be dependent on different things that could nto be handled alone by the replacements editor. I meant not with the current replacement system. Once again as an example: East front campaign a la FitE. The scenario designer sets a unit (let's say xy Sicherheits-Regiment) to 'receive captured equipment', picks the 75mm Light Gun and enters as an alternative one or two enemy pieces of equipment (let's say a soviet infantry gun and soviet 120mm or whatever mortars). During the game 10.Panzer Div overruns a Soviet Infantry Division. Let's say 20 captured infantry guns (among other items) go to the replacement pool. Later in game xy Sicherheits-Regiment gets low on infantry guns and the pool for the standard german IG is low, too. So xy Sicherheits-Regiment will receive some captured guns as replacement instead of the standard german ones which will be issued to other units. Something along these lines.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/17/2007 4:36:51 AM)
That would be nice. It's easy to think of other ways of doign it too - or ways that might be used in parallel. Say setting up alternative weapons globally, and then doing total equipment swaps at a certain unit leval and/or fraction so that units only have 1 type - eg FitE German regimental 75mm artillery might be set to swap at regiment scale for Soviet 76mm infantry guns, while divisional artillery might be set to swap 105's for 122mm howitzers at 1/3rd a time representing replacing 1 regiment Starts to get complicated of course....

Veers -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/17/2007 5:18:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Telumar quote: ORIGINAL: Veers quote: ORIGINAL: Telumar It wouldn't take events, btw, this could be something that can be regulated by the replacement system. To do it right would require events. To have it just trickle in is what you can do, but that doesn't adequately explain why you've been getting foreign equipment when you haven't fought a battle with them in 6 months...To do it right, ti would have to be dependent on different things that could nto be handled alone by the replacements editor. I meant not with the current replacement system. Gotcha.

el cid -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/17/2007 7:11:29 PM)
Perhaps it has been mentioned before, but there could be better ways of dealing with replacements. - I don´t understand why replacements can get to units far away faster that actual units - I wish the player con select which units would have proirities for replacements, not the deisgner I understand that then one would have to differentiate between repaired equipment (that damaged during combat) and new equipment coming out of training camps or factories). The repaired equipment would be inmediately available to the unit, and it would normally be directly assigned to the unit that initially belonged to. The new equipment would come from replacement points (like supply points) and it could be asigned by the player to the units he desired. And there would be some time before reaching the unit depending on the distance and comunication paths. Perhpas this could add extra complexity to the game, and probably it would be made optional.

m5000.2006 -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/17/2007 8:41:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid [...] The repaired equipment would be inmediately available to the unit, and it would normally be directly assigned to the unit that initially belonged to. [...] ... also why not add an editor option which allows flagging some units for enhanced equipment recovery, as some units were quite good at it of course, this would make things even more complicated...

Veers -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/17/2007 8:44:18 PM)
[:D]Complicated is good. T3 wouldn't be the great game it is if it wasn't complicated. Besides, the complication you just suggested, M5000, would only be a complication in the Designing phase. That's so complicated already that another small complication (which is more tedious than challenging) won't really affect it.

JAMiAM -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/18/2007 5:02:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers [:D]Complicated is good. T3 wouldn't be the great game it is if it wasn't complicated. Besides, the complication you just suggested, M5000, would only be a complication in the Designing phase. That's so complicated already that another small complication (which is more tedious than challenging) won't really affect it. That's going to make you really popular with the scenario designing crowd...[;)]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/18/2007 5:51:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid Perhaps it has been mentioned before, but there could be better ways of dealing with replacements. - I don´t understand why replacements can get to units far away faster that actual units - I wish the player con select which units would have proirities for replacements, not the deisgner I understand that then one would have to differentiate between repaired equipment (that damaged during combat) and new equipment coming out of training camps or factories). The repaired equipment would be inmediately available to the unit, and it would normally be directly assigned to the unit that initially belonged to. The new equipment would come from replacement points (like supply points) and it could be asigned by the player to the units he desired. And there would be some time before reaching the unit depending on the distance and comunication paths. Perhpas this could add extra complexity to the game, and probably it would be made optional. This is already somewhat modeled by evaporation => reconstitution. Evaporation often represents units just losing cohesion. As such, they really should reform near where they lost that cohesion, rather than far away at the other end of the map. The fact that they instead do reform far away and then have to march all the way to the front tends to model the movement of new replacements. You just have to be sure that you evaporate your enemy's units, not just decimate them. Conversely, the ability of decimated units to rebuild quickly without need for movement of replacements models the reforming of scattered/straggling troops rather than the delivery of new replacements.

Telumar -> RE: Features for ToaW 4 (4/20/2007 2:30:20 AM)
Let me open another front: Mechanical Attrition What's that?! We all know the force pestilence level event effect: The Force Pestilence Level This value represents a force’s vulnerability to disease losses, and is limited to the range 0 to 50. It sets a percentage of equipment lost by every unit in the force on every turn. Infantry, horse transport and cavalry equipment is lost at this rate, while all other types of equipment are lost at half the rate. Now if we had something similar that would just affect motorised equipment this could be usefull to simulate various conditions: Desert warfare (forces that are relatively unprepared for the conditions, sandstorms, heat, even vehicle columns dispersing dust), Mud (Russian 'Rasputitsa', or as another example Anzio (terrible ground conditions for vehicles off roads)), extreme cold (though this is already somehow covered by the pestilence level). What do you think?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.013672