RE: Assault Class Ships (Full Version)

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



Message

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Assault Class Ships (5/28/2009 3:59:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Would like to see an assault class of ships added. Unlike the purely cargo class, the assault class would be able to disembark (land) troops on the same turn that it arrived in a coastal hex. Landing, of course, would require that a minimum amount of movement points be available to conduct the maneuver. There might also be limitations on the terrain and troops that can conduct such an assault.


See item 9.7. Also item 6.14.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Assault Class Ships (5/28/2009 4:01:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I was just thinking about a way of simulating minefields -- won't work, but it could easily be made to work.

The genesis of the idea came from my observations of the effects of 'contaminated' hexes. There's a huge movement penalty, and units will supposedly lose readiness if they sit in the hexes.

So...one could 'lay mines' by having a nuclear attack on vacant hexes.

The problem, of course, is that the effect is permanent, and randomly affects nearby hexes. Also, it would be nice if engineer units could 'lay' the mines rather than having some specialized bomber unit governed by house rules flying about to do the job. Then too, one wants engineers to be able to clean them up, or if one wants to reduce the bookkeeping, just have them evaporate once no unit is adjacent or within some given radius. Probably the latter, as minefields that aren't supported by defenders lose most of their military value. Not necessarily desireable to have your combat engineers diligently tidying up minefields long after the war has moved on.

However, the main point is that it strikes me that much of the programming must already be in place to permit 'minefields' if they are approached in this way.


See item 2.11



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (5/28/2009 4:05:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fogger

Some ideas for future updates

The ability to assign air units to a recon role and the ability to assign an area for that unit to recon.


See items 8.28 and 8.1

quote:

Air units to be able to bomb an empty hex or airfield. (I think that there is an enemy unit hiding there)


You can bomb the empty airfield now (but only if there is a hidden air unit in it - that's a fog-of-war leak). Just bombing an empty hex might be ok provided there was no combat report (to preserve fog-of-war).

quote:

The ability to assign artillery units to counter battery fire only.  


See item 8.8.



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: Briefings (5/28/2009 7:54:28 PM)

Now is only one briefing by start, a end briefing for: side 1 lost/side 2 win or side 1 win/side 2 lost or draw and this is for both sides.

I do like to see a briefing by start and end of the scenario specific for a side.

Example: A World War III scenario between Nato and Warsawpact. The player who's play Nato has a briefing by start that only he can read with orders/ oob reinforcements etc And the Warsawpact player receives another briefing.

And this also by the end of the scenario.




fogger -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (5/29/2009 11:05:54 AM)

Sorry for appearing stupid, but when you say see items 8.1, 8.28 & 8.8 they do not relate to my copy of the game manual so I am unsure where you want me to look.
Thanks for your help to date.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (5/29/2009 3:39:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fogger

Sorry for appearing stupid, but when you say see items 8.1, 8.28 & 8.8 they do not relate to my copy of the game manual so I am unsure where you want me to look.
Thanks for your help to date.


I'm referring to the "Comprehensive Wishlist". See post #1 of this thread.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (5/29/2009 11:23:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: fogger

Sorry for appearing stupid, but when you say see items 8.1, 8.28 & 8.8 they do not relate to my copy of the game manual so I am unsure where you want me to look.
Thanks for your help to date.


I'm referring to the "Comprehensive Wishlist". See post #1 of this thread.


Also item 13.2 on page 6.



desert -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (5/30/2009 1:05:25 AM)

quote:

You can bomb the empty airfield now (but only if there is a hidden air unit in it - that's a fog-of-war leak). Just bombing an empty hex might be ok provided there was no combat report (to preserve fog-of-war).



Actually, there should be a combat report. At least for the side sending the planes if not the side being bombed. That way the player will know if they lose some planes, which would indicate that there is an enemy unit in the hex. Also, these attacks should have a chance of spotting the hex involved.

As an aside, you could use this feature and the event engine to simulate strategic bombing.



rhinobones -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/22/2009 12:39:25 AM)

Would like to see a designer setting for “Retreat” and “Reorganization”. The existing propensity to retreat or go into reorganization would a default value of 5 and it would be adjustable by the designer from “1” all the time, to “10” never. The setting mechanics would be similar to what we already have for Attrition Divider.

Regards, RhinoBones



damezzi -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/23/2009 4:47:31 PM)

I would really like to see the dig in feature being dependent on the time scale and strongly dependent on the amount of movement points left. As it is, I can move until 1MP left on a half-day scenario and still have the chance to get entrenched. That would mean getting entrenched in 2 or 3 hours.

HQ influence based on distance would be nice also and the cancellation of movement penalty adjacent to enemy units when the size of a SPOTTED unit is very small in relation to the moving unit.

I imagine that those aren't very difficult features to implement and they could greatly improve gameplay and allow a different feel for different scenario scales.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/23/2009 8:10:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

I would really like to see the dig in feature being dependent on the time scale and strongly dependent on the amount of movement points left. As it is, I can move until 1MP left on a half-day scenario and still have the chance to get entrenched. That would mean getting entrenched in 2 or 3 hours.



From Ralph's blog, for 3.4 :

The chance of engineering and rail repair are now modified by the movement left.

Maybe that's one thing you are looking for. Maybe some others are there too, I only remembered this one. But in a one week turn, with 30 movement points, that would be 7 days by 24 hours = 168 hours, divided by 30 = 5.6 hours for each 1 movement point. That seems reasonable to dig in.

http://www.operationalwarfare.com



damezzi -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/23/2009 11:13:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL:  sPzAbt653

From Ralph's blog, for 3.4 :

The chance of engineering and rail repair are now modified by the movement left.

Maybe that's one thing you are looking for. Maybe some others are there too, I only remembered this one. But in a one week turn, with 30 movement points, that would be 7 days by 24 hours = 168 hours, divided by 30 = 5.6 hours for each 1 movement point. That seems reasonable to dig in.



I hope that this chance of engineering will apply to 'dig in' too.

For a one week scenario I agree, but even so, sometimes you'll attain an entrenched deployment with the 1 MP left, even if the hex is 0% in entrenchment level. That seems too much even for a one week scenario. But it really seems absurd in a half day scenario, after having moved almost all the way to face the enemy, to get an entrenched level with the 1MP left. Let's remember that an entrenched level barely correspond to dense urban terrain in terms of modifiers. Ok, dense urban will still have the advantage of not losing this condition after a bombardment/attack.

Anyway, having a better chance with each MP spared would make players use MPs more wisely. Let's hope that will be the case with the new patch.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/24/2009 6:05:46 AM)

The complaints about digging in gave me an idea.

Shouldn't leaving fortified/entrenched/defending status cost something?

After all, it's one thing to resume marching the next day if everyone just found a suitable peasant hut and got some zzz's -- it's another if the regiment spread itself out over 10 km, set up all its machine guns, unlimbered its artillery, etc.

Obviously, the cost shouldn't be as great to leave a defensive deployment as it cost to get into it -- but if it cost 10-25% of the unit's MP's the next turn to get back on the road again, people would only dig in units that they seriously expected to come under attack in their opponent's turn. Units that were really just interested in going from point A to point B or that were standing by as a fire brigade would remain in 'mobile' deployement -- which in the real world is where they would be.

Aside from everything else, this would help to avoid the 'instantaneous spring' effect in OPART, where (unlike as in the real world) it makes no difference whether a unit is standing by to make a move or not -- it alertly leaps up and marches off at full speed with no delay at all. Opart has other flaws in this area -- like armies really can't reverse the direction of their movement without complications in reality -- but the change I suggest might at least improve matters.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/24/2009 8:17:53 AM)

quote:

I hope that this chance of engineering will apply to 'dig in' too.


I'm guessing it does because digging in is considered engineering??

I think that normally a unit cannot go from 'D' to 'E' to 'F' in the same turn. If a unit moves then digs in and gets to E or F right away, it is either because they are stacked with an engineer unit, occupy a hex that has an existing entrenchment level, or the unit itself has a bunch of engineers in it.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/24/2009 3:09:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

I would really like to see the dig in feature being dependent on the time scale and strongly dependent on the amount of movement points left. As it is, I can move until 1MP left on a half-day scenario and still have the chance to get entrenched. That would mean getting entrenched in 2 or 3 hours.


I'm not sure whether it isn't already somewhat time-scale dependent, but, regardless, it doesn't seem to be dependent enough. And, it needs to be period dependent too. What Ralph is trying to do now is implement 12.25.4 so that designers can set the scenario entrenchment rate themselves.

Making it dependent on remaining movement is item 7.4.

quote:

HQ influence based on distance would be nice...


Too vague. What do you mean?

quote:

...also and the cancellation of movement penalty adjacent to enemy units when the size of a SPOTTED unit is very small in relation to the moving unit.


See item 7.7.

quote:

I imagine that those aren't very difficult features to implement...


You'd be surprised.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/24/2009 3:11:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

I hope that this chance of engineering will apply to 'dig in' too.


I'm guessing it does because digging in is considered engineering??


Assuming that "digging-in" assistance is dependent upon the engineering level, then it should be. You can see the unit Engineering Level decrease as the unit moves.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/24/2009 3:30:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The complaints about digging in gave me an idea.

Shouldn't leaving fortified/entrenched/defending status cost something?

After all, it's one thing to resume marching the next day if everyone just found a suitable peasant hut and got some zzz's -- it's another if the regiment spread itself out over 10 km, set up all its machine guns, unlimbered its artillery, etc.


But if you're at the front in Mobile deployment, you're still assumed to have spread out and etc. Otherwise, there would be severe penalties for getting attacked while in Mobile deployment - perhaps flanking-type penalties. And note that units are automatically in mobile deployment during and after an attack. They're out of their trenches, but they're still spread out in a combat deployment (and they paid a hex conversion cost to remain so).

quote:

Obviously, the cost shouldn't be as great to leave a defensive deployment as it cost to get into it -- but if it cost 10-25% of the unit's MP's the next turn to get back on the road again, people would only dig in units that they seriously expected to come under attack in their opponent's turn. Units that were really just interested in going from point A to point B or that were standing by as a fire brigade would remain in 'mobile' deployement -- which in the real world is where they would be.

Aside from everything else, this would help to avoid the 'instantaneous spring' effect in OPART, where (unlike as in the real world) it makes no difference whether a unit is standing by to make a move or not -- it alertly leaps up and marches off at full speed with no delay at all.


I think TOAW handles this via the hex conversion charges. Units in the rear move much more efficiently than units moving through enemy territory.

quote:

Opart has other flaws in this area -- like armies really can't reverse the direction of their movement without complications in reality -- but the change I suggest might at least improve matters.


For logistical reasons - and TOAW somewhat represents that via the supply penalty for units that have moved.



damezzi -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/25/2009 12:50:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

I would really like to see the dig in feature being dependent on the time scale and strongly dependent on the amount of movement points left. As it is, I can move until 1MP left on a half-day scenario and still have the chance to get entrenched. That would mean getting entrenched in 2 or 3 hours.


I'm not sure whether it isn't already somewhat time-scale dependent, but, regardless, it doesn't seem to be dependent enough. And, it needs to be period dependent too. What Ralph is trying to do now is implement 12.25.4 so that designers can set the scenario entrenchment rate themselves.

Making it dependent on remaining movement is item 7.4.


I had a look at this item. I like both sub items.

quote:


quote:

HQ influence based on distance would be nice...


Too vague. What do you mean?


A zone of influence, so that in scenarios with small distance hexes, the supply bonus could have a radio with decreasing benefit.

In fact, even if this isn't exactly a negative characteristic of the game, I think that it would be better if some concepts weren't based in hexes adjacency, but in real distance. One example I think is really illustrative is intelligence in open terrain. A unit in flat arid terrain, for example, should be able to sight enemy much further than 2.5km (not to mention naval units in open seas), but, as it is, in a 2.5 km hex scenario one can come across a unit in flat open terrain by surprise. The chance of spotting should be based on distance, in which case terrain influence should be greater, after all, one can be surprised by units much nearer than 2.5 km in the jungle; that would make terrain more important for the surprise element.

quote:

quote:

...also and the cancellation of movement penalty adjacent to enemy units when the size of a SPOTTED unit is very small in relation to the moving unit.


See item 7.7.


Exactly, but also applying to the penalties for moving from an adjacent hex to another.

quote:

quote:

I imagine that those aren't very difficult features to implement...


You'd be surprised.


My intention wasn't to undervalue the amount of work put in this kind of things. We can see it by those changes proposed by the new path and how much work seems to be involved. I only wanted to mean that it could be object of a patch and not a complete rethinking of the engine.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/25/2009 4:25:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

A zone of influence, so that in scenarios with small distance hexes, the supply bonus could have a radio with decreasing benefit.


Ok, just the supply, as opposed to command (see 4.14). That's what wasn't clear.

I'm not sure that the above will amount to much. Usually, the benefit to the unit for being adjacent to the HQ is only a couple of points. Trying to effect an exponential decay radiation of that may be close to pointless. And those scenarios with small-scale hexes are supposed to have small-scale HQs to go with it. In other words, at 2.5km, the HQs are battalion scale, whereas at 50km they're army-group scale, etc. (That was the theory, anyway).

quote:

In fact, even if this isn't exactly a negative characteristic of the game, I think that it would be better if some concepts weren't based in hexes adjacency, but in real distance. One example I think is really illustrative is intelligence in open terrain. A unit in flat arid terrain, for example, should be able to sight enemy much further than 2.5km...


I think this is a misconception about open terrain. It isn't a billiard table. It just isn't hilly or wooded enough to rate a hill or forest tile. You still can't detect properly cammo'ed defenders dug into it. And we don't want to get into line-of-sight issues. (However, see item 2.6 "Steppe").

quote:

...(not to mention naval units in open seas),


Now, here I agree. In fact, see item 9.18 (item 9.17 applies to this issue, too).

quote:

Exactly, but also applying to the penalties for moving from an adjacent hex to another.


It says that. ("Leaving/crossing").

quote:

My intention wasn't to undervalue the amount of work put in this kind of things. We can see it by those changes proposed by the new path and how much work seems to be involved. I only wanted to mean that it could be object of a patch and not a complete rethinking of the engine.


I only meant that the development team itself has been surprised by how difficult some very simple changes turn out to be. It just isn't as easy as people think (including us).



damezzi -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/25/2009 7:24:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

A zone of influence, so that in scenarios with small distance hexes, the supply bonus could have a radio with decreasing benefit.


Ok, just the supply, as opposed to command (see 4.14). That's what wasn't clear.

I'm not sure that the above will amount to much. Usually, the benefit to the unit for being adjacent to the HQ is only a couple of points. Trying to effect an exponential decay radiation of that may be close to pointless. And those scenarios with small-scale hexes are supposed to have small-scale HQs to go with it. In other words, at 2.5km, the HQs are battalion scale, whereas at 50km they're army-group scale, etc. (That was the theory, anyway).


Your argument makes sense to a certain degree, but I think that independently of the size of the HQ, distribution over a 50 km radio should be much more difficult than on a 2.5 km radio. Perhaps a two step decay, at least.

quote:

quote:

In fact, even if this isn't exactly a negative characteristic of the game, I think that it would be better if some concepts weren't based in hexes adjacency, but in real distance. One example I think is really illustrative is intelligence in open terrain. A unit in flat arid terrain, for example, should be able to sight enemy much further than 2.5km...


I think this is a misconception about open terrain. It isn't a billiard table. It just isn't hilly or wooded enough to rate a hill or forest tile. You still can't detect properly cammo'ed defenders dug into it. And we don't want to get into line-of-sight issues. (However, see item 2.6 "Steppe").


That`s why I used the word flat. Ok, open terrain in the game is generic, so we can`t know how exactly the topography is, but for sure units were able to spot other units once in a while in distances much greater than 2.5 km, even in hilly terrain, mainly when moving, and in the game, even when moving, those units won`t be seen by the enemy. You just can move around back and forth in a desert plain and don`t be spotted.
Perhaps a simplified line of sight... not cumulative, using only the most obstructive terrain type on the path between units. And, if that is expensive in computational terms, just give the player the option to check for enemies using a specific unit and some MPs (for detachments going to the higher spots, etc). Ok, this seems too complicated for a patch, but maybe there is another solution. The fact is that it`s weird to come suddenly across a unit in a desert plain, mainly when this unit has recently moved to a near position.


quote:

quote:

Exactly, but also applying to the penalties for moving from an adjacent hex to another.


It says that. ("Leaving/crossing").


Ok, my fault.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/26/2009 3:54:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

That`s why I used the word flat. Ok, open terrain in the game is generic, so we can`t know how exactly the topography is, but for sure units were able to spot other units once in a while in distances much greater than 2.5 km, even in hilly terrain, mainly when moving, and in the game, even when moving, those units won`t be seen by the enemy. You just can move around back and forth in a desert plain and don`t be spotted.


Spotting is dependent upon the type of terrain the unit is in. Perhaps if we ever implement the "Steppe" tile, there might be an even greater chance of spotting units in it. I had always thought that units that had moved were more likely to be spotted, but that's not mentioned in the manual, so perhaps that needs to be added. Personnally, I've always boosted the Theater Recon for both sides when doing a desert topic.

quote:

Perhaps a simplified line of sight... not cumulative, using only the most obstructive terrain type on the path between units. And, if that is expensive in computational terms, just give the player the option to check for enemies using a specific unit and some MPs (for detachments going to the higher spots, etc). Ok, this seems too complicated for a patch, but maybe there is another solution. The fact is that it`s weird to come suddenly across a unit in a desert plain, mainly when this unit has recently moved to a near position.


Line-of-sight requires elevations. That's different from terrain type. TOAW is not designed for that, and adding it would be a huge change.

One thing that might be useful would be the ability to vary the radius that a peak reveals. Currently it's fixed at 40km. If that was settable for each peak in the editor (default = 40km), designers could make more use of them.



damezzi -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/27/2009 3:21:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Line-of-sight requires elevations. That's different from terrain type. TOAW is not designed for that, and adding it would be a huge change.


I thought about a much simpler solution; no need for elevation. Elavation would already slip to the tactical scope. Toaw doesn`t use a precise representation of space, but one based on average, which is associated with probabilities of allowing a specific event to happen.

Let's consider the following path between two units: 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0. A friendly unit is in 1,0 and a enemy one is in 6,0.
If any of those hexes (3,0 4,0 5,0 or 6,0... 2,0 excluded) contained a terrain like mountains, dense jungle, dense urban etc, line of sight would be blocked and the enemy unit wouldn`t be seen.
For terrain type like hills, badlands, dunes etc, some chance of spotting an enemy unit would be attributed. Let`s say 50% for hills (that`s arbitrary, just for use in this example). If any of those intermediary hexes contained hills and this was the most restrictive hex, We would use 50% as the base number and a formula such as: (50 * m)/[(n° of hexes - 1) * scenario scale], where m is a multiplier to define the drop rate in visibility (if 1.25, for example, visibility would drop by half each 2.5 km from the initial base value). Always the most restrictive terrain type between units would be used to define the base, independently of what was contained in the other hexes. Perhaps, any other restrictive hex could signify a reduction on this base. Let's say a crop terrain was in the front of the hills and the value attributed to crop was 80%; then we could subtract 10%(half of 20) from the 50% base on the formula.
The adjacent hex (2,0) would be treated exactly as it is on the actual model.
There is a problem to this solution, which is: sometimes the line between units will pass exactly between two hexes, and using both hexes in this case would usually make such a line more restrictive. Well, but that's just the sketch of a solution.
I done know the kind of problem one would face to trace all the paths between units, but if that is expensive or difficult to implement, one could always use a spot units command costing some MPs as I suggested in the post above.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2009 12:23:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Would like to see a designer setting for “Retreat” and “Reorganization”. The existing propensity to retreat or go into reorganization would a default value of 5 and it would be adjustable by the designer from “1” all the time, to “10” never. The setting mechanics would be similar to what we already have for Attrition Divider.


I would think that should be a Force parameter, instead of like the AD. (The AD affects both sides.) So the Japs would be less likely to retreat than the Dutch, etc.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2009 12:34:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

I thought about a much simpler solution...


Didn't sound that simple. That would be a lot of effort to get an effect that's about as random and arbitrary as now (since you still don't model elevations). I still think that in most cases, operational scale units shouldn't detect enemy units beyond the operational hex-scale - that means adjacent. And that method would not give the designer any choice about it.

I think my mod of the peak hex would be best - the designer would control whether the location should have sight beyond adjacent - and how far beyond. Lots simpler, too. In effect, the peak hex is the only modeling of elevations that TOAW does - let's just expand on that.



damezzi -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2009 1:36:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Didn't sound that simple. That would be a lot of effort to get an effect that's about as random and arbitrary as now (since you still don't model elevations).


When I said simple, I wasn`t trying to compete with your idea; I meant simpler than having to simulate elevation.
I have to disagree that it would be as arbitrary as now. I don't know if I expressed myself clearly, but the formula by itself shows that a unit having 3 open hexes between itself and the enemy would have a greater chance of seeing the enemy than a unit which had a hill hex on the middle. If a mountain hex was present, sight would be blocked. It's logic and straightforward, even if not simple to program and I'm not discussing this merit, since I'm not a programmer.
I don't really see the need to simulate elevation here. When the game gives an advantage to the defender on a badland tile, for instance, it's not simulating each element of cover for the defender or each obstacle to the attacker; it's based on an average. The same principle can be used to line of sight. How far can one see across a dune terrain? across badlands? across light woods? This will depend if you're on a higher spot even if in the same kind of terrain as your enemy, if you're looking across a valley, etc. The same principle is used to define the chance of hitting of a anti-armor weapon. Toaw is all based on average and an average chance of spotting an enemy on a specific kind of terrain can be used. It will be as arbitrary as the chance off hitting for anti-armor based on visibility is at the moment and that is not bad for the scale of Toaw. And the designer could have control simply by changing the 'm' variable of the formula, for example.

quote:

I still think that in most cases, operational scale units shouldn't detect enemy units beyond the operational hex-scale - that means adjacent. And that method would not give the designer any choice about it.


That would mean that a tank division in the desert would always be able to detect farther than a company. The difference in reconnaissance for type and number of equipment is already modeled in the game and would obviously have an influence in the final probability with any method used. A modern period company would detect an enemy farther than an WWI period division.

Control could be given to the designer by letting him attribute a value to 'm' in the formula.

quote:

I think my mod of the peak hex would be best - the designer would control whether the location should have sight beyond adjacent - and how far beyond. Lots simpler, too. In effect, the peak hex is the only modeling of elevations that TOAW does - let's just expand on that.


The peak solution can be a work around and can be a lot simpler to implement (I'm not against it), but for a battle on an open plain without peaks? And if designers use peak to simulate better visibility, hiding the peak graphics, one would be able to look through an obstructive terrain type from above, seeing what's behind a mountain hex for instance.

I'm not disputing with you Curtis, to see who has the best method, even because I'm not part of the design team and yours is the last word. Maybe my method can't be implemented without a lot of collateral effects which wouldn't be desirable and even worth the effort, but for sure it isn't as arbitrary as the actual method, since clearly it would define the probability of detecting an enemy unit based on the kind of terrain that lies in-between. For sure it should be almost impossible to detect a unit behind a mountainous terrain (the exception would be if one is looking through a gorge, but then what are the probabilities of such a situation to happen. Most probable is that one would detect a moving unit on or across dunes terrain) and a lot more probable to detect one across bocage terrain. Ok, we would be ignoring the difference in altitude between similar kind of terrain, but even if incomplete, I think it's better than the actual method and this last problem could be fixed by a designer with a peak, since then one would really be able to look from above.





Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2009 3:48:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

When I said simple, I wasn`t trying to compete with your idea;


I don't care who's idea it is.

quote:

I meant simpler than having to simulate elevation.


Not much simpler - line-of-sight paths from/to each unit must be determined. That's most of the line-of-sight process. It just leaves out the elevations - making it bogus.

quote:

I have to disagree that it would be as arbitrary as now.


It will definitely be random and definitely be arbitrary. We have that now with the Theater Recon - that also is affected by the terrain type, among other things.

quote:

I don't know if I expressed myself clearly, but the formula by itself shows that a unit having 3 open hexes between itself and the enemy would have a greater chance of seeing the enemy than a unit which had a hill hex on the middle. If a mountain hex was present, sight would be blocked.


You are confusing relief with altitude. The tiles in TOAW are only modeling relief (how "wrinkled" the terrain is). Terrain can be low in altitude and high in relief or vice-versa. There is no basis to assume that an open hex is lower or higher in altitude than any other open hex, or a hill or mountain hex, etc. There is one exception: The peak hex. That's the only feature in TOAW that models altitude in any fashion.

quote:

And the designer could have control simply by changing the 'm' variable of the formula, for example.


Ok - I missed the "m" factor.

quote:

....and yours is the last word.


Oh, if only that were the case. [:)]



damezzi -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2009 6:10:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Not much simpler - line-of-sight paths from/to each unit must be determined. That's most of the line-of-sight process. It just leaves out the elevations - making it bogus.


As I said, I can`t discuss the difficulty of programming it; I'm not a programmer. If paths are the problem, then just forget it.

quote:


It will definitely be random and definitely be arbitrary. We have that now with the Theater Recon - that also is affected by the terrain type, among other things.


Oh, then tell me what isn't in Toaw. Terrain modifiers are arbitrary numbers, probability of hitting are arbitrary, and probability of spotting based on terrain are arbitrary too for sure and at the end, any of those events are random. Toaw is all based on arbitrary numbers (specified according to assumed averages) and random dice roll. Is there something more arbitrary and random than a quality check (which is based in strong arbitrary abstractions)?
For sure my solution would be as random and arbitrary as theater recon, but at least it would be based in units relative position.

quote:


You are confusing relief with altitude. The tiles in TOAW are only modeling relief (how "wrinkled" the terrain is). Terrain can be low in altitude and high in relief or vice-versa. There is no basis to assume that an open hex is lower or higher in altitude than any other open hex, or a hill or mountain hex, etc. There is one exception: The peak hex. That's the only feature in TOAW that models altitude in any fashion.


No, I'm not. If you read my last paragraph, you'll see that I suggest using your solution to simulate elevation, since then one would be able to look above any kind of terrain. But you must admit that MOST of the time a mountainous region will block terrain; MOST of the time a hilly region will place some obstruction to the line of sight. Most of the time open terrain with some forest in the middle will have the line of sight blocked by it. Toaw is all based on average after all. Not always will it be easier for a primitive anti-tank gun to hit a tank in a forest than in the open, but most of the time... and that`s what Toaw model, not specific situations.
You may still have open terrain in different levels, for example, in which case forest or hill terrain, if in lower level, wouldn't block the view, but then, designers could use your idea to model it.

Anyway, as you said, path processing would be the difficult part of it, so, no use in going further with this discussion.
I hope that at least your idea will be implemented, because having an open plain with no visibility to it is weird.
I remember that the first time I really noticed reconnaissance issues was when I was playing Kasserine. Ok, the terrain in Kasserine don`t allow for such a great visibility, but then I had complete air superiority and wasn`t able to spot even on roads. Not knowing what is 5 km ahead (in your path) in the open when you have absolute air superiority...
So, I think that theater reconnaissance being more strongly influenced by air superiority is another wish I have. Or reconnaissance mission if possible, but that was already discussed somewhere, I think.




sPzAbt653 -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2009 9:01:51 PM)

quote:

...noticed reconnaissance issues was when I was playing Kasserine...


Kasserine has fairly low recon levels, 15 for the Axis, 5 for the Allies. You might want to try setting them a little higher for yourself to see if you get a more desired effect.



damezzi -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/28/2009 10:30:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Kasserine has fairly low recon levels, 15 for the Axis, 5 for the Allies. You might want to try setting them a little higher for yourself to see if you get a more desired effect.

Yes, you`re right. I can get a better result this way for sure, but yet it won`t be as highly dependent on air superiority as it should. I think that theatre recon should strongly oscilate depending on air superiority and range of low altitude airplanes. The manual states that it depends on it among other things, but clearly not enough.
The first function of airplanes in WWI was reconnaissance and I think it still is one of extreme importance.

Well, but after all, air units aren`t the strong point in Toaw. Maybe in Toaw IV, together with naval combat.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/29/2009 7:14:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I think TOAW handles this via the hex conversion charges. Units in the rear move much more efficiently than units moving through enemy territory.


About half right. YOu've got a point about the hex conversion penalty -- but this is actually a problem when one is trying to model campaigns where either there really wasn't anything resembling 'hex ownership' (North Africa, for example) or where one side was going so hell for leather considerations of 'hex ownership' didn't slow them in the least (France in 1940, Barbarossa). Conversely, as it stands, one can run right along a completely ungarrisoned front -- if one 'owns' the hexes one will have all the benefits of this secure movement. If the enemy crosses over and attacks, you're magically deployed.

It'd be good if 'hex ownership' penalties could be adjusted from 0 to 100% of their current values for each force -- or even each army. Alternatively, if the unit was motorized and one could have the option of choosing to stay in 'marching order' one's movement rate could be doubled.

Finally, and as yet a third alternative, 'hex ownership' would not be static, but would be recalculated each turn on the basis of the proximity of units from each side. Again ideally, this value could be scaled for each force, and there would be a 'neutral' type that could or could not impose movement penalties on either or both of the forces but where neither force would 'see' any enemy units. That is to say, it would be friendly for movement purposes for both sides but hostile for recon purposes.


quote:

quote:

Opart has other flaws in this area -- like armies really can't reverse the direction of their movement without complications in reality -- but the change I suggest might at least improve matters.


For logistical reasons - and TOAW somewhat represents that via the supply penalty for units that have moved.


Now here I really can't see your argument. In what way does TOAW simulate the difficulties involved in suddenly changing an axis of advance?



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.53125