RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (Full Version)

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



Message


sPzAbt653 -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/19/2013 2:20:09 AM)

I ran it thru as the Allies vs. the PO and got a significant victory. I didn't find it that easy, but I don't think I'm the best player either. I can send you the end file if you like to see those.

If you hadn't seen them, a couple sites that list a lot of the strongpoints are :

http://bunkersite.com/index.php
http://www.atlantikwall.org.uk/index.htm

The stuff isn't organized the way we'd like it to be, but I spent some time going thru them to find stuff I could add to my scenario. I also got a little booklet by Steven Zaloga called The Atlantic Wall, it was a decent way to cross reference those two sites.

On review, I might say that the Allied movement allowances are too high. I know the Americans could always find enough trucks to motorize an infantry division, but the thought of battalions loading into trucks and driving thru the bocage and marshes doesn't seem right. Similarly, the British never did anything bold. Even during Goodwood the 51st Div sat at the start line for 'protection' while the tanks struggled without infantry support.

Thanks for the nice scenario [sm=00000436.gif]

[image]local://upfiles/24850/060B86A246D641169346323A15732D70.jpg[/image]




Brett Turner -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/19/2013 3:14:21 AM)

Thank you for the good words. I'm glad you didn't find it terribly unbalanced. Version 3.0, played in TOAW 3.4, is pretty unbalanced toward the Allies when the PO plays itself; the Allies almost always win.

I'm testing Curtis Lemay's notion of droppoing British formation proficiencies to model British unwillingness to take casualties, and it is working pretty well, the British war machine has finally slowed down some. PO vs. PO is now about 50% draw, 50% Allied victory. I'm getting there.

It will be interesting to see some human testing, I have a sense that the PO attacks better than it defends, but I'm not 100% sure.

Thank you also for the sites, I will check them out.

--Brett




Oberst_Klink -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/19/2013 8:36:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brett Turner

Thank you for the good words. I'm glad you didn't find it terribly unbalanced. Version 3.0, played in TOAW 3.4, is pretty unbalanced toward the Allies when the PO plays itself; the Allies almost always win.

I'm testing Curtis Lemay's notion of droppoing British formation proficiencies to model British unwillingness to take casualties, and it is working pretty well, the British war machine has finally slowed down some. PO vs. PO is now about 50% draw, 50% Allied victory. I'm getting there.

It will be interesting to see some human testing, I have a sense that the PO attacks better than it defends, but I'm not 100% sure.

Thank you also for the sites, I will check them out.

--Brett

Sign me up for the PBEM or Beta testing, aye?

Klink, Oberst
@Stalino, LwKdo Don




r6kunz -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/19/2013 8:21:52 PM)

Brett, et al, may I suggest we move this to its own thread in SCENARIO DESIGN? Great scenario when it came out, and I am so glad to see Brett taking up the ball again. I started work on a .mod that has tried to tone done the Allies- decreased movement to 80%, decreased initial Allied landings to the forces that actually reached the beaches (especially tanks in the first wave), and decreased Allied reinforcement rates. Brett, I would be happen to send you a rough draft via PM...

signed
Kunz, HPTM




Brett Turner -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (8/4/2013 1:01:28 AM)

Two Weeks In Normandy, version 4.00 Beta 1, is now available.

I have created a discussion thread in the Scenario Design forum.

Thank you all again for your interest and suggestions!


--Brett Turner




ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (8/10/2013 12:32:35 AM)

quote:

On review, I might say that the Allied movement allowances are too high. I know the Americans could always find enough trucks to motorize an infantry division, but the thought of battalions loading into trucks and driving thru the bocage and marshes doesn't seem right. Similarly, the British never did anything bold. Even during Goodwood the 51st Div sat at the start line for 'protection' while the tanks struggled without infantry support.


There's a big difference between troops that actually kept their vehicles in combat (panzergrenadiers, 'motor infantry' battalions, etc) and those that merely used trucks to get to the battlefield.

The latter would advance, fight, etc on foot, as a rule.

One thing you can do that I make use of in various scenarios is to regard truck movement of this kind as rail movement. I've actually edited the sound tile and altered the 'rail' tile to make it tidier in some scenarios -- but you wouldn't really need to do that.

Make Allied infantry units truckless. Then give them a hell of a rail movement allowance and a very quick rate of rail repair. Obviously, that would create some other problems -- but it might turn out to be a net plus.

For one, looking beyond just this scenario, one can limit just how many Allied divisions can go charging off across France. Historically, some were in fact stripped of their trucks in order to make a rapid advance possible.

More generally, though, we need dedicated truck units. Some way has to be found to simulate the real situation that existed outside the American Army. Almost all forces could move part of their infantry by truck -- and they could vary which part. However, they couldn't move all of it at once. The British army, for example, in at least the earlier part of the war, provided enough trucks to lift any one of the three brigades in a division at a time -- when Slim was advancing through Iraq, some of his troops rode, and the rest just stayed behind. German infantry units advancing through Russia in 1941-42 habitually formed a 'schnell abteilung' that would fully motorize an advance detachment whilst the rest of the division trailed along as best it could.

...I suppose that the most practical way of simulating both the value and the limitations of this would be to allow infantry to entruck or detruck -- so long as they weren't adjacent to an enemy unit.

...or some such programmable expedient. The point would be to confer (a) flexibility as to which units get a ride, whilst (b) preventing them from being panzergrenadiers. Perhaps 'entrucked' units would automatically detruck when they moved adjacent to an enemy unit -- and could only entruck at the start of their move. That should prove fairly easy to introduce -- and of course players can always stick with the current arrangement if it doesn't work for their purposes.




Brett Turner -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (8/10/2013 1:16:27 AM)

Would be be sufficient simply to allow exchange of equipment between two units which start the turn in the same hex?

That plus a few dummy truck units (e.g., 1 jeep and 0/50 trucks) would allow shuttling of trucks between different divisions on different turns.

I haven't peered inside the combat resolution black box---does the mere presence of trucks (not halftracks or APCs) in the unit cause the infantry to fight as panzergrenadiers?




Shazman -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (8/10/2013 1:43:47 AM)

Trucks in TOAW is an abstract term. Could be one, five or ten. Halftracks are also abstract when moving things like guns and troops. But when involved in combat one halftrack is one halftrack. Same with jeeps and other vehicles. So that one jeep might move an entire battalion. A halftrack is abstract there but not abstract there. It's a real mess. Been some discussion about the abstract truck thing before. Can't recall who or where.




Brett Turner -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (8/10/2013 2:33:12 AM)

If a halftrack is a halftrack in combat, then a truck is a truck; and since a truck is unarmed, trucks don't increase the combat effectiveness of anything else, e.g., infantry, in the same unit.

Correct? If so, all we really need to model a truck pool is to allow transfers of the same equipment (trucks) between units in the same square, perhaps plus a few dummy units to take the trucks from point A to point B without any real combat units have to go with them.

Equipment transfers aren't my #1 priority, but they would be nice to have.





sPzAbt653 -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (8/10/2013 11:35:50 AM)

quote:

since a truck is unarmed, trucks don't increase the combat effectiveness of anything else


Check that, because Trucks (and any Transport Asset) add to the Defense Value of the unit that they are in >>

[image]local://upfiles/24850/2083CB9D06334ED5BA5626606D859B22.jpg[/image]




Brett Turner -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (8/10/2013 3:03:15 PM)

For a 1 defense strength, is the addition significant?




sPzAbt653 -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (8/11/2013 1:00:22 AM)

I have 'truck' units in one of my scenarios that contain 1,000 trucks and they have a defense strength of 27. Halftracks and carriers contribute more.




tcarusil -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (11/13/2013 4:44:56 PM)

This may have been mentioned before, or worse yet may already be a feature I have not discovered, but it would be nice if there was a screen, maybe the OOB, where one could tell which units had movement points left. I keep losing units in the stacks.

TomC




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (11/13/2013 11:16:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tcarusil

This may have been mentioned before, or worse yet may already be a feature I have not discovered, but it would be nice if there was a screen, maybe the OOB, where one could tell which units had movement points left. I keep losing units in the stacks.


Each Formation Report shows its units' MPs remaining. But you can also set the Icon Display to Movement. Then the unit icons show MPs remaining.




ogar -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (11/14/2013 4:47:40 PM)

quote:

This may have been mentioned before, or worse yet may already be a feature I have not discovered, but it would be nice if there was a screen, maybe the OOB, where one could tell which units had movement points left. I keep losing units in the stacks.

TomC


Beside the Form Report, I've gotten into the habit of using the hot-key, C, to view the group in the stack, and then running the cursor over one or more units for a more detailed selection - this shows up in usual spot, upper right corner of the screen.  Usually I do this in combat planning, but sometimes when trying to plan movement, and make sure those sluggards with only 5 MPs get the best use out of those MPs.




Lobster -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (11/14/2013 5:14:04 PM)

Can we please have some toggles in the editor. Especially auto contour off/on. I am constantly having to change that one.




tcarusil -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (11/16/2013 3:08:34 PM)

Curtis and Ogar: Both suggestions are good, but a column on the OOB would be even better. One stop viewing.

TomC




Rom3l -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (1/3/2014 10:40:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tcarusil

Curtis and Ogar: Both suggestions are good, but a column on the OOB would be even better. One stop viewing.

TomC


+1




ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/20/2014 5:27:35 PM)

" US ranks low in LGBT military index

US placed 40 out of 103 armed forces based on inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender service members..."



Any chance of getting a 'force LGBT compliance rating' into the next update?




shunwick -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/21/2014 9:16:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Any chance of getting a 'force LGBT compliance rating' into the next update?


Colin,

You just made my day. [:)]

Best wishes,
Steve




r6kunz -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/22/2015 2:28:49 AM)

Since there is some recent talk of a (possible) update, I would like to see a restoration of the diacritical marks back to the Draw Place Name on the Map Editor...




Page: <<   < prev  57 58 59 60 [61]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.328125