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

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/15/2008 5:51:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

3.9. True unit equipment upgrades.
3.9.1. Clicking on an equipment item in unit’s menu allows player to change the equipment for other (assigned is 0, old equipment goes to pool). New equipment takes the slot of the old equipment in the unit’s TO&E, with the same authorized quantity. Unit must be supplied, unmoved, & not in enemy ZOC. Unit gets a penalty - proficiency, readiness or supply reduction.
3.9.2.The possibility is set by designer in a special window “equipment transition sequences” – each type of used equipment can have selected one type of upgraded equipment. Advanced: It’s defined for each of units separately.


It appears that we'll eventually post the entire wishlist here - like we're some sort of reading service.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/15/2008 6:07:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

3.9. True unit equipment upgrades.
3.9.1. Clicking on an equipment item in unit’s menu allows player to change the equipment for other (assigned is 0, old equipment goes to pool). New equipment takes the slot of the old equipment in the unit’s TO&E, with the same authorized quantity. Unit must be supplied, unmoved, & not in enemy ZOC. Unit gets a penalty - proficiency, readiness or supply reduction.
3.9.2.The possibility is set by designer in a special window “equipment transition sequences” – each type of used equipment can have selected one type of upgraded equipment. Advanced: It’s defined for each of units separately.


It appears that we'll eventually post the entire wishlist here - like we're some sort of reading service.


I don't suppose it cuts much ice with you that this is an entirely different proposal.



Legun -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/18/2008 6:57:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

3.9. True unit equipment upgrades.
3.9.1. Clicking on an equipment item in unit’s menu allows player to change the equipment for other (assigned is 0, old equipment goes to pool). New equipment takes the slot of the old equipment in the unit’s TO&E, with the same authorized quantity. Unit must be supplied, unmoved, & not in enemy ZOC. Unit gets a penalty - proficiency, readiness or supply reduction.
3.9.2.The possibility is set by designer in a special window “equipment transition sequences” – each type of used equipment can have selected one type of upgraded equipment. Advanced: It’s defined for each of units separately.


I don't suppose it cuts much ice with you that this is an entirely different proposal.


I see a place for discussion.

Your problem could be partially "by-passed" thanks to defined rearment this way:
- you use F4/F5 to define such unit

9/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 5 cm mortars.


after first assault
8/9 'assault recon' squads.
2/9 'assault recon' squads.
6/9 'assault recon' squads.
5/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 5 cm mortars.

so, you change one of the slots:

8/9 'assault recon' squads.
0/9 'replacement light rifle squads.'
6/9 'assault recon' squads.
5/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 5 cm mortars.

and you can get replacements

8/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 'replacement light rifle squads.'
6/9 'assault recon' squads.
5/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 5 cm mortars.

etc.

I've found my old example, lost during one of TDG crashes. This is a rearment definition designer's window could look like:

[image]http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasje/TOAW/rearm.JPG[/image]



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/18/2008 9:49:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

3.9. True unit equipment upgrades.
3.9.1. Clicking on an equipment item in unit’s menu allows player to change the equipment for other (assigned is 0, old equipment goes to pool). New equipment takes the slot of the old equipment in the unit’s TO&E, with the same authorized quantity. Unit must be supplied, unmoved, & not in enemy ZOC. Unit gets a penalty - proficiency, readiness or supply reduction.
3.9.2.The possibility is set by designer in a special window “equipment transition sequences” – each type of used equipment can have selected one type of upgraded equipment. Advanced: It’s defined for each of units separately.


I don't suppose it cuts much ice with you that this is an entirely different proposal.


I see a place for discussion.

Your problem could be partially "by-passed" thanks to defined rearment this way:
- you use F4/F5 to define such unit

9/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 5 cm mortars.


after first assault
8/9 'assault recon' squads.
2/9 'assault recon' squads.
6/9 'assault recon' squads.
5/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 5 cm mortars.

so, you change one of the slots:

8/9 'assault recon' squads.
0/9 'replacement light rifle squads.'
6/9 'assault recon' squads.
5/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 5 cm mortars.

and you can get replacements

8/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 'replacement light rifle squads.'
6/9 'assault recon' squads.
5/9 'assault recon' squads.
9/9 5 cm mortars.

etc.

I've found my old example, lost during one of TDG crashes. This is a rearment definition designer's window could look like:




I'm missing something. Either (a) there's some unspecified mechanism for changing the authorized equipment slots in mid-stream, or (b) something that keeps the empty slot from filling up until losses to the other equipment have occurred.

In any case, I mentioned the approach of a 'weapons cap' because it sounds like it wouldn't require much work on the part of the programmer, and at the same time, could simply be ignored by designers and players who weren't interested in it. The default 'cap' would simply be the total of all authorized equipment, and if designers didn't take advantage of it, it wouldn't affect them or the players in any way.

Put it this way.

My typical British rifle battalion in Seelowe:

33/36 rifle

2/2 light rifle

9/12 50 mm mortar

2/2 3 inch mortar

1/2 dual AA MG

7/10 Bren Carrier

By default, the program is going to assign a 'maximum assigned/authorized equipment' cap of 64. Somewhere on the unit report, it will say 'maximum assigned/authorized equipment: 64.'

Normally, people will see that and go 'oh.' It won't require anything of them at all. That's nice that all those numbers add up to 64, and since there are no empty slots waiting for room to start filling, it doesn't matter.

But creating the cap opens up a simple, practical way of modeling various kinds of transitions for designers that need to do so -- as I illustrated above with the 'Stosstruppen' example.

One could even take the concept and permit wholesale re-equipping as follows. The player has to wait until the desired item is the most common of that weapon category in the pool. Like, there are more Panthers than any of the other types of tank in the unit. If the designer has enabled the feature, the player then takes the unit he wishes to 'reequip' and clicks on whatever type of tank it has. The program then fills up the empty slot for 'Panthers' -- that being the most available equipment type that is one of the possible choices and that is under 'tanks.'

A battalion might look like this before equipping:

52/56 Mk IV

4/56 Panther

Equipment: 56

Readiness 80%. Supply 80%.

Panthers have been pouring into the pool, so on hand there are now 98 Mk III, 29 Mk IV, and 83 Panthers. The player clicks to empty out the Mk IV slot and the unit fills up as

0/56 Mk IV

56/56 Panther

Equipment: 56

Readiness 40%. Supply 40%.


So now one could pull back that tank regiment and have it reequip all at once if that was what the designer wanted to make possible.

Or, the player can just let the engine do its thing. Have gradual transitions ala panzer regiments in the Afrika Korps or American infantry realizing they have to take the fighting seriously in Korea.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/19/2008 4:58:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

quote:

3.9. True unit equipment upgrades.


I've found my old example, lost during one of TDG crashes. This is a rearment definition designer's window could look like:

[image]http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasje/TOAW/rearm.JPG[/image]



I think an easier way would be to allow an equipment slot to be replaced by any equipment available to the force provided:

1. That it is from the same equipment section (Infantry & Support Troops, Guns & Mortars, … tanks, ships, etc) AND

2. Has the same flags. Some less important flags might be masked out, though.

That shouldn't require any fancy graphics or designer intervention.

One other factor that is worth considering is to add the ability to make such changes to eliminated units - since they may not be able to reconstitute without it.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/19/2008 10:53:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

quote:

3.9. True unit equipment upgrades.


I've found my old example, lost during one of TDG crashes. This is a rearment definition designer's window could look like:

[image]http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasje/TOAW/rearm.JPG[/image]



I think an easier way would be to allow an equipment slot to be replaced by any equipment available to the force provided:

1. That it is from the same equipment section (Infantry & Support Troops, Guns & Mortars, … tanks, ships, etc) AND

2. Has the same flags. Some less important flags might be masked out, though.

That shouldn't require any fancy graphics or designer intervention.

One other factor that is worth considering is to add the ability to make such changes to eliminated units - since they may not be able to reconstitute without it.


The obvious difficulty here is to prevent players from just upgrading their units to obtain the highest possible value. Like, there are those light rifles that represent the pioneer platoon in the infantry battalion -- well, wouldn't I want to replace them with rifles or even heavy rifles if my force has them?



Legun -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/19/2008 11:27:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I think an easier way would be to allow an equipment slot to be replaced by any equipment available to the force provided:

1. That it is from the same equipment section (Infantry & Support Troops, Guns & Mortars, … tanks, ships, etc) AND

2. Has the same flags. Some less important flags might be masked out, though.

That shouldn't require any fancy graphics or designer intervention.

One other factor that is worth considering is to add the ability to make such changes to eliminated units - since they may not be able to reconstitute without it.


It sounds interesting, however I must agree with Colin's doubts. One could organize one Panzer Division with 100 Tigers and one with 100 Hetzers. For TOAW, these two AFV are operating the same way, just with different combat values :(.
Anyway, the field "country-years" could be used by a designer to separate different pools. Frankly, the information isn't important, now. So, only equipment with the same "county-years" value could be replaced. A desinger could define the values as "light AT equipment", "close support artillery" etc. But we need a constraint for rearment on scenario level: "free rearment on/off" with default setting "off".



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/20/2008 6:30:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The obvious difficulty here is to prevent players from just upgrading their units to obtain the highest possible value. Like, there are those light rifles that represent the pioneer platoon in the infantry battalion -- well, wouldn't I want to replace them with rifles or even heavy rifles if my force has them?


Well, if you've got lots of heavy rifle squads in the pools just sitting there with nothing to do, why not? That's a rare situation. It's usually the other way around - desperate shortages of frontline stuff and lots of rear-area stuff sitting around. So, you cannibalize your AAA units to fill out combat units, etc.

Nevertheless, one measure we could take to somewhat lessen that would be to not allow multiple slots in the unit to have the same equipment. So it the unit already had Heavy Rifle and Rifle slots, the Light Rifle slot couldn't be replaced by one of them.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/20/2008 6:38:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
It sounds interesting, however I must agree with Colin's doubts. One could organize one Panzer Division with 100 Tigers and one with 100 Hetzers. For TOAW, these two AFV are operating the same way, just with different combat values :(.


Again, if they're just lying around in the pools, why not? I can see some risk of creating a monster overrun unit, though. But this is the only way suggested to make it immediately available to existing scenarios. I think that's worth that risk. And it would be optional.

quote:

Anyway, the field "country-years" could be used by a designer to separate different pools. Frankly, the information isn't important, now. So, only equipment with the same "county-years" value could be replaced. A desinger could define the values as "light AT equipment", "close support artillery" etc. But we need a constraint for rearment on scenario level: "free rearment on/off" with default setting "off".


I was trying to avoid designer intervention. If that field has to be identical to make the swap, then you couldn't upgrade from Pzr III to Pz IV, etc., much less switch to captured equipment (unless you edited that field).



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/20/2008 11:48:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The obvious difficulty here is to prevent players from just upgrading their units to obtain the highest possible value. Like, there are those light rifles that represent the pioneer platoon in the infantry battalion -- well, wouldn't I want to replace them with rifles or even heavy rifles if my force has them?


Well, if you've got lots of heavy rifle squads in the pools just sitting there with nothing to do, why not? That's a rare situation. It's usually the other way around - desperate shortages of frontline stuff and lots of rear-area stuff sitting around. So, you cannibalize your AAA units to fill out combat units, etc.

Nevertheless, one measure we could take to somewhat lessen that would be to not allow multiple slots in the unit to have the same equipment. So it the unit already had Heavy Rifle and Rifle slots, the Light Rifle slot couldn't be replaced by one of them.


There you go.

However, as to 'why not' -- often the equipment represents something that had a purpose other than just combat, or has virtues not reflected by TOAW. Like, the 'light rifles' are pioneers -- not stormtroops. Or 'scout carriers' might not be as formidable as Dingo armored cars -- but they're a lot smaller and able to perform the multiple tasks for which they were originally designed.

In any case, I don't see how this would permit the sort of involuntary and gradual transition that most interests me.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/21/2008 7:12:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
However, as to 'why not' -- often the equipment represents something that had a purpose other than just combat, or has virtues not reflected by TOAW. Like, the 'light rifles' are pioneers -- not stormtroops. Or 'scout carriers' might not be as formidable as Dingo armored cars -- but they're a lot smaller and able to perform the multiple tasks for which they were originally designed.


If they're in the game then they're in combat units in one form or another. What difference does it make which ones? However inappropriate they are for alternate roles will be reflected in their parameters.

quote:

In any case, I don't see how this would permit the sort of involuntary and gradual transition that most interests me.


Doesn't prevent it either. And there is no reason there couldn't be an optional system of designer control overlying the underlying simpler system. So designers could edit out all but specified options, as desired. But elsewhere, the vast list of never-to-be-edited-again scenarios could enjoy player control of equipment upgrades (at their option, of course).



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/21/2008 9:23:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
However, as to 'why not' -- often the equipment represents something that had a purpose other than just combat, or has virtues not reflected by TOAW. Like, the 'light rifles' are pioneers -- not stormtroops. Or 'scout carriers' might not be as formidable as Dingo armored cars -- but they're a lot smaller and able to perform the multiple tasks for which they were originally designed.


If they're in the game then they're in combat units in one form or another. What difference does it make which ones? However inappropriate they are for alternate roles will be reflected in their parameters.


I think this largely misses my point. A British infantry battalion in 1941 could not have just swapped out its 'scout carriers' for Marmon-Herrington armored cars. Equally to the point, it certainly wouldn't have. It certainly wouldn't be an improvement in OPART if it became possible to do this without the scenario designer having chosen to make it possible.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/21/2008 9:27:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Doesn't prevent it either. And there is no reason there couldn't be an optional system of designer control overlying the underlying simpler system. So designers could edit out all but specified options, as desired. But elsewhere, the vast list of never-to-be-edited-again scenarios could enjoy player control of equipment upgrades (at their option, of course).


As noted, it would not necessarily improve 'Tunis 1943' or whatever if players could replace those little scout carriers with fine, big cannon-armed armored cars.

Otherwise, I have no objection to a system that permits equipment replacement at the players' volition if the designer has intended it. However, a different system is needed to permit gradual and involuntary equipment transitions. That was the primary intent of what I proposed -- and I think it has the virtue of simplicity.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/21/2008 9:31:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


So, you cannibalize your AAA units to fill out combat units, etc.


Do you? As a rule, you usually don't -- and if you do, you run into minor problems like the AA personnel never having received infantry training, etc. I mean, the cooks fighting as riflemen is all well and good, but first, this means no one's cooking any more, and second, while sometimes the cooks prove to be fine and stalwart warriors, other times they break and run like rabbits.

It's a bit of a tangent to go off on, but a lot of the time, sentimentalism obscures the true level of performance of such units. Like, I've been reading a lot of Australian stuff on the Syrian campaign -- in the course of which, the 2/2 Pioneer battalion was more or less converted into more infantry. Well, lots of gush about how bravely they fought -- but if one looks at the numbers...

They tended to fail in their attacks and suffered appalling casualties. No, the light rifles didn't just magically become heavy rifles.

You can't just take artillerymen or whatever and get crack assault troops overnight -- and you shouldn't be able to take the light rifles that might be intended to represent the marginal direct combat capabilities of the personnel in an artillery battery and make them into heavy rifles because you happen to have the weapons in your pool.



Legun -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/21/2008 11:46:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
quote:

Anyway, the field "country-years" could be used by a designer to separate different pools. Frankly, the information isn't important, now. So, only equipment with the same "county-years" value could be replaced. A desinger could define the values as "light AT equipment", "close support artillery" etc. But we need a constraint for rearment on scenario level: "free rearment on/off" with default setting "off".


I was trying to avoid designer intervention.


Just opposite to my intention. If I'm looking at my scenarios I must say, that the simple solution is completely wrong way. I can see Rumanian conscripts used as replacements for decimated SS LAH, I can see a player replacing Austro-Hungarian heavy howitzers by German light field guns to use the first to replace the second in elite Prussian Guards artillery, etc. Free rearment or no rearment isn't the alternative for me. I need rearment regulated by a designer.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/22/2008 4:07:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
quote:

Anyway, the field "country-years" could be used by a designer to separate different pools. Frankly, the information isn't important, now. So, only equipment with the same "county-years" value could be replaced. A desinger could define the values as "light AT equipment", "close support artillery" etc. But we need a constraint for rearment on scenario level: "free rearment on/off" with default setting "off".


I was trying to avoid designer intervention.


Just opposite to my intention. If I'm looking at my scenarios I must say, that the simple solution is completely wrong way. I can see Rumanian conscripts used as replacements for decimated SS LAH, I can see a player replacing Austro-Hungarian heavy howitzers by German light field guns to use the first to replace the second in elite Prussian Guards artillery, etc. Free rearment or no rearment isn't the alternative for me. I need rearment regulated by a designer.



As a general rule, designer control is always a good thing. This is a slight but significant variation on another principal I find congenial (if rarely realized): Colin control is always a good thing.



L`zard -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/22/2008 10:39:28 AM)


quote:

This is a slight but significant variation on another principal I find congenial (if rarely realized): Colin control is always a good thing.


[:D] I'm sorry, Officer, but when I blew through that school zone at 40mph, I was under 'Colin Control', eh? What could I do? [:D]

Gotta admit, more designer control of a scenario is better, as I feel design is an art, not a science! YMMV, LOL!

On the other hand, playtesting should probably be a science, and someone needs to make a list of the things that need to be looked at, and in some sort of order there-of, eh?





ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/22/2008 11:18:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard




On the other hand, playtesting should probably be a science, and someone needs to make a list of the things that need to be looked at, and in some sort of order there-of, eh?





I tend to hot seat the scenario with myself and write down the problems I see and the ideas I have until I have a full page, then hit the editor and fix them/implement them, then start another hot seat match...repeat until ill.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/22/2008 7:29:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I think this largely misses my point. A British infantry battalion in 1941 could not have just swapped out its 'scout carriers' for Marmon-Herrington armored cars. Equally to the point, it certainly wouldn't have. It certainly wouldn't be an improvement in OPART if it became possible to do this without the scenario designer having chosen to make it possible.


I see it just the opposite. If, in 1941, the British were flush with gobs of Marmon-Herringtons and completely out of scout carriers, they'd be fools not to put the M-Hs into the line somewhere. And that's a real issue in TOAW. It happens all the time. You find yourself desperately short of some item and flush with another that could easily substitute for it. Now, you can't do anything about it. I want to give players the option to do so. No one would be forced to use it.

You and Jarek seem to fancy yourselves as some sort of dictators. You would have the ability to constrain your own scenarios. But the vast number of existing scenarios will never be updated. They need this option.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/22/2008 9:24:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I think this largely misses my point. A British infantry battalion in 1941 could not have just swapped out its 'scout carriers' for Marmon-Herrington armored cars. Equally to the point, it certainly wouldn't have. It certainly wouldn't be an improvement in OPART if it became possible to do this without the scenario designer having chosen to make it possible.


I see it just the opposite. If, in 1941, the British were flush with gobs of Marmon-Herringtons and completely out of scout carriers, they'd be fools not to put the M-Hs into the line somewhere. And that's a real issue in TOAW. It happens all the time. You find yourself desperately short of some item and flush with another that could easily substitute for it. Now, you can't do anything about it. I want to give players the option to do so. No one would be forced to use it.

You and Jarek seem to fancy yourselves as some sort of dictators. You would have the ability to constrain your own scenarios. But the vast number of existing scenarios will never be updated. They need this option.


That sounds good. However --particularly if it is applied to existing scenarios -- the option will simply produce ahistorical congeries of equipment. A British infantry battalion with ten Marmon-Herringtons as part of its TO&E is not historically reasonable.

You tend to see wargames and scenarios as somehow necessarily reflecting reality. Witness your use of 'War in the Pacific' to 'prove' that the Japanese could have conquered Hawaii. So when you see some scenario where various categories of equipment aren't getting used, you see it as unreasonable that you can't make use of it.

Well, first of all, a lot of this equipment is entirely fictional. It's only there in the first place as a result of bad or casual design. After all, if the designer merely wants to make sure his armored car regiments stay up to strength as they historically did, he may set a rate of ten Marmon-Herringtons a turn. Doesn't mean ten Marmon-Herringtons were in fact being delivered per day; he probably never bothered to work it out.

Secondly, OPART tends to assume that all equipment is usable by all troops -- or it would be making that assumption if one could make substitutions as freely as you propose. In the real world, even trained tank crews need time to learn about their new 'Honeys' if they've been using A-10 cruisers.

And this is a case of troops already trained in the arm in question. How many trained crewmen for armored cars did the average British infantry battalion have? How about parts, ammunition? Tires? Mechanics? You could give me a new Cessna tomorrow -- doubt if I'll be able to make much use of it. No airport, no training, no Av Gas, no...

In point of fact, allowing an infantry battalion to just freely swap its Bren carriers for armored cars would be grossly unrealistic. That's why such things rarely happened in the real world, and why your 'improvement' wouldn't be that at all.

Certainly, any such ability should only exist if it has been conferred by the designer. Presumably, the units in those older scenarios you exhibit such solicitude for have just about the equipment the designers wanted them to have. It's remarkable that you can perceive creating an ability to alter this equipment as somehow preserving the designer's original intent.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/22/2008 9:28:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




You and Jarek seem to fancy yourselves as some sort of dictators. You would have the ability to constrain your own scenarios. But the vast number of existing scenarios will never be updated. They need this option.


Lol. Well, yeah -- when it comes to my own scenario, I guess you could say I lay claim to dictatorial powers over what it will and won't be. How about you? What are you working on now? Kick it over to me so I can 'fix' your OOB and stuff -- modify it as I see fit. Or are you being 'some sort of dictator'?



a white rabbit -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/23/2008 12:41:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I think this largely misses my point. A British infantry battalion in 1941 could not have just swapped out its 'scout carriers' for Marmon-Herrington armored cars. Equally to the point, it certainly wouldn't have. It certainly wouldn't be an improvement in OPART if it became possible to do this without the scenario designer having chosen to make it possible.


I see it just the opposite. If, in 1941, the British were flush with gobs of Marmon-Herringtons and completely out of scout carriers, they'd be fools not to put the M-Hs into the line somewhere. And that's a real issue in TOAW. It happens all the time. You find yourself desperately short of some item and flush with another that could easily substitute for it. Now, you can't do anything about it. I want to give players the option to do so. No one would be forced to use it.

You and Jarek seem to fancy yourselves as some sort of dictators. You would have the ability to constrain your own scenarios. But the vast number of existing scenarios will never be updated. They need this option.


..isn't that what empty slots and cadre units that can be disbanded are for ? to enable a certain degree of player control ? and now that we've loads'a events....

..so ? many scens won't be updated by the author, the good ones will be by someone, and i'm sorry, but trying to twist the game to make auto-upgrades is a waste of energy, cadres were available from Toaw1, if the designer chose not to use them s'just another example of bad design...

..like xs ant units...[:'(]



a white rabbit -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/23/2008 12:48:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Put it this way.

My typical British rifle battalion in Seelowe:

33/36 rifle

2/2 light rifle

9/12 50 mm mortar

2/2 3 inch mortar

1/2 dual AA MG

7/10 Bren Carrier



..i didn't get the 50mm mortars and aren't you missing a few rifle AT- squads and some HMGs ?..

..other than i went for Lt rifle, with Rifle for the LMGs and made TOE divisible by 3 we basically agree..

..edit..Add to the wish-list..can we have battalions dividing into 4 please ?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/23/2008 5:56:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
You tend to see wargames and scenarios as somehow necessarily reflecting reality. Witness your use of 'War in the Pacific' to 'prove' that the Japanese could have conquered Hawaii. So when you see some scenario where various categories of equipment aren't getting used, you see it as unreasonable that you can't make use of it.


I have no idea what that has to do with this issue, but, since you've raised it, note that it wasn't just "War in the Pacific", it was primarily "Pacific War", but also every wargame on that subject ever made, including one of your own playtests. And I seem to recall you swearing up and down that there were no ports or airfields on the neighboring islands, only to be proved dead wrong - and Pacific War vindicated - in the end. Wargames are secondary sources, like most books.

Back to the issue at hand. I'm finishing up a playtest of "France 1944 D-Day" as we speak. For the longest time, there have been shortages of M4/75s, while M4/76s languish in the pools. It's absurd to suggest that the Allies wouldn't have swapped out the M4/75s with M4/76s. You don't need any designer intervention to know that. I suggest we treat players as adults, since about 99% of the scenarios will never be updated.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/23/2008 5:57:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Lol. Well, yeah -- when it comes to my own scenario, I guess you could say I lay claim to dictatorial powers over what it will and won't be. How about you? What are you working on now? Kick it over to me so I can 'fix' your OOB and stuff -- modify it as I see fit. Or are you being 'some sort of dictator'?


You can be the dictator of your own scenario. But what gives you the right to dictate to players about how they use someone else's scenario?



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/23/2008 9:55:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Lol. Well, yeah -- when it comes to my own scenario, I guess you could say I lay claim to dictatorial powers over what it will and won't be. How about you? What are you working on now? Kick it over to me so I can 'fix' your OOB and stuff -- modify it as I see fit. Or are you being 'some sort of dictator'?


You can be the dictator of your own scenario. But what gives you the right to dictate to players about how they use someone else's scenario?


How the hell am I doing that? You're the one who wants to make changes that will make it possible to do things the original designer never intended. I also don't think much of the tactic of labeling opposition to your ideas 'dictatorship.' That approach sounds pretty fascist to me, if its going to come to that.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/23/2008 9:59:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
You tend to see wargames and scenarios as somehow necessarily reflecting reality. Witness your use of 'War in the Pacific' to 'prove' that the Japanese could have conquered Hawaii. So when you see some scenario where various categories of equipment aren't getting used, you see it as unreasonable that you can't make use of it.


I have no idea what that has to do with this issue, but, since you've raised it, note that it wasn't just "War in the Pacific", it was primarily "Pacific War", but also every wargame on that subject ever made, including one of your own playtests. And I seem to recall you swearing up and down that there were no ports or airfields on the neighboring islands, only to be proved dead wrong - and Pacific War vindicated - in the end.


Now that happens to be a complete fabrication.
quote:



Wargames are secondary sources, like most books.


I explained the distinction to you carefully at the time. There's no reason to believe you would read it now either, so I won't bother.
quote:



Back to the issue at hand. I'm finishing up a playtest of "France 1944 D-Day" as we speak. For the longest time, there have been shortages of M4/75s, while M4/76s languish in the pools. It's absurd to suggest that the Allies wouldn't have swapped out the M4/75s with M4/76s. You don't need any designer intervention to know that. I suggest we treat players as adults, since about 99% of the scenarios will never be updated.


Now there is a good example of when swap-outs would be reasonable, and indeed, they should be possible if the designer has enabled them. However, most swap-outs would tend to be unreasonable, unrealistic, and (since the original designer is no longer at hand) uncontrollable.

You are presenting an argument for designer-enabled swap-outs. You're not presenting an argument for anything else.



Legun -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/24/2008 6:32:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I think this largely misses my point. A British infantry battalion in 1941 could not have just swapped out its 'scout carriers' for Marmon-Herrington armored cars. Equally to the point, it certainly wouldn't have. It certainly wouldn't be an improvement in OPART if it became possible to do this without the scenario designer having chosen to make it possible.


I see it just the opposite. If, in 1941, the British were flush with gobs of Marmon-Herringtons and completely out of scout carriers, they'd be fools not to put the M-Hs into the line somewhere. And that's a real issue in TOAW. It happens all the time. You find yourself desperately short of some item and flush with another that could easily substitute for it. Now, you can't do anything about it. I want to give players the option to do so. No one would be forced to use it.

You and Jarek seem to fancy yourselves as some sort of dictators. You would have the ability to constrain your own scenarios. But the vast number of existing scenarios will never be updated. They need this option.


There is a simple solution. We need 3 steps advanced game option:
- no rearment (default)
- limited rearment (the same country field is needed)
- free rearment (the same type of equipment is expected only)
What we could discuss is proficency/readiness/supply reduction.



ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/24/2008 6:39:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I think this largely misses my point. A British infantry battalion in 1941 could not have just swapped out its 'scout carriers' for Marmon-Herrington armored cars. Equally to the point, it certainly wouldn't have. It certainly wouldn't be an improvement in OPART if it became possible to do this without the scenario designer having chosen to make it possible.


I see it just the opposite. If, in 1941, the British were flush with gobs of Marmon-Herringtons and completely out of scout carriers, they'd be fools not to put the M-Hs into the line somewhere. And that's a real issue in TOAW. It happens all the time. You find yourself desperately short of some item and flush with another that could easily substitute for it. Now, you can't do anything about it. I want to give players the option to do so. No one would be forced to use it.

You and Jarek seem to fancy yourselves as some sort of dictators. You would have the ability to constrain your own scenarios. But the vast number of existing scenarios will never be updated. They need this option.


There is a simple solution. We need 3 steps advanced game option:
- no rearment (default)
- limited rearment (the same country field is needed)
- free rearment (the same type of equipment is expected only)
What we could discuss is proficency/readiness/supply reduction.


I still like my idea about a total equipment cap. It's perfect for gradual/involuntary transitions, would seem to require little programming, would impose no burden on designers or players, and wouldn't affect any existing scenario.



Legun -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (2/24/2008 9:31:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I still like my idea about a total equipment cap. It's perfect for gradual/involuntary transitions, would seem to require little programming, would impose no burden on designers or players, and wouldn't affect any existing scenario.


A partial, fluent rearment of really similiar type of equipment (assault squads -> light rifle squad or PzIIIG->PzIIIH) could be nice, but I'm affraid of side effects. Let's see a panzer division. It has lost some trucks as a result of flanking (or the assault drivers problem) but her panzergrenadiers (heavy rifle squad) are saved. There is no trucks in "on hand" pool at the moment, but there is a slot for panzergrenadiers with Panzerfaust (HRS AT) in the unit's TO&E. The slot is filled up to the total equipement cap with the new grenadiers - but there is no place for trucks. You get an infantry division with supporting tanks, don't you?



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875