RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (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: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/21/2007 5:09:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
However my point is that none of the Prussian forces at Ligny were shattered. The centre gave way but was able to withdraw without harrassment.


I guarantee you that some of the forces at Ligny were shattered. And, for the last time, see the first post in this thread. Plenty of players fail to shatter the entire Prussian force.

quote:

Perhaps someone who's interested in simulating the situation historical commanders may have found themselves in.


I'll pass. Plenty of other Operational wargames on this period did as well.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/21/2007 5:11:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Depending upon where the hex boundary is.


If you put it in the middle of the British position, that puts the French in the same hexes as the British. Obviously, one can't do that in TOAW.


Adjacent to them will do just fine. You're being ridiculus.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/21/2007 5:16:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
That is to say, from the likes of those who read your own AAR and notice the gross deviations from the military realities of the period in question instead of just taking your word for it when you say it works fine.


Those "gross deviations" of course, only appear in your self-serving eyes. None of them stand up to examination.

quote:

That may well be -- but as it happens, you're the one defending the scenario. You seem to be getting our roles crossed up.


You're defending your false assertions.



ColinWright -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/21/2007 7:08:39 PM)


quote:

Please don't say Seelow - I might hurt myself from laughing.




Considering you haven't even seen this scenario, that's a singularly inane remark.



ColinWright -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/21/2007 7:12:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
That is to say, from the likes of those who read your own AAR and notice the gross deviations from the military realities of the period in question instead of just taking your word for it when you say it works fine.


Those "gross deviations" of course, only appear in your self-serving eyes. None of them stand up to examination.

quote:

That may well be -- but as it happens, you're the one defending the scenario. You seem to be getting our roles crossed up.


You're defending your false assertions.


Okay. I'd like to see you defend two elements in this post. In what way are my eyes 'self-serving' and how are my assertions 'false'?

The fact of the matter is that you're doing what you typically do when you start losing an argument: begin resorting to insult instead. It's one of your more repulsive traits.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/23/2007 1:43:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

Please don't say Seelow - I might hurt myself from laughing.




Considering you haven't even seen this scenario, that's a singularly inane remark.



I can read threads. And I know that any Seelow scenario requires ship vs. ship and ship vs. convoy combat. And I know just how good (not) TOAW is at that.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/23/2007 2:17:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Okay. I'd like to see you defend two elements in this post. In what way are my eyes 'self-serving'


You're chained to your theory about pre-20th Century scenarios. No matter what the true state of affairs may be, your observations will be twisted to fit that theory. It's your standard operating procedure.

Actually, in one of your earlier posts above, I had actually detected a fair assesment. But you then reverted to form.

quote:

and how are my assertions 'false'?


Have you provided any basis for them? No. Baseless = false. Now at least Ben supports his assertions with his observations from the AAR. Of course, as I've pointed out tirelessly, his observations have been consistently off.

I asked you specifically "what distortions?" in the last post. All I got was just another declaration that it was full of "gross deviations" without any specifics or evidence of those specifics.

Here's the reality: There isn't a single thing in that AAR that you can point at and say for certain a Napoleonic force couldn't have done it. The distances are too small and the scenario length too short.

quote:

The fact of the matter is that you're doing what you typically do when you start losing an argument: begin resorting to insult instead. It's one of your more repulsive traits.


As usual, you're a legend in you're own mind. Yes, I'm defeated. Colin has declared it to be full of "gross deviations". QED.

And, for someone who snipes at everything and everyone in the most disrespectful manner possible, you have to be the thinnest skinned individual I've encountered on the web. You see insults were there are none - and then you go nuts. I gather in the post above you thought I was laughing at Seelow itself, rather than the idea of Seelow being problem free in TOAW. Did you notice I included two of my own scenarios as examples of "not perfect"?



ColinWright -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/23/2007 4:07:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Okay. I'd like to see you defend two elements in this post. In what way are my eyes 'self-serving'


You're chained to your theory about pre-20th Century scenarios. No matter what the true state of affairs may be, your observations will be twisted to fit that theory. It's your standard operating procedure.

Actually, in one of your earlier posts above, I had actually detected a fair assesment. But you then reverted to form.

quote:

and how are my assertions 'false'?


Have you provided any basis for them? No. Baseless = false. Now at least Ben supports his assertions with his observations from the AAR. Of course, as I've pointed out tirelessly, his observations have been consistently off.

I asked you specifically "what distortions?" in the last post. All I got was just another declaration that it was full of "gross deviations" without any specifics or evidence of those specifics.

Here's the reality: There isn't a single thing in that AAR that you can point at and say for certain a Napoleonic force couldn't have done it. The distances are too small and the scenario length too short.

quote:

The fact of the matter is that you're doing what you typically do when you start losing an argument: begin resorting to insult instead. It's one of your more repulsive traits.


As usual, you're a legend in you're own mind. Yes, I'm defeated. Colin has declared it to be full of "gross deviations". QED.

And, for someone who snipes at everything and everyone in the most disrespectful manner possible, you have to be the thinnest skinned individual I've encountered on the web. You see insults were there are none - and then you go nuts. I gather in the post above you thought I was laughing at Seelow itself, rather than the idea of Seelow being problem free in TOAW. Did you notice I included two of my own scenarios as examples of "not perfect"?


I went 'nuts'? Lessee: this is 'going nuts':

'The fact of the matter is that you're doing what you typically do when you start losing an argument: begin resorting to insult instead.'

That happens to be true. Bob, I gotta admit. I'm floored by your awesome logic. You have, directly and convincingly, addressed every single objection that's been raised. I guess you've carried the day -- yet again. Obviously, OPART III models pre-twentieth century warfare just fine. Let me get cracking on that 'Reconquista' scenario I was thinking about: should work great.



Veers -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/23/2007 4:35:34 AM)

Wow, this is great stuff, guys. Keep 'er up. Quite enjoying it. [:D][sm=00000613.gif]



ColinWright -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/23/2007 5:41:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Wow, this is great stuff, guys. Keep 'er up. Quite enjoying it. [:D][sm=00000613.gif]


Actually, we're working on a compilation: sort of a 'greatest hits.'



Veers -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/23/2007 5:47:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Wow, this is great stuff, guys. Keep 'er up. Quite enjoying it. [:D][sm=00000613.gif]


Actually, we're working on a compilation: sort of a 'greatest hits.'

Oh wow. That'll be a real whopper of a read. :D



a white rabbit -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/24/2007 12:47:09 PM)

..i liked Killer Angels, great fun..



golden delicious -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/24/2007 1:30:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

As did the initial Ligny dispositions.


Well check out the battlefield at Waterloo. With HQs and artillery, I rather suspect that the French put more than nine units in one hex.

quote:

Stragglers are hunted down by forces at least superior to them. If they are division sized, they'll be chased down by division sized parties at least.


Actually, the thing about stragglers is that they're disorganised- so ten men can kill a hundred by picking them off one at a time. This is why pursuing a routed army is so effective compared to fighting a pitched battle.

quote:

Where is that perfect WWII scenario that has no problems and recreates all aspects of its subject perfectly? It's not CFNA - there are no minefields and the supply system is too crude. It's not Okinawa - there are no caves. Barbarossa sims have no production system and the weather model sucks. And were the Poles really motivated to hold out for 8 turns instead of 7?


Every scenario has its problems. It's a question of the magnitude of those problems.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/25/2007 10:00:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
\Well check out the battlefield at Waterloo. With HQs and artillery, I rather suspect that the French put more than nine units in one hex.


Again, it depends upon where the hex boundaries are. I'd put Waterloo at four hexes wide and three deep.

Before you object, remember that units deployed in three hexes could span as much as 7.5km or as little as just over 2.5km. And for four hexes those numbers would be max of 10km, min of just over 5km. The Waterloo deployments were certainly spread out over far more than 5km wide and 2.5km deep.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/25/2007 10:05:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..i liked Killer Angels, great fun..


Thank you, Richard. Have you seen the new version with the improved counter colors (included in 3.2)? I picked them off of photos of real Civil War uniforms.



a white rabbit -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/26/2007 11:00:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..i liked Killer Angels, great fun..


Thank you, Richard. Have you seen the new version with the improved counter colors (included in 3.2)? I picked them off of photos of real Civil War uniforms.


..not yet, i'll look later..

..i'd maybe have liked it a bit bigger, but as an SPI Quad game, it worked, i finished it..


..and if i feel up to painting an ACW army again, i'll give the 3D icons a try. Strange how they fulfill the gotta paint 25mm figurines bit in me..




golden delicious -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/26/2007 12:48:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Again, it depends upon where the hex boundaries are. I'd put Waterloo at four hexes wide and three deep.


I had a look. 3 1/2 miles wide by 2 1/2 miles deep. In kilometres, that's 5.6 by 4.

You proceed to excuse your definition by talking about where the hex boundaries fall; doesn't this tell you something about the suitability of dividing up a Napoleonic battlefield into 6.25 square kilometre sections?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/26/2007 3:36:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Again, it depends upon where the hex boundaries are. I'd put Waterloo at four hexes wide and three deep.


I had a look. 3 1/2 miles wide by 2 1/2 miles deep. In kilometres, that's 5.6 by 4.


Is that just the French? The Dutch-Belgians had something split off to the west that would have made the British position a bit wider. I'm out of town, so I can't check now. Regardless, those figures, as I said, permit 4x3.

quote:

You proceed to excuse your definition by talking about where the hex boundaries fall; doesn't this tell you something about the suitability of dividing up a Napoleonic battlefield into 6.25 square kilometre sections?


Not if I'm modeling it operationally. How is that different from any other operational scenario. "France 1944" doesn't have to get all the tactical minutia of Omaha Beach detailed. It abstracts it.



ColinWright -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/26/2007 7:52:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Not if I'm modeling it operationally. How is that different from any other operational scenario. "France 1944" doesn't have to get all the tactical minutia of Omaha Beach detailed. It abstracts it.


Yeah -- but Omaha Beach wasn't the nub and the gist of the entire 1944 campaign. That's one of the many areas where OPART falls down when it comes to the pre-modern era: it can't accomodate the difference in scale between the arena of strategic movement and that of actual battlefield decision. Strikingly, this remains true even when you have an arena as sharpy confined as that of the Waterloo Campaign.



a white rabbit -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/27/2007 5:32:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Not if I'm modeling it operationally. How is that different from any other operational scenario. "France 1944" doesn't have to get all the tactical minutia of Omaha Beach detailed. It abstracts it.


Yeah -- but Omaha Beach wasn't the nub and the gist of the entire 1944 campaign. That's one of the many areas where OPART falls down when it comes to the pre-modern era: it can't accomodate the difference in scale between the arena of strategic movement and that of actual battlefield decision. Strikingly, this remains true even when you have an arena as sharpy confined as that of the Waterloo Campaign.



..it does if you set the ground scale at some 500m, approx the effective range for artillery, or at 250m to allow for smoke and give a possible cannister effective of 1 hex for a two hex total range..

..300*500=150,000m=150k sides (or 75k at 250m). admitedly this doesn't give you the invasion of Russia but otherwise..



ColinWright -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/27/2007 7:44:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Not if I'm modeling it operationally. How is that different from any other operational scenario. "France 1944" doesn't have to get all the tactical minutia of Omaha Beach detailed. It abstracts it.


Yeah -- but Omaha Beach wasn't the nub and the gist of the entire 1944 campaign. That's one of the many areas where OPART falls down when it comes to the pre-modern era: it can't accomodate the difference in scale between the arena of strategic movement and that of actual battlefield decision. Strikingly, this remains true even when you have an arena as sharpy confined as that of the Waterloo Campaign.



..it does if you set the ground scale at some 500m, approx the effective range for artillery, or at 250m to allow for smoke and give a possible cannister effective of 1 hex for a two hex total range..

..300*500=150,000m=150k sides (or 75k at 250m). admitedly this doesn't give you the invasion of Russia but otherwise..



You're kind of missing the point. For twentieth century warfare, a single-screen engine works quite well, as a rule. Do the Western Front 1918 and the first Kaiserschlacht will eat up a quarter of the map. Do the Eastern Front 1943 and Kursk and the associated battles will take up a fifth of the front.

Now: do Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Borodino is a one-hex battle. Do Grant's campaign against Vicksburg: Champion Hill is a one-hex battle. Do whatever campaign of Marlborough's it was: Ramillies will be a one-hex battle. Do the Mongol invasion of Poland: Leignitz will be a one-hex battle. Need I go on?

Among a considerable list of other things, OPART would require a two-screen system to even start to be a satisfactory engine. Look at Forge of Freedom: the American Civil War game. What does it have? Two screens. Look at Medieval Total War. What does it have? Two screens.

Not that these games are perfect, but they do have one essential element to modeling warfare in their era that OPART lacks: two screens. The gap between the scale of the campaigns and the scale of the battles is just too great to dispense with this.

Now, you can use OPART for whatever you want, and the results may even be entertaining -- but really, you're using a table knife to unscrew the door hinges. It's not the right tool, and it's exasperating to listen to people try to insist it is.



golden delicious -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/27/2007 12:53:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Is that just the French?


No. That's the whole of the battlefield from the French rear to the British rear, and including the extended flank with Dutch troops.

quote:

Not if I'm modeling it operationally.


You claimed in a discussion we had elsewhere that a tactical model would be useless for simulation because you have no idea where the battle will be fought out. If we follow your logic, then if the operational map shows the units in four hexes then they must be occupying a front of not less than 8km, because the operational map isn't an abstraction of where the battle actually takes place- it's the one and only definitive representation. If the battle frontage was smaller then they would only cover three hexes.

In any case, if the forces are spread over too many hexes, this artificially reduces the unit density, making the model invalid.



a white rabbit -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/27/2007 12:54:20 PM)

..Funny, the following from an article on the Ionian Revolt made me think of you, Colin..

..Sparta, the greatest military power within the Hellenic world, had no great liking for distant expeditions, and having little or no knowledge of events outside her own European Greece, refused to help.. 



golden delicious -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/27/2007 1:00:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..it does if you set the ground scale at some 500m, approx the effective range for artillery,


I rather think direct fire artillery can fire more than 500 metres;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_Artillery_in_the_American_Civil_War

The chart on this page gives ranges varying from 1000 to nearly 3000 yards. Obviously this is a later period- but the technology is not that different. In any case, at Waterloo the guns were set up around a mile from the enemy main line.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/27/2007 10:29:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah -- but Omaha Beach wasn't the nub and the gist of the entire 1944 campaign.


I could make a short subset of France 1944 that only dealt with the first few days of Normandy.

quote:

That's one of the many areas where OPART falls down when it comes to the pre-modern era: it can't accomodate the difference in scale between the arena of strategic movement and that of actual battlefield decision. Strikingly, this remains true even when you have an arena as sharpy confined as that of the Waterloo Campaign.


Actually, as my AAR shows, there's plenty for players to do in Waterloo 1815. There's at least as much to do as in similar sized WWII scenarios. Not all scenarios have to be huge monsters. There's room for small, short ones too.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/27/2007 10:51:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
You claimed in a discussion we had elsewhere that a tactical model would be useless for simulation because you have no idea where the battle will be fought out.


Actually, I said it would add nothing except problems.

quote:

If we follow your logic, then if the operational map shows the units in four hexes then they must be occupying a front of not less than 8km, because the operational map isn't an abstraction of where the battle actually takes place- it's the one and only definitive representation. If the battle frontage was smaller then they would only cover three hexes.


I'm not sure if that's logic. No matter how you try to twist it, units in four hexes could be actually spread out over a max of 10km or a little as just over 5km. A 7.5km front would actually have to be perfectly fit into a three hex length - very unlikely.

quote:

In any case, if the forces are spread over too many hexes, this artificially reduces the unit density, making the model invalid.


Well, they're not spread over too many hexes. Note the historical initial deployments - max of six divisions in one hex. And one can stack up to nine divisions in a single 2.5km hex. That's pretty dense.

The system fits Napoleonic norms as well as it fits WWII norms. I'm sure there were instances where more than nine regiments were in a 10km hex during WWII.



a white rabbit -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/28/2007 6:20:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..it does if you set the ground scale at some 500m, approx the effective range for artillery,


I rather think direct fire artillery can fire more than 500 metres;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_Artillery_in_the_American_Civil_War

The chart on this page gives ranges varying from 1000 to nearly 3000 yards. Obviously this is a later period- but the technology is not that different. In any case, at Waterloo the guns were set up around a mile from the enemy main line.


..guess i didn't know those figures [8|]...

..EFFECTIVE, Ben, effective range, not test case conditions, cf the RHA tests on cannister, 50 plus balls per sq yd at 200yds, 6 slow moving per sq yd at 500yds, the max range. I'll assume you're familar with the tests run on ancient bows, by comparing experts and amateurs on different kg-pull bows...



golden delicious -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/28/2007 11:59:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..EFFECTIVE, Ben, effective range, not test case conditions,


So see my second point: the distance from the guns to the enemy line at Waterloo. About a mile- more in some cases.

So now we're weighing your opinion against those of Wellington and Napoleon. I would hazard a guess that the latter two had a little bit more expertise on the subject than you do.

Anyway, cannister is a last-ditch weapon. Artillery of this period would fire shot most of the time. Naturally you can't hit a target at a mile- but you can hit a division.



ColinWright -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/28/2007 12:32:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
You claimed in a discussion we had elsewhere that a tactical model would be useless for simulation because you have no idea where the battle will be fought out.


Actually, I said it would add nothing except problems.

quote:

If we follow your logic, then if the operational map shows the units in four hexes then they must be occupying a front of not less than 8km, because the operational map isn't an abstraction of where the battle actually takes place- it's the one and only definitive representation. If the battle frontage was smaller then they would only cover three hexes.


I'm not sure if that's logic. No matter how you try to twist it, units in four hexes could be actually spread out over a max of 10km or a little as just over 5km. A 7.5km front would actually have to be perfectly fit into a three hex length - very unlikely.

quote:

In any case, if the forces are spread over too many hexes, this artificially reduces the unit density, making the model invalid.


Well, they're not spread over too many hexes. Note the historical initial deployments - max of six divisions in one hex. And one can stack up to nine divisions in a single 2.5km hex. That's pretty dense.

The system fits Napoleonic norms as well as it fits WWII norms. I'm sure there were instances where more than nine regiments were in a 10km hex during WWII.


However, I distinctly recall you noting that it was adviseable to reduce the density before making attacks -- and the successes you managed to achieve largely stemmed from taking advantage of the 'overcrowding' among the defenders. So whilst you can achieve Napoleonic densities in OPART, the results of attempting to fight a battle with such densities would seem to be disastrous.

It's really pretty simple. You can attempt to simulate almost any conflict you want with OPART. However, it's designed for the World War Two era -- and the further away you get from that, the more limitations and problems your simulation will have. Stridently insisting otherwise won't change the truth of this.



ColinWright -> RE: Pre-WWI Possibilities? (9/28/2007 12:41:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..EFFECTIVE, Ben, effective range, not test case conditions,


So see my second point: the distance from the guns to the enemy line at Waterloo. About a mile- more in some cases.

So now we're weighing your opinion against those of Wellington and Napoleon. I would hazard a guess that the latter two had a little bit more expertise on the subject than you do.

Anyway, cannister is a last-ditch weapon. Artillery of this period would fire shot most of the time. Naturally you can't hit a target at a mile- but you can hit a division.


Really, it's just another fine example of how OPART isn't suited to pre-modern warfare. Napoleonic cannon did become dramatically more effective as the range closed.

That's something that OPART has no way of simulating -- quite reasonably, since modern cannon have more or less the same effectiveness over most of their theoretical range.

I suppose Richard could tun hoops with 'cannon' of different range in each unit -- but really, all he's demonstrating is that he's got the wrong tool.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75