Undividable (Full Version)

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



Message

Veers -> Undividable (9/2/2007 6:15:22 AM)

I've heard different things about undividable units.
Basically, what I'm thinking of doing is making certain units 'squad sized' so that they cannot be divided.
My question is: Is a unit that is a squad, and therefore undividable, less resilient? Is it more likely to evapoarte than a unit that can divide?



JAMiAM -> RE: Undividable (9/2/2007 8:14:02 AM)

It depends...



Veers -> RE: Undividable (9/2/2007 8:19:35 AM)

On...
You can just point me to the full explination if you don't want to have to reproduce it.



JAMiAM -> RE: Undividable (9/2/2007 9:15:44 AM)

Is the unit the only one in the hex? Is it subject to disengagement attacks? Is it surrounded? What proficiency does it have? What is its overall unit quality? Is it attacking? Is it defending? Is it defending early during the opponent's turn, or is it closer to the end, when follow-up attacks are less likely? Is the primary criterium the evaporation of an original indivisible unit vs destruction of all three sub-units? Is it the total losses expected to equipment in one form versus the other?

There is a range of possibility here as to whether a section sized, or otherwise indivisible, unit is more, or less, resilient than a divisible unit.

If there is a reasonable,overriding design intent behind making a unit, or units, indivisible, then damn the torpedos and just do it. The rest of the issues are usually fairly small in comparison...[;)]

Now...what is the situation (scenario-specific) that you are considering, where you think that making them indivisible is presumed to garner some improvement?



Veers -> RE: Undividable (9/2/2007 6:25:43 PM)

I was just wondering if there is a chance that a unit would evaporate, rather than divide, when a unit would normally divide, if it was undividable.
EA. Corps-sized scenario that often sees battalions because of dividablitity. One of the biggest problems with this is that the Brandenburg Rgt. and UK Para Bgds, for example, can be used to block a 50km wide escape route for a Corps, or several stacked Corps. I was thinking of converting all brigades/Rgts to squads and changing the squad symbol to the brigade symbol (since there are more brigades than Rgts.)



JAMiAM -> RE: Undividable (9/2/2007 8:14:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

I was just wondering if there is a chance that a unit would evaporate, rather than divide, when a unit would normally divide, if it was undividable.
EA. Corps-sized scenario that often sees battalions because of dividablitity. One of the biggest problems with this is that the Brandenburg Rgt. and UK Para Bgds, for example, can be used to block a 50km wide escape route for a Corps, or several stacked Corps. I was thinking of converting all brigades/Rgts to squads and changing the squad symbol to the brigade symbol (since there are more brigades than Rgts.)

I suppose that the thing that you should first ask yourself, is whether or not units of those sizes should even be represented in a scenario of that scale. Do they serve a purpose? What purpose is that? I think that every unit that varies more than one level from the nominal unit scale for the scenario needs to be looked at with these questions in mind.

The Brandenburgers, for example, were a type of "Commando" unit, so it is not too far-fetched to assume that if they are in the rear lines causing mischief (redirecting traffic, blowing bridges, assasinating officers, blowing up supply dumps) that enough confusion and delay would be present in "their hex" to prevent or impede an orderly withdrawal through it - even by large masses of enemy troops. It's a judgement call on your part, of course, as the scenario designer, as to whether such chromatic enhancements add to, or take away from the experience of playing the scenario. This depends a lot on your own preferred play style, suspension of disbelief, and sense of aesthetics, as well as those qualities in your intended audience.

As far as your question goes as to whether a unit would evaporate, rather than divide, again it depends on the circumstances, since evaporation can occur at various stages in the combat sequence, and dependent upon the results of a number of outcomes of prior conditionally probabilistic trials. It makes no difference to the unit in question if it is attacking, but is entirely situationally dependent, when it is defending.



Veers -> RE: Undividable (9/2/2007 10:01:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
I was just wondering if there is a chance that a unit would evaporate, rather than divide, when a unit would normally divide, if it was undividable.
EA. Corps-sized scenario that often sees battalions because of dividablitity. One of the biggest problems with this is that the Brandenburg Rgt. and UK Para Bgds, for example, can be used to block a 50km wide escape route for a Corps, or several stacked Corps. I was thinking of converting all brigades/Rgts to squads and changing the squad symbol to the brigade symbol (since there are more brigades than Rgts.)

I suppose that the thing that you should first ask yourself, is whether or not units of those sizes should even be represented in a scenario of that scale. Do they serve a purpose? What purpose is that? I think that every unit that varies more than one level from the nominal unit scale for the scenario needs to be looked at with these questions in mind.

Have looked at it. Taking Bgds/Rgts out of EA would be a detriment. However, I am thinking of this and another couple ways to either remove them later on or, at least, make them less of a detriment.

quote:


As far as your question goes as to whether a unit would evaporate, rather than divide, again it depends on the circumstances, since evaporation can occur at various stages in the combat sequence, and dependent upon the results of a number of outcomes of prior conditionally probabilistic trials. It makes no difference to the unit in question if it is attacking, but is entirely situationally dependent, when it is defending.

Alright, a simple question (maybe): A unit that is indivisible and a unit that is divisible face the exact same situation in defence. The unit that is divisible divides. Is the unit that is indivisible, since it cannot divide, going to simply evaporate?



JAMiAM -> RE: Undividable (9/2/2007 10:31:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
Alright, a simple question (maybe): A unit that is indivisible and a unit that is divisible face the exact same situation in defence. The unit that is divisible divides. Is the unit that is indivisible, since it cannot divide, going to simply evaporate?

It's not a simple question, because the situation is not entirely defined. Therefore, it is not possible to answer whether an indivisible unit is "going to simply evaporate" or even if it is more, or less, probabilistically likely to do so.



Veers -> RE: Undividable (9/2/2007 10:42:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
Alright, a simple question (maybe): A unit that is indivisible and a unit that is divisible face the exact same situation in defence. The unit that is divisible divides. Is the unit that is indivisible, since it cannot divide, going to simply evaporate?

It's not a simple question, because the situation is not entirely defined. Therefore, it is not possible to answer whether an indivisible unit is "going to simply evaporate" or even if it is more, or less, probabilistically likely to do so.


No offence taken or given, but damn, that's frustrating. Is there anything I can read so that I can edjucate myself on the metrics of evaporationf/division?



JAMiAM -> RE: Undividable (9/2/2007 10:54:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
No offence taken or given, but damn, that's frustrating. Is there anything I can read so that I can edjucate myself on the metrics of evaporationf/division?

None taken. Sorry if it's frustrating, but at least you didn't do like the guy that emailed me last night did, and say that my answer was "pure chicken ****"...[:D]

I've asked Ralph for some code snippets, so that I can do a better job of helping you out by more clearly defining some specific cases, and showing how it may vary. Give us a couple of days, and I'll give you a more satisfying answer. That, or if it's all [&:] you'll simply be sorry you asked...[;)]

In the meantime...I've got two vehicles. One's a Chevy and one's a Toyota. Exact same race. Which one will win? When you start going through some of the variables involved with answering that question, you'll see why I can't really give you a definitive answer to the question you've asked, in the open-ended form that it's been asked. Even as you progressively narrow down some things, it still remains open-ended. For example...both are Toyotas. Both are same make and model of Toyota. Both are same make and model and year. Both are driven by the same grandma only on Sundays, and have "identical" service records. As above and both are driven by the same racer. On the same day. In the same way...



Veers -> RE: Undividable (9/2/2007 11:13:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
No offence taken or given, but damn, that's frustrating. Is there anything I can read so that I can edjucate myself on the metrics of evaporationf/division?

None taken. Sorry if it's frustrating, but at least you didn't do like the guy that emailed me last night did, and say that my answer was "pure chicken ****"...[:D]

I've asked Ralph for some code snippets, so that I can do a better job of helping you out by more clearly defining some specific cases, and showing how it may vary. Give us a couple of days, and I'll give you a more satisfying answer. That, or if it's all [&:] you'll simply be sorry you asked...[;)]

In the meantime...I've got two vehicles. One's a Chevy and one's a Toyota. Exact same race. Which one will win? When you start going through some of the variables involved with answering that question, you'll see why I can't really give you a definitive answer to the question you've asked, in the open-ended form that it's been asked. Even as you progressively narrow down some things, it still remains open-ended. For example...both are Toyotas. Both are same make and model of Toyota. Both are same make and model and year. Both are driven by the same grandma only on Sundays, and have "identical" service records. As above and both are driven by the same racer. On the same day. In the same way...


PM recieved. I await those code snippets and appreciate you guys taking the time.



wolflars -> RE: Undividable (9/3/2007 3:10:08 AM)

Hey Veers,

I am interested in this too. Let me know what you come up with.

Thanks,

Wolflars



Veers -> RE: Undividable (9/3/2007 3:14:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wolflars
Hey Veers,
I am interested in this too. Let me know what you come up with.
Thanks,
Wolflars

Well, you'll certainly be able to see what they bring to my attention. :D



golden delicious -> RE: Undividable (9/3/2007 4:55:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

EA. Corps-sized scenario that often sees battalions because of dividablitity. One of the biggest problems with this is that the Brandenburg Rgt. and UK Para Bgds, for example, can be used to block a 50km wide escape route for a Corps, or several stacked Corps. I was thinking of converting all brigades/Rgts to squads and changing the squad symbol to the brigade symbol (since there are more brigades than Rgts.)


I'd go further. Take out the brandenburgers (not significant as a unit at this scale) and consolidate all parachutists into divisions. Make those indivisible. In the European theatre at that scale, divisions should be the smallest possible unit.

n.b. the map scale for EA is 33km/hex... unless it's changed since I looked at it back in 2002.



Veers -> RE: Undividable (9/3/2007 6:41:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
EA. Corps-sized scenario that often sees battalions because of dividablitity. One of the biggest problems with this is that the Brandenburg Rgt. and UK Para Bgds, for example, can be used to block a 50km wide escape route for a Corps, or several stacked Corps. I was thinking of converting all brigades/Rgts to squads and changing the squad symbol to the brigade symbol (since there are more brigades than Rgts.)

I'd go further. Take out the brandenburgers (not significant as a unit at this scale) and consolidate all parachutists into divisions. Make those indivisible. In the European theatre at that scale, divisions should be the smallest possible unit.
n.b. the map scale for EA is 33km/hex... unless it's changed since I looked at it back in 2002.

Unless I plan to re-write the entire scenario I don't think I'll be able to do that. However, on the one hand, I do agree with that. Maybe once Shane, Mark, and I have taken this thing as far as it can possibly go from where it is, I'll take the time to re-write it; but that certainly won't be anytime soon.
One of the real problems with trying to take out all the Bgs/Rgts is that in Scandanavia, NA, and the ME these units are somewhat more realistic and harder to just take away.
But if I can at least make the bgs/rgts undivisible without a serious down-side, I'm going to do that.



golden delicious -> RE: Undividable (9/3/2007 6:58:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Unless I plan to re-write the entire scenario I don't think I'll be able to do that.


You could just play my variant (needs updating to TOAW III). This has all of my OOB suggestions already implemented.

quote:

One of the real problems with trying to take out all the Bgs/Rgts is that in Scandanavia, NA, and the ME these units are somewhat more realistic and harder to just take away.


Yeah. I left the smaller units in in these areas.



Veers -> RE: Undividable (9/3/2007 6:59:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
Unless I plan to re-write the entire scenario I don't think I'll be able to do that.

You could just play my variant (needs updating to TOAW III). This has all of my OOB suggestions already implemented.
quote:

One of the real problems with trying to take out all the Bgs/Rgts is that in Scandanavia, NA, and the ME these units are somewhat more realistic and harder to just take away.

Yeah. I left the smaller units in in these areas.

You know, I've never been able to find your variant. I haven't put too much effort into it, but I really have thought that it would be good to be able to take a look at it. Where is it?



Veers -> RE: Undividable (9/3/2007 7:42:51 PM)

While we're on the subject of dividing. I seem to remember Bob Cross saying something about the max number of units you can have on a side and they can all still divide is 1/3 of 2000.
A nice possible feature would be that withdrawn/disbanded units that were divided be recombined, saving those slots which would otherwise be permanently lost.
EDIT: Oh crud, better go make sure that isn't already in the wishlist...:D



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Undividable (9/3/2007 11:15:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

While we're on the subject of dividing. I seem to remember Bob Cross saying something about the max number of units you can have on a side and they can all still divide is 1/3 of 2000.


1/4 of 2000 (500).



Veers -> RE: Undividable (9/3/2007 11:56:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

While we're on the subject of dividing. I seem to remember Bob Cross saying something about the max number of units you can have on a side and they can all still divide is 1/3 of 2000.


1/4 of 2000 (500).

Right. Good man, Bob. IS what I just mentioned onthe wishlist? I couldn't find it, but that doesn't sya anything. :D



a white rabbit -> RE: Undividable (9/4/2007 7:05:39 AM)

..fill all formation slots, dividing is no longer possible



golden delicious -> RE: Undividable (9/4/2007 12:16:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
You know, I've never been able to find your variant. I haven't put too much effort into it, but I really have thought that it would be good to be able to take a look at it. Where is it?


http://www.geocities.com/maldenhill/EA2.zip

Here you go. Presumably you still have COW- just unzip it into your root directory and it should all fall into the right folders. BioEded exe, scenario file, a few modified graphics and substantial documentation (basically, all my design notes. Very handy to anyone designing a similar scenario as it has things like production figures)

For those not familiar with the scenario, a brief summary;
This is my version of Europe Aflame, which covers the whole of the war in Europe from 1939 to 1945. With Mark Stevens permission, I took the existing map, event structure and concept and redesigned the entire OOB from scratch. For the scale, I consider the OOB to be pretty solid, though it may need revision in a few places (more British armoured divisions, for example). Replacement figures come from production numbers (though this is not really ideal in many cases) and- critically- I have created separate equipment items for each nation, with their own replacement rates. This should add extra interest to the game.
Additionally, I have;
a) added a large number of new equipment types. This is most important in the late game, or if France survives the opening year of the war.
b) removed the Strategic Bombers except for one TO which allows them to be used for a short period.
c) Added an event chain which boosts German production if Russia is still in the game after a certain date. This both reflects Germany's mobilisation after Stalingrad and helps to balance the late game.
d) fixed some French forces in place to reflect their historical plans.
e) removed the supply points from Paris and Belgrade. France and Yugoslavia still have full supply but will have to hold a viable frontline in order to prevent collapse.
f) fixed some Russian forces in place, and have the rest arrive gradually from the start of the scenario through to early 1942. This limits Russia's freedom to plan for Barbarossa, adds an incentive to Germany to strike early and prevents Finland being crushed by weight of numbers. Of course, Russia still has huge depth; their units will reconstitute until the cows come home, often with just rifle squads.
g) reduced assigned strength and on-hand replacements for the Italians. This reflects both their losses in Abyssinia, Spain and Albania (which had not all been replaced by 1939) and the weakness of the Italian army when it came into action. Naturally proficiency is also rather low, though it will probably increase over the scenario due to the way TOAW handles replacements and proficiency.

Players should find the armies of the various nations behave more reasonably. There are no killer ant units such as proliferated in the original scenario.

A warning to the casual observer;
a) this obviously isn't for TOAW III. I will try to find the time to update it.
b) unlike the mainstream EA, this scenario has only been played about half a dozen times. I believe it now to be bug free, but balance may be way off.



wolflars -> RE: Undividable (9/4/2007 9:58:15 PM)

GD,

I can't seem to open this. It says file corrupted or some such non-sense. Any thoughts? Also, my copy of COW did not survive my little vacation to Iraq, so will I still be able to open it in the editor? I have no mind to play it, I just want to examine your OOB work, particularly the French.

Thanks.

Wolflars



golden delicious -> RE: Undividable (9/5/2007 1:19:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wolflars

GD,

I can't seem to open this. It says file corrupted or some such non-sense. Any thoughts? Also, my copy of COW did not survive my little vacation to Iraq, so will I still be able to open it in the editor? I have no mind to play it, I just want to examine your OOB work, particularly the French.


You should be able to open COW scenarios in the editor with TOAW III, but because I used a heavily modified .exe, the OOB will look like gibberish if you do.

In any case, at corps level you won't be able to learn all that much from the French OOB. It makes sense as one possible model based on the data available, but is obviously tailored to the situation and includes speculation on what would have happened to the French army had it not been knocked out of the war in Summer 1940.



wolflars -> RE: Undividable (9/5/2007 8:38:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: wolflars

GD,

I can't seem to open this. It says file corrupted or some such non-sense. Any thoughts? Also, my copy of COW did not survive my little vacation to Iraq, so will I still be able to open it in the editor? I have no mind to play it, I just want to examine your OOB work, particularly the French.


You should be able to open COW scenarios in the editor with TOAW III, but because I used a heavily modified .exe, the OOB will look like gibberish if you do.

In any case, at corps level you won't be able to learn all that much from the French OOB. It makes sense as one possible model based on the data available, but is obviously tailored to the situation and includes speculation on what would have happened to the French army had it not been knocked out of the war in Summer 1940.


Too bad. I would still like to see how you structured the French Army corps. For the stock EA, I have never liked how many independant French divisions there are. I think it gives them too much flexibility. Although without any firepower it does little good. Anyway, I am still interested in looking at this even if the equipment will be gibberish. I have an interest in France 1940-45 since the topic of Resistance occupied a good chunk of my PhD dissertation. Its the "speculation" I find fascinating. I still can't seem to download it. When I open the zipped file it reads "The Compressed (zipped) Folder is invalid or corrupted." [:(][&:][:(][&:]



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Undividable (9/5/2007 9:05:46 PM)

I get the same thing, however I've tried to unzip the file it says invalid or corrupted.[:(]



golden delicious -> RE: Undividable (9/6/2007 12:05:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wolflars

Too bad. I would still like to see how you structured the French Army corps. For the stock EA, I have never liked how many independant French divisions there are. I think it gives them too much flexibility.


Yeah. This has been cut down on. Also, the French army as of May 1940 has no pure armoured formations; each of the tank divisions is assigned to an infantry corps. While this is not strictly historical, it does prevent the French from acting with the sort of dash and elan which was missing from their performance in that campaign.




golden delicious -> RE: Undividable (9/6/2007 12:07:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I get the same thing, however I've tried to unzip the file it says invalid or corrupted.[:(]


Huh, I get the same error. I will have to make a new zip when I get home.



golden delicious -> RE: Undividable (9/12/2007 8:38:10 PM)

Sorry I forgot about this for a while. I've re-uploaded the file and it should now work. The location is the same but here it is again for the lazy amongst you;

http://www.geocities.com/maldenhill/EA2.zip

Once again, this is and ACOW scenario. It shouldn't run in TOAW III.



golden delicious -> RE: Undividable (9/12/2007 8:42:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Yeah. This has been cut down on. Also, the French army as of May 1940 has no pure armoured formations; each of the tank divisions is assigned to an infantry corps. While this is not strictly historical, it does prevent the French from acting with the sort of dash and elan which was missing from their performance in that campaign.


Looking at my notes, you may want to view the French.txt file in the docs folder. This breaks down the organisation of the French corps into divisions and other corps units.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375