quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I was recently playing Operation Bagration, and I was troubled by companies (yes, companies) gaining control of 20km hexes, exerting zones of control into adjacent 20km hexes, cutting supply lines, blocking retreats, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

golden delicious,

Granted that the Ants in the Operation Bagration scenario are an extreme case.  But the Operation Bagration scenario is part of the standard TOAW III scenario package.  And as others have pointed out in this thread, Ants are causing problems in pretty much every TOAW III scenario, hence this thread.

My biggest desire at this point is for Ants to be somehow dealt with by the game engine in all their aspects, and not just the combat aspects.  Curtis says that the non-combat issues of Ants have already been addressed in his wishlist.  I'm not sure of that.  I'm going to re-read the wishlist.

In any event, Curtis wants to focus on Ant combat issues in this thread, so I won't belabor the non-combat issues regarding Ants any more in this thread, but to me those non-combat issues are equally, if not more, important than the combat issues.  Enough said about that for now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

a white rabbit,

I think that John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism is correct in this case:  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  By this I mean that the negative abuses in which Ants are employed far outweigh any "positive benefits" that Ants might possess.

Further, I stipulate that the body of evidence against Ants is overwhelmingly strong.  Many games suffer from problems with Ants, not just TOAW, and the complaints against them are voiced in unison.  If ever there were a consensus among the global gaming community, across the spectrum of "operational wargames" in existence today (both boardgames and computer games), it is that Ants are a problem and not a solution.

Further, I claim that in every single example you cited above where you state that Ants are “a valid tool”, I claim that each of those cases could be resolved more favorably (in terms of both scenario enjoyment and historical realism) if the scenario designer could remove them from the game altogether.  Ants are, and always have been, a product and side effect of the game scale.  For example, if I want to design a "Lawrence of Arabia" (or an OSS in Indochina) scenario, then it is my responsibility as the scenario designer to choose the scale of the scenario correctly.

Further, you claim that Ants should be an option.  The reality is that Ants are NOT an option, at least not in TOAW III.  They are a byproduct of the game engine itself.  Players and designers are stuck with them whether they want them or not.  And the overwhelming consensus is that they do not want them.

And since we in the TOAW III community are stuck with Ants whether we want them or not, then the consensus of that community is that Ants be proscribed to the maximum extent allowed by the TOAW III game engine.  This means that you will still get your Ants, it is impossible to prevent them in TOAW III, but the fervent wishes of the many are that the pernicious effects of Ants, and Ants themselves, be eliminated wherever possible.

--V
 

quote:

Further, I claim that in every single example you cited above where you state that Ants are “a valid tool”, I claim that each of those cases could be resolved more favorably (in terms of both scenario enjoyment and historical realism) if the scenario designer could remove them from the game altogether.

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..ant-units are a valid tool. Without them how do you do a realistic Brits vs Italians 1939/40 (bits of recon units running amock behind Italian units); France 40. Germans vs French +  a satisfactory differentiation between 1st class and 2nd class French infantry; Russia 41, Germans vs Russians; Russia 43, Russians vs Rumanians; Malaya 41/2, Japanese vs Empire ; Finland 39, Finns vs Russians to name but a few wars..

..if you must fiddle then it should be an optional extra to remove any attack bonuses, not something hard-wired into the engine..

quote:

artillery bombarding alone is significantly less effective than bombarding in support of a ground attacker. The factor has been estimated to be about 4 to 1.

quote:

Second, defenders attacked by ground units lose 10% supply per attack round whereas defenders bombarded alone lose no supply

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..ant-units are a valid tool. Without them how do you do a realistic Brits vs Italians 1939/40 (bits of recon units running amock behind Italian units); France 40. Germans vs French +  a satisfactory differentiation between 1st class and 2nd class French infantry; Russia 41, Germans vs Russians; Russia 43, Russians vs Rumanians; Malaya 41/2, Japanese vs Empire ; Finland 39, Finns vs Russians to name but a few wars..

..if you must fiddle then it should be an optional extra to remove any attack bonuses, not something hard-wired into the engine..

First, any solution would be an advanced rule option.

Second, the reason the Italians got rolled in 1940 was not because the Brits were sucking all the supply out of the Italian stacks with those recon units.

And, as I've posted here already, ant units are unavoidable, even if every unit in the scenario is exactly the same size.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff
Im not sure that there is a solution short of substantially rewriting the equations which govern combat; toaw is a great idea, but the way it is now, it only fools people who haven't figured out what's going on, and the rest of us are stuck listening to people tell us how the 'fog of war' is complicated. I agree with you that it needs to be changed, I just see no intention on behalf of the designers to admit that there is a serious problem to address, and all they do is assure us how wonderful the thing is. The only thing I can think is that the code most be so uncommented, overly-complicated, and just plain messy, that they are afraid changing anything substantially will cause the whole thing to come undone.

The idea that this is a 'scenario design' problem is frankly inane; don't blame the scenario designers, it isn't their fault that toaw doesn't have the functionality one might expect. Those of us criticizing TOAW the most are the ones who could really do something with it if only it worked right.

quote:

I know! What's up with that, jeez, if I drop artillery on someone all day its probably going to hit an ammo dump eventually. Meanwhile, just because an artillery unit isn't killing people, doesn't mean it isn't keeping everyone awake all night; therefore, it needs to hit readiness too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..and i've shown three ways how not to get ant-units. I've never seen an already divided unit divide further, have you ? nor have i seen a unit that isn't in the OOB participate in some sort of so-called "gamey' action..

quote:

..the specific use of small units, whether a sub-division or not, linked with artillery-only attacks interestingly doesn't happen Bob's Guadacanal, well, not if you want to have a valid attack as well, which is another design solution that i don't fully understand..

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..shell weight, set in the bioed is the factor that affects target supply, and as a consequence readiness. What the exact formula is i've no idea, but very high numbers , in the middle and up hundreds, have major reduction effects on supply, the smaller shells have a miniscule or not observable effect..

quote:

Ammo dumps aren't modeled, but even if they were, would they be in the front lines?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

There isn't much point to marking Ants if Ants aren't treated any differently from any other TOAW unit.

However, if Ants are treated differently from default, non-Ant TOAW units (and I described some possibilities in my posts in this thread), then marking them becomes relevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Ants are problematic in other ways besides combat.

The reason I suggested that Ants be compared primarily to the scale/density of the scenario (rather than in terms of combat) is because of other issues like zones of control, gaining control of hexes, gaining control of adjacent hexes, blocking retreats, etc.

I was recently playing Operation Bagration, and I was troubled by companies (yes, companies) gaining control of 20km hexes, exerting zones of control into adjacent 20km hexes, cutting supply lines, blocking retreats, etc.

These are not trivial concerns because Ants can cause problems in a myriad of ways. Since Ants cannot be prohibited, due to the way TOAW's game engine operates (e.g., units being divided into small components when retreating, etc.), then some other means of dealing with the reality of Ants seems appropriate. And addressing only the combat aspects of Ants, as important as those are, is only part of the issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

a white rabbit,

I think that John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism is correct in this case: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. By this I mean that the negative abuses in which Ants are employed far outweigh any "positive benefits" that Ants might possess.

Further, I stipulate that the body of evidence against Ants is overwhelmingly strong. Many games suffer from problems with Ants, not just TOAW, and the complaints against them are voiced in unison. If ever there were a consensus among the global gaming community, across the spectrum of "operational wargames" in existence today (both boardgames and computer games), it is that Ants are a problem and not a solution.

Further, I claim that in every single example you cited above where you state that Ants are “a valid tool”, I claim that each of those cases could be resolved more favorably (in terms of both scenario enjoyment and historical realism) if the scenario designer could remove them from the game altogether. Ants are, and always have been, a product and side effect of the game scale. For example, if I want to design a "Lawrence of Arabia" (or an OSS in Indochina) scenario, then it is my responsibility as the scenario designer to choose the scale of the scenario correctly.

Further, you claim that Ants should be an option. The reality is that Ants are NOT an option, at least not in TOAW III. They are a byproduct of the game engine itself. Players and designers are stuck with them whether they want them or not. And the overwhelming consensus is that they do not want them.

And since we in the TOAW III community are stuck with Ants whether we want them or not, then the consensus of that community is that Ants be proscribed to the maximum extent allowed by the TOAW III game engine. This means that you will still get your Ants, it is impossible to prevent them in TOAW III, but the fervent wishes of the many are that the pernicious effects of Ants, and Ants themselves, be eliminated wherever possible.

--V

..they're only a product of toaw in as much as designers allow them to be, you don't want most Russian forces in 41 to go ant then start the game one organisational level up, div not regt/ corps not div. If you must put in each regt by name then divide the div in the editor, change the unit names to the correct one (that's the bit i forgot before[sm=00000028.gif] and bingo, no ants. Don't add all the fancy bits that died quickly, don't add the Telephone Santizer units..

..in short, create/design forces that fight as they fought historically, don't be sloppy or show-off..

..as for Stuart Mill, the objective surely is to produce better, tighter, more historically accurate scenarios, not pander to the mass..

..which just leaves my example scenarios where i consider ants are needed, you state

quote:

Further, I claim that in every single example you cited above where you state that Ants are “a valid tool”, I claim that each of those cases could be resolved more favorably (in terms of both scenario enjoyment and historical realism) if the scenario designer could remove them from the game altogether.

Pick one and show me how..

..or better still..

..let's take a simple example, the Japanese vs Empire in Malaya 41, just how would you simulate the ability of the Japanese to subdivide into at least companies to bypass and attack the Empire units, larger btn size but clumsy, in the rear, thus causing the panic that had such a deliterious effect on so many Empire blocking positions ? ..

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleffMeanwhile, just because an artillery unit isn't killing people, doesn't mean it isn't keeping everyone awake all night; therefore, it needs to hit readiness too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..i wish i could, but me and the search don't get on..

..it boiled down to those who think that ants are a designer problem, pure and simple, and those who reckon toaw should some how punish the ant-units and those who use them should be branded on the forehead with an H and have their noses slit (first offence)..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..shell weight, set in the bioed is the factor that affects target supply, and as a consequence readiness. What the exact formula is i've no idea, but very high numbers , in the middle and up hundreds, have major reduction effects on supply, the smaller shells have a miniscule or not observable effect..

Only if the target includes artillery that fires counterbattery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Ants are problematic in other ways besides combat.

The reason I suggested that Ants be compared primarily to the scale/density of the scenario (rather than in terms of combat) is because of other issues like zones of control, gaining control of hexes, gaining control of adjacent hexes, blocking retreats, etc.

I was recently playing Operation Bagration, and I was troubled by companies (yes, companies) gaining control of 20km hexes, exerting zones of control into adjacent 20km hexes, cutting supply lines, blocking retreats, etc.

These are not trivial concerns because Ants can cause problems in a myriad of ways. Since Ants cannot be prohibited, due to the way TOAW's game engine operates (e.g., units being divided into small components when retreating, etc.), then some other means of dealing with the reality of Ants seems appropriate. And addressing only the combat aspects of Ants, as important as those are, is only part of the issue.

Yes -- but these are design problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleffMeanwhile, just because an artillery unit isn't killing people, doesn't mean it isn't keeping everyone awake all night; therefore, it needs to hit readiness too.

Yeah, but generally that just tends to go with being in the front line: if the artillery isn't keeping you up at night, the thought of those Gurkhas out running around trying to collect a head will.

I've often thought that both supply and readiness should increase more if you spend your turn without coming adjacent to an enemy unit. Aside from addressing your concern to some extent, it would also create a motivation for keeping units in reserve as opposed to just putting everyone in the front all the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..shell weight, set in the bioed is the factor that affects target supply, and as a consequence readiness. What the exact formula is i've no idea, but very high numbers , in the middle and up hundreds, have major reduction effects on supply, the smaller shells have a miniscule or not observable effect..

Only if the target includes artillery that fires counterbattery.

..sorry no, or rather no in ACOW, pure ranged fire with zero AP/AT but high shell weight wacks the target unit's supply level, you obviously missed my BioEd trials for ancients leader effects.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..shell weight, set in the bioed is the factor that affects target supply, and as a consequence readiness. What the exact formula is i've no idea, but very high numbers , in the middle and up hundreds, have major reduction effects on supply, the smaller shells have a miniscule or not observable effect..

Only if the target includes artillery that fires counterbattery.

..sorry no, or rather no in ACOW, pure ranged fire with zero AP/AT but high shell weight wacks the target unit's supply level, you obviously missed my BioEd trials for ancients leader effects.

No. I was a participant in them, and you were definitely using an "infantry gun" icon target - triggering counterbattery fire - which accounted for the supply drop.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
As matters stand, players have every reason to engage in utterly ahistorical behavior and to completely ignore the actual function of any small specialty units they might have.