Negative Shock Effects (Full Version)

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



Message

sstevens06 -> Negative Shock Effects (12/2/2007 9:42:32 PM)

One of the more annoying effects of "Negative Shock" (Shock value set to under 100) is that entire formations go into "reorganization" making all of their constituent units unavailable for orders (other than dig in, tactical, or local reserve). A better approach I think would be to apply this random "reorganization" effect at the individual unit rather than at the entire formation-level.

Another "Negative Shock" effect I'd like to see implemented is a very small, but finite non-zero probability that an individual unit will attack an adjacent enemy unit without the player ordering it.

Yet another enhancement would subject an individual unit to a "Negative Shock" effect of moving a random number of hexes in a semi-random direction (more likely along roads, or other low movement-cost hexes), again without the player having ordered the movement. This effect would need to take place either during the players' combat resolution phase, or during the opposing player's turn.

The last two enhancements would probably require an inordinate amount of coding, but the first one should be fairly straightforward to implement. Thoughts?



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/2/2007 10:50:40 PM)

Great ideas, I hope they are never implemented. We got enough problems, don't need units attacking and moving on their own.



ColinWright -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/3/2007 2:22:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

One of the more annoying effects of "Negative Shock" (Shock value set to under 100) is that entire formations go into "reorganization" making all of their constituent units unavailable for orders (other than dig in, tactical, or local reserve). A better approach I think would be to apply this random "reorganization" effect at the individual unit rather than at the entire formation-level...should be fairly straightforward to implement. Thoughts?


I like the negative shock effect just the way it is -- and since I'm still wrestling with the effects of the 'improvements' made in early turn ending, I have to say that your idea sounds about as attractive as conducting a review of my recent tax returns with the IRS.



SMK-at-work -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/4/2007 4:03:50 AM)

Applying it across units rather than formations would certainly make life a lot more interesting for scenarios like FITE where there aer a lot of units that can be affected!!

I must confess to getting irritated by having whole soviet armies frozen...sometimes for 2-3 turns (I only play the Sov's so far because of time limitations)....it would be much better to be able to run away with at least some of them rather than have the whole lot surrounded and KO'ed!! [:D]



ColinWright -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/4/2007 4:54:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Applying it across units rather than formations would certainly make life a lot more interesting for scenarios like FITE where there aer a lot of units that can be affected!!

I must confess to getting irritated by having whole soviet armies frozen...sometimes for 2-3 turns (I only play the Sov's so far because of time limitations)....it would be much better to be able to run away with at least some of them rather than have the whole lot surrounded and KO'ed!! [:D]


Yeah -- but whatever the effect that's being simulated, a lot of times the reorganization is formation-wide. Stalin won't give permission for the army to withdraw, or General Dither-Delay wants to discuss these orders he's received, or whatever. If sometimes it's unreasonable that all eight units are pinned in place, at other times it would be equally unreasonable that three could move but four couldn't.

Take the UK non-counterattack to recover Maleme airfield in Crete. It wasn't like two battalions reacted promptly and quickly but a third did nothing. They were all in the same brigade, and they all sat on their hands.

I suppose that as usual the ideal would be for the designer to have the choice, but failing that, you can usually reduce the size of your formations if you don't like the numbers that are all being affected at the same time. It would be considerably harder to arrange matters so that whole formations went down if that's what you wanted and the re-org check had been redesigned so that it was carried out on a unit-by-unit basis.



SMK-at-work -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/4/2007 5:28:02 AM)

Perhaps you  still get a formation-wide "hit" if the HQ was frozen?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/4/2007 5:21:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah -- but whatever the effect that's being simulated, a lot of times the reorganization is formation-wide. Stalin won't give permission for the army to withdraw, or General Dither-Delay wants to discuss these orders he's received, or whatever. If sometimes it's unreasonable that all eight units are pinned in place, at other times it would be equally unreasonable that three could move but four couldn't.

Take the UK non-counterattack to recover Maleme airfield in Crete. It wasn't like two battalions reacted promptly and quickly but a third did nothing. They were all in the same brigade, and they all sat on their hands.

I suppose that as usual the ideal would be for the designer to have the choice, but failing that, you can usually reduce the size of your formations if you don't like the numbers that are all being affected at the same time. It would be considerably harder to arrange matters so that whole formations went down if that's what you wanted and the re-org check had been redesigned so that it was carried out on a unit-by-unit basis.


I agree with Colin here. It models breakdowns in command-and-control. You can't move the units because their commander isn't responding to your orders.

However, there might be cases where it would be desireable to separate the two factors. In other words, you might want only the drop in combat strength/supply without the C&C effects; or you might want only the C&C effects without the CS/S effects. Splitting it up might be a useful editor enhancement.



Veers -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/4/2007 8:29:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah -- but whatever the effect that's being simulated, a lot of times the reorganization is formation-wide. Stalin won't give permission for the army to withdraw, or General Dither-Delay wants to discuss these orders he's received, or whatever. If sometimes it's unreasonable that all eight units are pinned in place, at other times it would be equally unreasonable that three could move but four couldn't.

Take the UK non-counterattack to recover Maleme airfield in Crete. It wasn't like two battalions reacted promptly and quickly but a third did nothing. They were all in the same brigade, and they all sat on their hands.

I suppose that as usual the ideal would be for the designer to have the choice, but failing that, you can usually reduce the size of your formations if you don't like the numbers that are all being affected at the same time. It would be considerably harder to arrange matters so that whole formations went down if that's what you wanted and the re-org check had been redesigned so that it was carried out on a unit-by-unit basis.


I agree with Colin here. It models breakdowns in command-and-control. You can't move the units because their commander isn't responding to your orders.

However, there might be cases where it would be desireable to separate the two factors. In other words, you might want only the drop in combat strength/supply without the C&C effects; or you might want only the C&C effects without the CS/S effects. Splitting it up might be a useful editor enhancement.

Yes, the ability too seperate the effects would be very desirable.



sstevens06 -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/5/2007 4:34:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah -- but whatever the effect that's being simulated, a lot of times the reorganization is formation-wide. Stalin won't give permission for the army to withdraw, or General Dither-Delay wants to discuss these orders he's received, or whatever. If sometimes it's unreasonable that all eight units are pinned in place, at other times it would be equally unreasonable that three could move but four couldn't.

Take the UK non-counterattack to recover Maleme airfield in Crete. It wasn't like two battalions reacted promptly and quickly but a third did nothing. They were all in the same brigade, and they all sat on their hands.

I suppose that as usual the ideal would be for the designer to have the choice, but failing that, you can usually reduce the size of your formations if you don't like the numbers that are all being affected at the same time. It would be considerably harder to arrange matters so that whole formations went down if that's what you wanted and the re-org check had been redesigned so that it was carried out on a unit-by-unit basis.


I agree with Colin here. It models breakdowns in command-and-control. You can't move the units because their commander isn't responding to your orders.

However, there might be cases where it would be desireable to separate the two factors. In other words, you might want only the drop in combat strength/supply without the C&C effects; or you might want only the C&C effects without the CS/S effects. Splitting it up might be a useful editor enhancement.



Separating the C&C and CS/S Negative (and Positive) Shock effects would definitely be an improvement over the current situation.

There's still an argument to be made in favor of an individual unit- as opposed to a formation-level reorganization effect. If this effect indeed models the loss of command & control by higher headquarters (represented by the player), who's to say it neatly applies only to whole formations? Why not to individual units within formations? What's the old saying: "there's always some poor bastard who doesn't get the word..." Anyhow, the current implementation just feels artificial to me.

Lemay's insight that the reorganization effect simulates a breakdown in C&C is also an argument in favor of my other two enhancements.

During the morning of 8 Oct 1973 two Israeli armored battalions launched separate, uncoordinated and unsupported attacks on dug-in Egyptian infantry armed to the teeth with state-of-the-art Soviet made anti-tank weapons. The results were predictable - both Israeli attacks were smashed with very heavy losses. Based on my research (from a number of sources) these Israeli armored battalions launched their attacks with little or no knowledge of the "attack plan" as conceptualized and disseminated by the IDF Southern Command. It's pretty clear the two Israeli armored battalion commanders independently took the initiative, on their own volition, to launch their attacks without positive control, even from their respective brigade-levels, much less from any higher command echelons. The 1973 war is a conflict I've studied intensively, but I'm sure there are numerous examples from other periods.

Finally, we've all read accounts (or have actual experience) of units moving in directions unanticipated by their higher commands, or just getting lost. This, of course, never happens in TOAW.

Bottom line: the Negative Shock reorganization effect is very one-dimensional. The only consequence of loss of C&C by higher headquarters is that entire formations just sit there. They never make foolish and ill-advised attacks with sometimes disastrous consequences. Nor do they ever careen off in nonsensical directions, or simply get lost during the course of movement.



sstevens06 -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/5/2007 4:35:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Perhaps you  still get a formation-wide "hit" if the HQ was frozen?



I like this idea.



ColinWright -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/5/2007 4:44:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah -- but whatever the effect that's being simulated, a lot of times the reorganization is formation-wide. Stalin won't give permission for the army to withdraw, or General Dither-Delay wants to discuss these orders he's received, or whatever. If sometimes it's unreasonable that all eight units are pinned in place, at other times it would be equally unreasonable that three could move but four couldn't.

Take the UK non-counterattack to recover Maleme airfield in Crete. It wasn't like two battalions reacted promptly and quickly but a third did nothing. They were all in the same brigade, and they all sat on their hands.

I suppose that as usual the ideal would be for the designer to have the choice, but failing that, you can usually reduce the size of your formations if you don't like the numbers that are all being affected at the same time. It would be considerably harder to arrange matters so that whole formations went down if that's what you wanted and the re-org check had been redesigned so that it was carried out on a unit-by-unit basis.


I agree with Colin here. It models breakdowns in command-and-control. You can't move the units because their commander isn't responding to your orders.

However, there might be cases where it would be desireable to separate the two factors. In other words, you might want only the drop in combat strength/supply without the C&C effects; or you might want only the C&C effects without the CS/S effects. Splitting it up might be a useful editor enhancement.



Separating the C&C and CS/S Negative (and Positive) Shock effects would definitely be an improvement over the current situation.

There's still an argument to be made in favor of an individual unit- as opposed to a formation-level reorganization effect. If this effect indeed models the loss of command & control by higher headquarters (represented by the player), who's to say it neatly applies only to whole formations? Why not to individual units within formations? What's the old saying: "there's always some poor bastard who doesn't get the word..." Anyhow, the current implementation just feels artificial to me.

Lemay's insight that the reorganization effect simulates a breakdown in C&C is also an argument in favor of my other two enhancements.

During the morning of 8 Oct 1973 two Israeli armored battalions launched separate, uncoordinated and unsupported attacks on dug-in Egyptian infantry armed to the teeth with state-of-the-art Soviet made anti-tank weapons. The results were predictable - both Israeli attacks were smashed with very heavy losses. Based on my research (from a number of sources) these Israeli armored battalions launched their attacks with little or no knowledge of the "attack plan" as conceptualized and disseminated by the IDF Southern Command. It's pretty clear the two Israeli armored battalion commanders independently took the initiative, on their own volition, to launch their attacks without positive control, even from their respective brigade-levels, much less from any higher command echelons. The 1973 war is a conflict I've studied intensively, but I'm sure there are numerous examples from other periods.

Finally, we've all read accounts (or have actual experience) of units moving in directions unanticipated by their higher commands, or just getting lost. This, of course, never happens in TOAW.

Bottom line: the Negative Shock reorganization effect is very one-dimensional. The only consequence of loss of C&C by higher headquarters is that entire formations just sit there. They never make foolish and ill-advised attacks with sometimes disastrous consequences. Nor do they ever careen off in nonsensical directions, or simply get lost during the course of movement.


Alla true. However, as with my experience with the TOAW III 'fix' for low-movement rate units, the cure might turn out to be worse than the disease.

I can see examples for both sides of the argument. However, it'd be easier to compensate for large formations going into reorg if that's not what you want than to compensate for individual units going into reorg if that's not what you want. As I said, it's less disruptive to make the formations smaller than to make the units bigger.

Really. Have you ever exhausted all the slots for formations? If it's a battalion-level scenario, and you don't like whole divisions going into re-org, make your formations brigade/regimental level.



Adam Rinkleff -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/6/2007 3:25:40 AM)

quote:

One of the more annoying effects of "Negative Shock" (Shock value set to under 100) is that entire formations go into "reorganization" making all of their constituent units unavailable for orders (other than dig in, tactical, or local reserve). A better approach I think would be to apply this random "reorganization" effect at the individual unit rather than at the entire formation-level. Another "Negative Shock" effect I'd like to see implemented is a very small, but finite non-zero probability that an individual unit will attack an adjacent enemy unit without the player ordering it.


I agree.



sstevens06 -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/6/2007 3:50:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06
...
Another "Negative Shock" effect I'd like to see implemented is a very small, but finite non-zero probability that an individual unit will attack an adjacent enemy unit without the player ordering it.
...



Perhaps the probability of such an un-ordered attack can be dependent upon the affected unit's proficiency - the higher the proficiency the greater the probability that a unit affected by "Negative Shock" will launch an un-ordered attack.



JAMiAM -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/6/2007 4:22:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06
They never make foolish and ill-advised attacks with sometimes disastrous consequences. Nor do they ever careen off in nonsensical directions, or simply get lost during the course of movement.

I don't know about the veracity of that claim. Judging from what I've seen in few thousand pbem turns, I'd say it happens quite frequently. Not to mention what that guy Elmer does...[:D]



ColinWright -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/6/2007 6:09:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Applying it across units rather than formations would certainly make life a lot more interesting for scenarios like FITE where there aer a lot of units that can be affected!!

I must confess to getting irritated by having whole soviet armies frozen...sometimes for 2-3 turns (I only play the Sov's so far because of time limitations)....it would be much better to be able to run away with at least some of them rather than have the whole lot surrounded and KO'ed!! [:D]


Yeah, but (a) that's what happened -- repeatedly. (b) The designer could always have more, smaller formations. It would be much harder to reverse this and obtain formation-wide effects if the engine was checking for the effect unit-by-unit.



golden delicious -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/6/2007 11:36:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I don't know about the veracity of that claim. Judging from what I've seen in few thousand pbem turns, I'd say it happens quite frequently.


The problem is that this depends entirely on the player. In the real world, impetuous and insubordinate junior officers affect good and bad commanders alike.



sstevens06 -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/6/2007 5:08:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

...
(b) The designer could always have more, smaller formations. It would be much harder to reverse this and obtain formation-wide effects if the engine was checking for the effect unit-by-unit.
...



Formation size in my Suez Canal 1973 scenario is brigade - can't really get much smaller unless I go to each battalion being it's own formation.

I like the compromise proposed by SMK-at-work in a post above:

quote:

Perhaps you still get a formation-wide "hit" if the HQ was frozen?



Reorganization check would be at an individual unit-level, but formation-wide reorganization could still occur.



sstevens06 -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/6/2007 5:08:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

...
In the real world, impetuous and insubordinate junior officers affect good and bad commanders alike.



Precisely!



ColinWright -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/6/2007 7:00:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06



I like the compromise proposed by SMK-at-work in a post above:

quote:

Perhaps you still get a formation-wide "hit" if the HQ was frozen?



Reorganization check would be at an individual unit-level, but formation-wide reorganization could still occur.



Needless to say, I think of things in terms of my scenario.

Well, I like the effect as it stands for modelling the traditionally stodgy and now ill-prepared British army that is facing a German invasion.

The British didn't have especial problems getting all the battalions to move forward in a planned attack -- which would be something one would have problems with if this change was made. They had problems deciding everything was indeed more or les ready to go and agreeing they could indeed go over the top tomorrow morning -- or later this afternoon. Generally speaking, it would be the whole division that would freeze -- but not individual battalions. If the plan was in place, and everyone had time to prepare, the whole division would indeed move remorselessly forward ala the Somme or ala El Alamein. No odd battalions scattered up and down the line who had opted out there.

So I prefer it the way is. If your change was an option there'd be no reason to object. However, to be forced to start reckoning with unit-by-unit hits -- well, it would just amount to a degradation in the quality of the game as far as I was concerned. Sort of an un-patch.



ColinWright -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/6/2007 7:21:30 PM)

Actually, thinking about this, I'd think the improvement to be made is not is what is affected, but when it is affected.

Most armies are able to execute the opening moves in their great plan well enough -- its in reacting to the unexpected or following through on their own success that they have problems. The repeated British failure to exploit gains in World War One, the British and French inability to organize timely counterattacks in sufficient strength in 1940, the Russian tendency to just sit there as the Germans went around them in 1941.

I'd say the probability that a formation (or unit, if SStevens has his way) is susceptible to reorg should be heavily dependent on whether it's moved in the previous turn. That really is a major factor in the equation in real life. Everyone knows what to do on D-day. It's on D+3 that things are going all to hell.



golden delicious -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/7/2007 10:57:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'd say the probability that a formation (or unit, if SStevens has his way) is susceptible to reorg should be heavily dependent on whether it's moved in the previous turn. That really is a major factor in the equation in real life. Everyone knows what to do on D-day. It's on D+3 that things are going all to hell.


This is well enough- but it doesn't really provide for units to just sit there while being outflanked. 43rd Wessex casually extracts itself from that encirclement.

At the very least, this would have to be on a formation-by-formation basis. Otherwise any units not attacked directly can withdraw to that new line.



ColinWright -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/7/2007 7:03:26 PM)

Frankly, I think the whole re-org thing works well enough. I'd rather see something done about the mechanism used for supply, or air/naval warfare, or one of the other major problems the system actually has.

To some extent, all this tweaking is like getting the paint scheme just so while ignoring the fact that the roof leaks and the front door won't stay closed.



golden delicious -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/8/2007 2:29:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Frankly, I think the whole re-org thing works well enough. I'd rather see something done about the mechanism used for supply, or air/naval warfare, or one of the other major problems the system actually has.


Ditto. Of course the problem with each of these is that they're huge undertakings when it comes to coding them, and there's no agreement on exactly what should be done and how.



ColinWright -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/8/2007 2:36:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Frankly, I think the whole re-org thing works well enough. I'd rather see something done about the mechanism used for supply, or air/naval warfare, or one of the other major problems the system actually has.


Ditto. Of course the problem with each of these is that they're huge undertakings when it comes to coding them, and there's no agreement on exactly what should be done and how.


Yeah -- but this cuts both ways. If we don't push for the hard bits, we'll probably keep getting the easy bits. How many versions of TOAW should we buy before its fundamental flaws are addressed?



jmlima -> RE: Negative Shock Effects (12/8/2007 11:54:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Frankly, I think the whole re-org thing works well enough. I'd rather see something done about the mechanism used for supply, or air/naval warfare, or one of the other major problems the system actually has.


Ditto. Of course the problem with each of these is that they're huge undertakings when it comes to coding them, and there's no agreement on exactly what should be done and how.


Yeah -- but this cuts both ways. If we don't push for the hard bits, we'll probably keep getting the easy bits. How many versions of TOAW should we buy before its fundamental flaws are addressed?



One more I believe. I've given up on TOAW 3, and I'm waiting to see if TOAW 4 does resolve those major issues, namely supply. If that's not the case, then , move on...

I agree entirely with Colin, one thing that impresses me is the number of mostly cosmetic or minor changes on which so much effort is apparently put on, whilst the meaty stuff like supply goes around in circles. And Ben, it's not up to us to decide what's best or not for these big issues, we are not the developers, it's up to us to suggest what should be done, the developer should then take those into account when developing the solution for it if he also agrees it to be a problem.
Fortunately I never saw anyone from Matrix using the fact that players do not agree on what they want to see as an excuse not do to anything about it, and quite rightly.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.8125