Composite units (Full Version)

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



Message


Legun -> Composite units (2/3/2008 9:51:16 PM)

I would like to see an option, allowing to attach one unit to an other one. There should be some coditions, of course - high cooperation level, smaller size etc. The attached unit could have saved own, separated TO&E, but it could have common prof, readiness, supply level and all other unit's parameters. All algorithms of calculating the parameters could be the same as in a case of subunits. Any split of the supported unit causes separation of the attached unit (split forced by combat result, too).
It could save the problem of micromanagement of ant units.
This would be handy for KGs. If the size restriction were based on the size icon, you could have an empty division (or whatever) sized KG unit appear and the player could use it to build up a kampfgruppe.
This would be very handy for corps level scenarios. There are empty corps and divisions as attached units.
The possibility of attaching other units could be depend on number of command group the unit has. One command group allows to attach one one-step-lower unit (company for battalion, regiment for brigade etc.). This is just the second way the command group can be used by a scenario designer. The first makes a HQ more fragile, the second limits the possibility of all units.
I think that it's really easy way to add next level of command structure without an interface revolution.
I've seen some reasons for the solution:
1) Management - a kampfgruppe (or just a main battle unit supported by some lower-size specialized units) consists of 2-5 units, now and needs many, many clicks to move or fight together. It could be much easier to move and set it to attack as a single unit, couldn't it?
2) Perception - such group of units is a group of "counters" now. It's not so easy to recognized their strength, health and just presence when the group is stacking. The composite unit is a single counter with a sum of possibilities shown at once.
3) Performance - if such main battle unit and stacking ant-units fight, prof check is made separately for each of them each time. That means, that there is high probability, that a engineer company is attacking separately, although an infantry brigade the company has to support has failed initial prof check when the company hasn't failed. It usually causes a massacre of the company. It could happen from time to time, but there could be a way to make a distinction between two separated attacks - one made by brigade and one by company - and an attack of brigade supported by ATTACHED, SUBORDINATED company.
4) Simulation - this is just the way some armies acted and act. The Kampfgruppe was an important innovation, as well as American Combat Commands in armoured divisions.

So, the regiment (if full size) should have a limit of 2 command squads, limiting possible attached units to two battalions. In present ACOW, if a designer has included all the sub-units just directly to regiment's TO&E, it remains infantry regiment too, I suppose. With the "command group" solution, a designer can limit size of attached units this way, that there is no doubt that the original type of unit isn't changed. He can always define "regimental KG" unit, with TO&E of 5 command groups only. This way a player can create any ad-hoc unit as "supported regiment" - infantry, tank, engineer, AT etc.
This way you can simulate doctrinal problems of specific armies. Each of DAK regiments should have at least 3 command groups, when a British tank regiment shouldn't have any, at least at 41-43.

Some other possibilities opened by the composite units:
1) temporary motorization
example: - each British 1944 ID has a transport column - a subunit which can be attached to one of its brigades to give it motorized movement rate
2) supply-transport dilemma
example: - the British transport column has some supply squads in its TO&E; if you attached it to divisional HQ, formation supply level increases; if you use it for transport purpose, the supply level falls
3) air transport possibility
example: - the Germans have an empty "airlift" unit and can attach a regiment of 6. Gebirge ID and send it to Crete
4) rearment
example: - each British armoured regiment on the desert consists of basic "mother" unit and independent tank battalions (up to 3) of different types of tank; if you get a Grant battalion as a reinforcements, you can replace old Crusader battalion by the new one.
[image]http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasje/TOAW/Attached%202.JPG[/image]




ColinWright -> RE: Composite units (2/3/2008 10:25:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


...4) Simulation - this is just the way some armies acted and act. The Kampfgruppe was an important innovation, as well as American Combat Commands in armoured divisions...


Although I don't see this as high a priority as you do, I might as well add that the Germans and the Americans were hardly the only ones to form 'composite units'. The various British 'cols' -- 'Kingcol' for example -- provide further examples. I've been working on my 'Operation Exporter' scenario -- all four of the main Australian columns to cross the Syrian frontier on 8 June were composite forces of artillery, armored cars, and engineers attached to an infantry battalion.

That brings up something. Attached artillery is a very common component of these various types of combat groups -- and you're going to have to wrestle with what happens to artillery in these composite formations. Do they retain their ranged fire ability? How does the rest of the unit go into direct combat while the artillery still provides ranged fire support? How do you simulate the armored cars ranging ahead? Etc.




Legun -> RE: Composite units (2/4/2008 5:05:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
you're going to have to wrestle with what happens to artillery in these composite formations. How do you simulate the armored cars ranging ahead? Etc.



You don't need to attach artillery or recon unit to main body of your kampfgruppe. Your argument is completely missed. You better look at tank-infantry cooperation in case of Germans and Brittons or using assault engineers. You always can find an example of stupid usage of an option. Look at point 4 at your wishlist - editable terrain. I could ask you:
- you really want to have flooded dunes or shallow water dense urban (to simulate Venice ;) )?
Try to test the proposition from a rational point of view.




ColinWright -> RE: Composite units (2/4/2008 8:00:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
you're going to have to wrestle with what happens to artillery in these composite formations. How do you simulate the armored cars ranging ahead? Etc.



You don't need to attach artillery or recon unit to main body of your kampfgruppe. Your argument is completely missed. You better look at tank-infantry cooperation in case of Germans and Brittons or using assault engineers. You always can find an example of stupid usage of an option. Look at point 4 at your wishlist - editable terrain. I could ask you:
- you really want to have flooded dunes or shallow water dense urban (to simulate Venice ;) )?
Try to test the proposition from a rational point of view.



You're getting defensive about your idea. I have no particular objection to it; in fact, I kind of like it. I'm just mentioning the problems that come to mind when I contemplate it.




Legun -> RE: Composite units (2/4/2008 9:01:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You're getting defensive about your idea. I have no particular objection to it; in fact, I kind of like it. I'm just mentioning the problems that come to mind when I contemplate it.



OK. I don't see the problem of artillery or recon attached to a main battle unit. Nobody is forced to form composite units.

Next two possibilities created by the option:
- riverine transport (a riverine unit with ability to attach land unit),
- limited logistics of rail transport (instead of standard rail transport a designer can create a "rail" unit with ability to attach transported units - this way you havn't common rail pool for the UK and Italy).




ColinWright -> RE: Composite units (2/4/2008 9:06:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You're getting defensive about your idea. I have no particular objection to it; in fact, I kind of like it. I'm just mentioning the problems that come to mind when I contemplate it.



OK. I don't see the problem of artillery or recon attached to a main battle unit. Nobody is forced to form composite units.

Next two possibilities created by the option:
- riverine transport (a riverine unit with ability to attach land unit),
- limited logistics of rail transport (instead of standard rail transport a designer can create a "rail" unit with ability to attach transported units - this way you havn't common rail pool for the UK and Italy).


Here, note that you will need programming to force the unit to 'shed' the steamboats or freight trains or whatever.

I still want separate transport units. As I've said, I don't have any objection to composite units -- but I don't really see them as the solution to the problems that separate transport units would address.

If it was a matter of the composite units already existing, and there being some profound programming barrier to separate transport units -- why then, sure -- let's make the composite units able to solve the problem.

However, that's not the situation. Composite units are one thing -- and offhand, a moderately complex thing -- that has yet to be implemented. Air, sea, road, and rail transport units are another thing that has yet to be implemented -- and a thing that the existence of aircraft carriers and transport helicopters suggests could be implemented rather easily.

So...I want transport units. I don't really see obtaining composite units as a particularly direct means of satisfying this desire.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Composite units (2/6/2008 7:58:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Here, note that you will need programming to force the unit to 'shed' the steamboats or freight trains or whatever.

I still want separate transport units. As I've said, I don't have any objection to composite units -- but I don't really see them as the solution to the problems that separate transport units would address.

If it was a matter of the composite units already existing, and there being some profound programming barrier to separate transport units -- why then, sure -- let's make the composite units able to solve the problem.

However, that's not the situation. Composite units are one thing -- and offhand, a moderately complex thing -- that has yet to be implemented. Air, sea, road, and rail transport units are another thing that has yet to be implemented -- and a thing that the existence of aircraft carriers and transport helicopters suggests could be implemented rather easily.

So...I want transport units. I don't really see obtaining composite units as a particularly direct means of satisfying this desire.


I agree with Colin here. I'm concerned that composite units would allow tranfer of lifted items without concern for the lift capacity required - a "truck" unit with only one truck in it could tranport an artillery unit with a huge number of guns in it. Perhaps that could be addressed in the code for composite units, but doing so may make it too complicated. Better that we address the lift issues directly via the methods already suggested. I like 6.13 (physical lift units) best, but I want 6.8 (mount/dismount) and 6.9 (truck capacity) as well.

Otherwise, I think composite units would be useful, especially for implementing Task Forces. There would be issues, like what Colin mentioned, though. For example, if aircraft carriers are incorporated into a task force, where do their air groups go - into the TF, or on top?, etc. I also think we first need a mechanism to easily nix sub-division, so incorporated units could be denied sub-division. Otherwise, you have corps that contain divisions, with those divisions able to subdivide - unlimited ant units.




rhinobones -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 1:00:12 AM)

Like the idea of composite units, however, I think the effect can be achieved in a simpler fashion while avoiding some of the negatives. Suggest that the composite unit be a stack of individual units that retain their original identity but move and share assets in the manner of a single integrated unit. Much the same as a stack of troop ship units move as a single unit while engaging in combat as individual units.

In no particular order, the envisioned composite unit would have elements of the following:

- Excess transportation assets with in the composite unit would be assigned to support internal transportation needs before being available for general supply support.
- The composite stack would move at the speed of the slowest unit
- Discreet transportation units could be attached for the purpose of mobilizing units that benefit from mechanization
- Artillery units assigned to the direct fire are assumed to be positioned in the front rank (mostly applicable to 1800’s warfare)
- In the attack planner direct fire artillery units would appear in the same hex as the combat unit(s) and be treated accordingly
- Artillery assigned to indirect fire are assumed to be reward of the front line
- In the attack planner the indirect artillery units would appear in the distant support box
- Composite units would voluntarily and involuntarily subdivide as individual units same as the currently subdivided
- Composite units would receive X% attack/defense benefit
- Some type of marker would need to be devised to visually show that units is a stack are indeed combined into a composite unit

Think this would address the concerns about transportation assets and unrestricted subdividing. It would also enforce the nine units per hex restriction, which would also automatically put a nine unit cap on the number of units in a composite unit. Also think this suggestion would be easier to accomplish with respect to the required programming.

Regards, RhinoBones




ColinWright -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 1:54:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Much the same as a stack of ship units move as a single unit while engaging in combat as individual units...


Kind of a red herring, but that's precisely what a stack of ships doesn't do -- move as a single unit. It's a minor pain in the ass in scenarios with a lot of naval units.




rhinobones -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 2:45:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Kind of a red herring, but that's precisely what a stack of ships doesn't do -- move as a single unit. It's a minor pain in the ass in scenarios with a lot of naval units.


Check that, should have read a "stack of troop transport ships". But of course you knew that and didn't bother to state the correction . . . another kind of a red herring.

Do you have anything constructive to say about the rest of the post or are you just looking for something to diddle?

Regards, RhinoBones




ColinWright -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 3:45:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Kind of a red herring, but that's precisely what a stack of ships doesn't do -- move as a single unit. It's a minor pain in the ass in scenarios with a lot of naval units.


Check that, should have read a "stack of troop transport ships". But of course you knew that and didn't bother to state the correction . . .




No -- I didn't 'know that.' You're just managing to squeeze some drop of venom out of every exchange -- even if you have to project to find it.




rhinobones -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 4:08:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
No -- I didn't 'know that.'


You didn’t know that troop transport ships move as a group as opposed to naval combat units moving as individual units!!! How can I believe that you, a proponent of an improved naval aspect, would not be aware of my mistake.

But even if I did believe you were ignorant of the way naval units move, I assure you that I was not doing as you suggest. Rather merely pointing out that you are looking for nits to pick rather than being constructive. Again, do you have anything constructive to add to my composite unit suggestions?

Regards, RhinoBones





ColinWright -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 4:15:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
No -- I didn't 'know that.'


You didn’t know that troop transport ships move as a group as opposed to naval combat units moving as individual units!!!


I knew that perfectly well. However, that wasn't the statement you originally made. I commented -- quite politely -- on what was an incorrect statement. Why do you feel compelled to make something out of it?




rhinobones -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 4:40:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
No -- I didn't 'know that.'

I knew that perfectly well.


You really need to make up your mind. Either you knew, or you didn’t. Can’t have it both ways.

Actually, what I was really hoping for was something constructive, but there is still hope. Legun or your nemesis should have something good to add.

Regards, RhinoBones




ColinWright -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 5:23:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
No -- I didn't 'know that.'

I knew that perfectly well.


You really need to make up your mind. Either you knew, or you didn’t.


I knew that your statement about ships was incorrect. I didn't 'know' that you were referring to embarked units when you typed 'ships.' For some reason, I thought you meant 'ships.'

What's the contradiction? How do I need to make up my mind? I don't see it.

...If you're wondering why it's getting dark overhead, and why it is that water is collecting around your feet, that's because you're digging yourself into a hole. But feel free to continue.




ColinWright -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 5:25:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


Again, do you have anything constructive to add to my composite unit suggestions?

Regards, RhinoBones




No. I feel no need to comment on your composite unit suggestions whatsoever.




rhinobones -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 5:30:22 AM)

Guess this means that you have nothing constructive to add to my original post. Looks like you prefer instead to poke holes in sentences . . . too bad. I was hoping you would have something meaningful to contribute.

Regards, RhinoBones




ColinWright -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 5:36:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Guess this means that you have nothing constructive to add to my original post. Looks like you prefer instead to poke holes in sentences . . . too bad. I was hoping you would have something...

Regards, RhinoBones


You are a glutton for punishment. You started this -- but you're not going to finish it.

I didn't pick any holes. You made a statement about ships. I corrected the statement. You responded by asserting that I knew what you meant. I then assured you that I didn't know what you meant -- nor is there any reason why I should have. You have insisted on continuing the conversation.




ColinWright -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 5:38:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

...meaningful to contribute.

Regards, RhinoBones


Meaningful to contribute to what? I agree pretty much entirely with what 'Curtis LeMay' said. I await 'Legun''s next post with interest. I'm not required to respond to what you post -- although sometimes I feel inclined to.

Like now.




golden delicious -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 3:04:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Check that, should have read a "stack of troop transport ships". But of course you knew that and didn't bother to state the correction . . . another kind of a red herring.

Do you have anything constructive to say about the rest of the post or are you just looking for something to diddle?

Regards, RhinoBones


A really spectacular display of classic rhinobones. Almost as fun to watch as It's a Knockout.

Anyway, tend to agree with Colin and Curtis on this one. Composite units are needed at some point to simulate certain things and to help with the issue of ant units. However they aren't the perfect solution to every unit problem in the game.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Composite units (2/7/2008 4:25:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Like the idea of composite units, however, I think the effect can be achieved in a simpler fashion while avoiding some of the negatives. Suggest that the composite unit be a stack of individual units that retain their original identity but move and share assets in the manner of a single integrated unit. Much the same as a stack of troop ship units move as a single unit while engaging in combat as individual units.

In no particular order, the envisioned composite unit would have elements of the following:

- Excess transportation assets with in the composite unit would be assigned to support internal transportation needs before being available for general supply support.
- The composite stack would move at the speed of the slowest unit
- Discreet transportation units could be attached for the purpose of mobilizing units that benefit from mechanization
- Artillery units assigned to the direct fire are assumed to be positioned in the front rank (mostly applicable to 1800’s warfare)
- In the attack planner direct fire artillery units would appear in the same hex as the combat unit(s) and be treated accordingly
- Artillery assigned to indirect fire are assumed to be reward of the front line
- In the attack planner the indirect artillery units would appear in the distant support box
- Composite units would voluntarily and involuntarily subdivide as individual units same as the currently subdivided
- Composite units would receive X% attack/defense benefit
- Some type of marker would need to be devised to visually show that units is a stack are indeed combined into a composite unit

Think this would address the concerns about transportation assets and unrestricted subdividing. It would also enforce the nine units per hex restriction, which would also automatically put a nine unit cap on the number of units in a composite unit. Also think this suggestion would be easier to accomplish with respect to the required programming.

Regards, RhinoBones



There's a subtle but profound difference between what Jarek is talking about and the above. Let's take the example of a corps composed of divisions & etc.

In Jarek's idea, the scenario is basically corps-scaled, with units being corps-sized, but having an internal structure. The internal components could be swapped around by the various corps. The odd division might be detached here-and-there, but most units are corps-sized. Nine corps in a hex is a possibility.

In the above, the scenario is basically division-scaled, with units being division-sized. We know this, because a typical corps-sized stack (HQ, Eng, 3xArt, 4xDiv = 9) consumes the entire hex stacking limit. So here-and-there there will be huge, corps-sized stacks that move together, forming overrun monsters to the poor little divisions that mostly form the scenario.

Nevertheless, this might work for Task Forces - as a stop-gap measure. I don't think naval units overrun - if they do, it needs to be fixed.




rhinobones -> RE: Composite units (2/9/2008 8:46:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Composite units are needed . . . they aren't the perfect solution to every unit problem in the game.


Agree, composite units are not a perfect solution . . . in fact I doubt that it is the answer to any specific problem. Rather the whole idea seems to be more of an enhancement than a solution. There will be ant units with, or without, the ability to build composite units. Think you have mentioned it before; ant units are primarily a design problem.

Since there appears to be general agreement that the ability to attach and detach units is desirable, the question is mostly about the best method to institute such a change. I suspect that if this change does become reality it will be more of a compromise between the attributes discussed in this thread and the programming requirements. This thread is merely an expression of ideas and suggestions intended to enable such a change.

Would like to hear Ralph’s thoughts on the viability of making composite units.

Regards, RhinoBones




rhinobones -> RE: Composite units (2/9/2008 9:29:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
. . . typical corps-sized stack (HQ, Eng, 3xArt, 4xDiv = 9) consumes the entire hex stacking limit. So here-and-there there will be huge, corps-sized stacks that move together, forming overrun monsters to the poor little divisions that mostly form the scenario.


I can imagine situations where the player might want to build an absurdly large composite unit, such as to break through at a specific point, but I wonder if this wouldn’t be an oddity rather than a common tactic. Considering that the composite unit could suffer a sever density penalty and might be ripe for encirclement, the risk/reward ratio would have to be heavy on the reward side to make this a viable option. But, as you say, it certainly could happen.

I rarely engage in Corps sized scenarios, so my suggestion is geared towards Division and smaller. More specifically, I had in mind Divisional HQ assets, such as an Anti-Tank Battalion, being subdivided into Companies for attachment to the individual Regiments or line Battalions. Heavy weapons Companies could be subdivided and attached to line Companies, etc.

An interesting side note to attachment concerns the player’s options regarding units that have divided after retreat. Imagine a case where a unit is retreated in three subunits; A, B and C. Subunit C is forced into reorganization, A and B are still operational. B could attach to A forming a composite unit. This type of attachment might be advantageous under certain conditions.

Regards, RhinoBones




Legun -> RE: Composite units (2/9/2008 11:05:10 PM)

Hi Fiends,
Back from skiing[8D] - a little tired. I hope to answer during some hours.




Legun -> RE: Composite units (2/10/2008 7:37:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I agree with Colin here. I'm concerned that composite units would allow tranfer of lifted items without concern for the lift capacity required - a "truck" unit with only one truck in it could tranport an artillery unit with a huge number of guns in it. Perhaps that could be addressed in the code for composite units, but doing so may make it too complicated. Better that we address the lift issues directly via the methods already suggested. I like 6.13 (physical lift units) best, but I want 6.8 (mount/dismount) and 6.9 (truck capacity) as well.


I wouldn't say that the composite units are a panacea. Anyway, most of your (and Colin) doubt are just challenges for designer only. There should be two very severe constraints - full cooperation and a limit of size of an attached units. A designer can always create a very restricted path to temporaty motorization of an unit. You can always don't allow to attach transport unit at all - becouse they can't cooperate of are too big. A designer could select direction of subordination, too - give a possibility to attach a transport company to an infantry battalion or to attach an infantry battalion to a transport battalion. If you add, that a designer can carefully define abilities of all units involved, you just found a powerful tool. This doesn't means, that problems of truck transpot, air and naval procedures shouldn't be improved in any of other ways.

What is important (thanks Colin for spotting the problem) - the program should remember parameters (prof, readiness and supply) of composed units and calculate common strength based on them each time its used. Usage of exactly the same procedures which is used in the case of divide-recombine sub-unit opens a lot of very doubtful situations. Remembered parameters are a next way for careful designer to implement subtle restrictions and mechanisms.




Legun -> RE: Composite units (2/10/2008 8:19:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Like the idea of composite units, however, I think the effect can be achieved in a simpler fashion while avoiding some of the negatives. Suggest that the composite unit be a stack of individual units that retain their original identity but move and share assets in the manner of a single integrated unit. Much the same as a stack of troop ship units move as a single unit while engaging in combat as individual units.
Think this would address the concerns about transportation assets and unrestricted subdividing. It would also enforce the nine units per hex restriction, which would also automatically put a nine unit cap on the number of units in a composite unit. Also think this suggestion would be easier to accomplish with respect to the required programming.


There is such point on the wishlist
- 4.1 Units can be grouped just for common orders only - moves, attacks, missions and digging in (no effects except reduction of micromanagement).

Let's summarize differences between your propositions of my composite units:
* one benefit less - a attached engineer company is still attacking if an infantry brigade - the main battle unit - fails initial prof check,
* you can group everything you want,
* the benefit of shared transportation is something above just grouping (so, you can use British trucks to transport French infantry in 1940, can't you?),
* you can increase chance for RBC, can't you? (I could imagine you can't - the strongest unit is an attacker for RBC check),
* there is no "basic" unit, so a question about special abilities appears (air transport, rail movement, free disengagement, HQ bonus etc.),
I don't understand the propositions about artillery - but I doubt if there is a place for any complicated tricks. I would like to see an attached artillery unit just like a number of guns added to an infantry unit TO&E.

I must say that I prefer just simple grouping - without ANY additional effects, just like present group movement, but without "desintegration" at the end of movement. The composite units, with a transfer of any abilities, MUST be restricted by cooperation and designer selected complaints, based on unit's size IMHO. In the other case this is a can of worms.




golden delicious -> RE: Composite units (2/11/2008 3:28:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Agree, composite units are not a perfect solution . . . in fact I doubt that it is the answer to any specific problem. Rather the whole idea seems to be more of an enhancement than a solution. There will be ant units with, or without, the ability to build composite units. Think you have mentioned it before; ant units are primarily a design problem.


Well yes and no. The designer can remove ant units, but ideally he wouldn't have to. You'd be able to have that infantry gun battery in the scenario to use as you wish rather than the designer making the choice for you.

I suppose you'll be the first to point out that it's the broad strokes that make the scenario rather than the detail of individual units. In that case, perhaps it's best to focus on the areas where we can have improvement in the broad strokes. Supply distribution and consumption, air and naval warfare, among others. Composite units is a laudable addition, but there remains the cost/benefit question which you yourself asked.




Legun -> RE: Composite units (2/18/2008 6:36:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Rather the whole idea seems to be more of an enhancement than a solution. There will be ant units with, or without, the ability to build composite units. Think you have mentioned it before; ant units are primarily a design problem.


I can't agree. Of course, this is a designer decision. You can always merge all specialized units (MG, AT, AA, engineers etc.) into main battle units, so there is no ant units. I prefer such solution, becouse side effects of ant units are so bad. Attaching of engineer company to attacking infantry brigade causes the problem described above. Attaching AT battery to defending infantry regiment is even bigger risk, especially the battery has very high proficiency when the infantry is completely green. But at the first place I must say, that I'm discouraged for a lot of scenarios with specialized units when I start to think, that I must manage all these AA and AT units [:(]. I understand, why the designers have put them there and I see a simple solution, giving satisfaction to them and me - I can attach all specialized support units to main battle units.
The second argument is that it can open doors to many tricks, simulating features which can't be simulated now. Airfield-airfield transport of land units f.e.

And finnaly. Attaching unit was just tested in practice with really positive effect [:D]
[image]http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasje/TOAW/composite.JPG[/image]




L`zard -> RE: Composite units (2/18/2008 9:02:53 AM)

Legun......

This would be 'Alpineer/Mountain co size attachment' to regular Fr Inf rgt?

Yields a +1 to 'hot cocoa' at ski-bars ?

[:D][:D][:D]




Legun -> RE: Composite units (2/18/2008 2:06:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard

Legun......

This would be 'Alpineer/Mountain co size attachment' to regular Fr Inf rgt?

Yields a +1 to 'hot cocoa' at ski-bars ?

[:D][:D][:D]

[:D][:D][:D]
Yeah... And it usually doesn't fail proficiency check so ofen[8D]. Anyway, if the rgt fails its prof check, whole unit goes into reorganisation[sm=dizzy.gif]




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.281006