RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch

RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (Full Version)

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

Message

ColinWright -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/25/2011 4:17:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama Engineers having an effect on fortifications is missing. It needs to be fixed. There are volumes of situations of engineers aiding assaults on fortified positions. That is undeniable unless military history is simply ignored. Nothing more than unentrenching in the same manner heavy artillery would is all that is needed. The rest is up to the scenario designer. I see things said as though the person playing the scenario is doing the design as he plays the game. This is rhetoric, not fact. The scenario designer can decide what engineer unit is comprised of what kind of engineers. Muddying the waters is a weak defense. Meh. Probably wasting everyone's time anyway with this. [:D][:D] Some examples would be useful. I'm perfectly aware of combat engineers. How uniquely essential they are to assaulting fortified positions, the extent to which all TOAW fortifications are situations susceptible to their specialized skills, and the extent to which all engineers have the necessary skills and training -- these would be different matters.

ColinWright -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/25/2011 4:30:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: Panama 2. Yes. No line division is capable of fortified positions. It takes specialized materials and equipment. And lots of it. I don't know about that. Ordinary infantry divisions routinely build bunkers, dig trenches, etc. They might need help for such monsters as the Hindenberg Line, but they can get to what is summarized as 'fortified' status more or less on their own. Give even an infantry battalion a month to get itself dug in, and it'll be pretty hard to dig out. A 'line division' contains most of the services you seem to want. It has its signalers burying their telephone lines -- and its engineer battalion helping with the trickier bits. It can indeed get to 'fortified' status all on its own. What's more, even for the most 'fortified' of fortified positions, much or most of what isn't needed isn't a army-level engineer regiment showing up and saying 'how can I help' -- but simply shipments of barbed wire, mines, power tools, etc. You won't be able to simulate the presence or absence of that by adding more complex engineers. Finally, I'll repeat something. Engineers do accelerate the rate at which one can dig in. Here, I really don't see much of a problem. The sort of detailing you're talking about is absent throughout the system. This in not true. Your run of the mill infantry division does not have the capability nor the carrying capacity to have everything needed to fortify. They can entrench and even improve a position. Anything beyond that and they need help. What is 'anything beyond that' and what do you consider fortified in TOAW terms to be? I will point out that your typical infantry division has an engineer battalion and hence a staff of engineers ranging in rank up to colonel. While it might not be capable of throwing up a Maginot Line Fort, it should be able to meet any less exalted standard of 'fortification.' Infantry can and does dig itself in to an extent that would be considered 'fortified' by any reasonable standard. They're motivated. What's more, with a bit of experience, they'll have a pretty good idea of what is required. Now, help is always nice, but truckloads of mines, barbed wire, dynamite, shovels, etc are going to be as useful as your putative army-level fortification engineer unit. Finally, I'll point out that as matters stand, engineers will accelerate the process of fortification. Defensively, I can't see what you're asking for that the program doesn't already provide. Engineers will help units fortify. Ordinary line units are able to dig themselves in to an extent that could reasonably be called 'fortified.' Primarily, they will need additional materials, but they already have -- if only through experience -- acquired much of the expertise. So what do you want? That units should not be able to fortify themselves on their own? I disagree. That there should be some 'super-fortified' state? Again, I'm inclined to disagree. About the only changes I would like to see (and it's not an overwhelming priority) would be (a) a slowed rate of reaching fortified status, and (b) an ability to promptly inherit that status when relieving a unit.

Panama -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/26/2011 1:36:28 AM)
I don't give a hoot about how they help someone to dig in. That isn't what I originally wanted. You muddy the waters by continually speaking of what they can do to help a unit DIG IN. It's what they can do to help DIG OUT a unit that interests me. See post 96. I guess I could make a squad with a heavy artillery range of 1 to account for torpedoes, satchel charges and flame throwers. [:D] BTW, anyone seen the 'armor' shields the Soviet assault engineers were issued? Very medieval.

ColinWright -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/26/2011 4:14:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama I don't give a hoot about how they help someone to dig in. That isn't what I originally wanted. You muddy the waters by continually speaking of what they can do to help a unit DIG IN. It's what they can do to help DIG OUT a unit that interests me. See post 96. I guess I could make a squad with a heavy artillery range of 1 to account for torpedoes, satchel charges and flame throwers. [:D] BTW, anyone seen the 'armor' shields the Soviet assault engineers were issued? Very medieval. You're not being very reasonable. It was you that asserted: quote: No line division is capable of fortified positions. It takes specialized materials and equipment. And lots of it. So I respond to that -- and then you say that digging in isn't what you are talking about. In any case, you probably should do a little research. I'm as sure as you are that assault engineers were attached to some units assaulting some fortified positions, but when, and why, and to what effect? To my collection of Stalingrad and the un-assault engineers of Exporter, I've just added Casino. I was reading an account of the New Zealand Corps' assault on that place. It would be the fortified position par excellance. Lots of mention of the artillery and air preparation. Account of the actual assault down to company level. Nothing about any assault engineers. As I say, I'm sure assault engineers had their uses -- but were they a blanket tool to lever units out of fortifications? Did their presence dramatically alter the outcome of assaults -- viewed from the typical TOAW level of a divisional-level assault or so? At a minimum, it's an open question, and pending an answer, I'm hardly going to sign on to a plea that they be given some general ability to do so. You keep insisting that assault engineers should have some dramatic, unique effect. Let's have the examples where they did.

ColinWright -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/26/2011 4:21:31 AM)
I have a suspicion -- and it's quite an undocumented one -- that yes, assault engineers were attached to some attacks, and that yes, they could and did play an irreplaceable role. But the problem is that TOAW is too general. I doubt if assault engineers played this role in all attacks on all fortified positions. They probably played such a role in a set of special cases that would constitute a minority of the general set of what is lumped together in TOAW under the heading 'fortified.' As such, assault engineers generally wouldn't serve as a magic bullet, and so shouldn't have any marked effect on the success of an attack on a fortified position. They should only have a marked effect if we can define the set of cases where they had such an effect, and figure out how to describe these cases in TOAW terms. Certainly absent a little rigor here, I can't see just making them able to magically unentrench defenders. Why? Apparently, they generally didn't.

Panama -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/26/2011 3:04:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright I have a suspicion -- and it's quite an undocumented one -- that yes, assault engineers were attached to some attacks, and that yes, they could and did play an irreplaceable role. But the problem is that TOAW is too general. I doubt if assault engineers played this role in all attacks on all fortified positions. They probably played such a role in a set of special cases that would constitute a minority of the general set of what is lumped together in TOAW under the heading 'fortified.' As such, assault engineers generally wouldn't serve as a magic bullet, and so shouldn't have any marked effect on the success of an attack on a fortified position. They should only have a marked effect if we can define the set of cases where they had such an effect, and figure out how to describe these cases in TOAW terms. Certainly absent a little rigor here, I can't see just making them able to magically unentrench defenders. Why? Apparently, they generally didn't. Oh good lord. Under those guidelines we'll have to throw out half the stuff in the game.

Panama -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/26/2011 3:05:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: Panama I don't give a hoot about how they help someone to dig in. That isn't what I originally wanted. You muddy the waters by continually speaking of what they can do to help a unit DIG IN. It's what they can do to help DIG OUT a unit that interests me. See post 96. I guess I could make a squad with a heavy artillery range of 1 to account for torpedoes, satchel charges and flame throwers. [:D] BTW, anyone seen the 'armor' shields the Soviet assault engineers were issued? Very medieval. You're not being very reasonable. It was you that asserted: quote: No line division is capable of fortified positions. It takes specialized materials and equipment. And lots of it. So I respond to that -- and then you say that digging in isn't what you are talking about. In any case, you probably should do a little research. I'm as sure as you are that assault engineers were attached to some units assaulting some fortified positions, but when, and why, and to what effect? To my collection of Stalingrad and the un-assault engineers of Exporter, I've just added Casino. I was reading an account of the New Zealand Corps' assault on that place. It would be the fortified position par excellance. Lots of mention of the artillery and air preparation. Account of the actual assault down to company level. Nothing about any assault engineers. As I say, I'm sure assault engineers had their uses -- but were they a blanket tool to lever units out of fortifications? Did their presence dramatically alter the outcome of assaults -- viewed from the typical TOAW level of a divisional-level assault or so? At a minimum, it's an open question, and pending an answer, I'm hardly going to sign on to a plea that they be given some general ability to do so. You keep insisting that assault engineers should have some dramatic, unique effect. Let's have the examples where they did. If you would pay attention to the thread I was speaking for something someone else asserted. A military engineer. In the words of the venerable Foghorn Leghorn, "Pay attention son." [;)]

Panama -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/26/2011 3:31:43 PM)
Equipped them mostly engineering-assault brigade. Withstand getting automatic pistol and bullets, and small okolkov. (Hmm, a brigade. Nah, brigade assaults are of no importance) Nice vest. [;)] [image]local://upfiles/33191/F15937D58AF045E69EEA33C506665A4A.jpg[/image] "It should be noted that the personnel of engineer platoons in organic divisional units (other than the organic engineer battalion) belong to the arm of the unit which they are serving and not to the engineer arm, although they are trained to perform minor engineer functions." Doesn't sound very capable of building fortifications, eh?

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/26/2011 3:40:31 PM)
If there were an equipment flag for "anti-entrenchment ability" then designers could make their own Flamethrower/Sapper squads as they desired. They could even give some extra purpose to all those Flamethrower Tanks as well. And it would be up to them, not affecting earlier stuff. I kind of agree that it might be good to have another stage before reaching Fortified deployment. Perhaps with a x6 benefit. In fact, you could subdivide the whole thing into more stages than that, even. PacWar had 9 stages of entrenchment, for example. I don't really agree that it should be proscribed without engineers, though - that level of fortification would be the "Fortified Line" terrain. Ultimately, of course, we'd like engineers of some sort to be able to construct stuff like that (as well as airfields and ports, etc.). But that has to be well thought out - or we'll end up with Maginot Line hexes on every hex of the scenario. But, for me, a more serious remaining entrenchment issue is that it isn't prorated for MPs left. Ralph didn't want to do that last time - I can't remember exactly why, but I think it was something to do with the PO. On the bridge issue, an engineer with 25% engineering should take 4 turns to repair the bridge. And, as it currently works, it may take longer or shorter to do so. But, if you're repairing 100 bridges over the course of the game, it's going to average out about the same. So I don't think there would be much real benefit to the difficulty of keeping track of how many repair levels a blown bridge has gone through. Again, for me, a more serious bridge issue is that bridges over normal rivers are as easy to blow/repair as bridges over super rivers. There ought to be a difference of some level.

Panama -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/26/2011 3:55:43 PM)
As far as getting into the fortificaction quagmire, I don't argue that a division's organic engineer formation couldn't build field entrenchments. They don't take all that long with the tools that any organic engineer formation should have. It's going beyond entrenchments that I have a problem with. In any event, I've said my piece on all of this. There are more than enough examples for anyone who wants to bother looking for them on all fronts of the war for both assaults and engineering works.

ColinWright -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/26/2011 7:44:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright I have a suspicion -- and it's quite an undocumented one -- that yes, assault engineers were attached to some attacks, and that yes, they could and did play an irreplaceable role. But the problem is that TOAW is too general. I doubt if assault engineers played this role in all attacks on all fortified positions. They probably played such a role in a set of special cases that would constitute a minority of the general set of what is lumped together in TOAW under the heading 'fortified.' As such, assault engineers generally wouldn't serve as a magic bullet, and so shouldn't have any marked effect on the success of an attack on a fortified position. They should only have a marked effect if we can define the set of cases where they had such an effect, and figure out how to describe these cases in TOAW terms. Certainly absent a little rigor here, I can't see just making them able to magically unentrench defenders. Why? Apparently, they generally didn't. Oh good lord. Under those guidelines we'll have to throw out half the stuff in the game. Well, we should avoid putting stuff in unless we're sure it'll actually improve the quality of the simulation. I'm not interested in 'oh there's an effect. Let's make them do that.' We wind up with a simulation that is a simulation in the same sense as 'Age of Kings' simulates the Middle Ages. 'Age of Kings' is good enough in its way...but I like the idea of a product that at least tries to create an authentic simulation, even if I seem to be more aware than most of just how badly it fails. So you want a special effect for combat engineers? Research some battles and try to decide what that effect was and how widespread it was. Don't just announce, 'they should reduce the entrenchment level of defenders' -- without supplying any evidence that you've even looked to see what actually happened and when. That's a good way to get 'Age of Kings.' It's not a good way to improve TOAW.

ColinWright -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/26/2011 8:18:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama As far as getting into the fortificaction quagmire, I don't argue that a division's organic engineer formation couldn't build field entrenchments. They don't take all that long with the tools that any organic engineer formation should have. It's going beyond entrenchments that I have a problem with. In any event, I've said my piece on all of this. There are more than enough examples for anyone who wants to bother looking for them on all fronts of the war for both assaults and engineering works. The difficulty is that all the examples I can think of contradict your claims.

ColinWright -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/26/2011 8:20:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama Equipped them mostly engineering-assault brigade. Withstand getting automatic pistol and bullets, and small okolkov. (Hmm, a brigade. Nah, brigade assaults are of no importance) Nice vest. [;)] I figured the Russians would come up, as much more so than in other armies, their rifle divisions and corps were skeleton organizations that were beefed up with armour, artillery, and -- yes -- engineers for any offensive operations. I'm not surprised the Russians had assault engineer brigades. They also had artillery divisions, railroad divisions, independent tank regiments, and independent anti-tank brigades, and independent everything else. It was kind of the opposite extreme from the Germans, who tried to provide organic everything down to the regimental level. So the Russians often assigned assault engineer brigades to attacks. So? This doesn't prove they were uniquely necessary to levering units out of fortifications. It merely proves that's how the Russians did things. quote: [image]local://upfiles/33191/F15937D58AF045E69EEA33C506665A4A.jpg[/image] "It should be noted that the personnel of engineer platoons in organic divisional units (other than the organic engineer battalion) belong to the arm of the unit which they are serving and not to the engineer arm, although they are trained to perform minor engineer functions." Doesn't sound very capable of building fortifications, eh? This fails on the minor point that infantry divisions can and do quite thoroughly fortify themselves without the help of any external units. Anyway, in our last episode, you announced that you weren't concerned with the ability of units to fortify themselves. Of course, in the episode before that...

ColinWright -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/26/2011 8:21:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: Panama I don't give a hoot about how they help someone to dig in. That isn't what I originally wanted. You muddy the waters by continually speaking of what they can do to help a unit DIG IN. It's what they can do to help DIG OUT a unit that interests me. See post 96. I guess I could make a squad with a heavy artillery range of 1 to account for torpedoes, satchel charges and flame throwers. [:D] BTW, anyone seen the 'armor' shields the Soviet assault engineers were issued? Very medieval. You're not being very reasonable. It was you that asserted: quote: No line division is capable of fortified positions. It takes specialized materials and equipment. And lots of it. So I respond to that -- and then you say that digging in isn't what you are talking about. In any case, you probably should do a little research. I'm as sure as you are that assault engineers were attached to some units assaulting some fortified positions, but when, and why, and to what effect? To my collection of Stalingrad and the un-assault engineers of Exporter, I've just added Casino. I was reading an account of the New Zealand Corps' assault on that place. It would be the fortified position par excellance. Lots of mention of the artillery and air preparation. Account of the actual assault down to company level. Nothing about any assault engineers. As I say, I'm sure assault engineers had their uses -- but were they a blanket tool to lever units out of fortifications? Did their presence dramatically alter the outcome of assaults -- viewed from the typical TOAW level of a divisional-level assault or so? At a minimum, it's an open question, and pending an answer, I'm hardly going to sign on to a plea that they be given some general ability to do so. You keep insisting that assault engineers should have some dramatic, unique effect. Let's have the examples where they did. If you would pay attention to the thread I was speaking for something someone else asserted. A military engineer. In the words of the venerable Foghorn Leghorn, "Pay attention son." [;)] Unless I missed another post, there's a definite irony here, as the vaunted military engineer said nothing at all about the ability of engineers to lever defenders out of fortifications. quote: As beeing Engr officer I am not realy unpartial, but I think the Engr ops is not simulated very well in the game. Some suggestions that I think should improve the game (without beeing completely revulationary) 1. Bridge Ops, having built several hundred bridges i know that luck has noting to do with it. The percentige rate should be accumulative so if trying several times you finaly reach 100 % and the building is a sure thing (realy frustrating to have to count on luck when planning your advance across an important bridge. 2. It should not be able to reach Fortified level unless an engr unit is present, all units can prepare a defence, but to get Fortified need engr support (extensive minefield, concrete bunkers ..) 3. To demolish a bridge, the unit should need to contain engr squads. We do a lot of other stuff, bot all cant be simulated in TOAW, the changes abowe should make the engr somewhat more usefull in some of their main duties. If you would pay attention, I'm still asking for some examples to buttress your assertion. They probably are there -- but as I've noted, none of the ones that I'm aware of do.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.15625