Battles

Battles (Full Version)

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

Message

AstroBlues -> Battles (9/28/2011 12:33:30 PM)
Why do sometimes when there are, for example, about 5 or 6 stars left on the combat clock(lack of better word) , the turn ends? Is it because those combats exceeded the turns left?

Sensei.Tokugawa -> RE: Battles (9/28/2011 1:22:39 PM)
The units enagaged put up a better fight than expected being of a high quality and some decent proficiency and if You had set Your forces losses tolerance to either medium or high and they're also seasoned veterans they may both try to fight their case out to the end - and that also becomes the end of turn especially if there are several such clashes in Your respective AORs. Next time it's wise to study the map, the terrain, wether and moreover figure out the enemy dispositions and state to avoid such issues, but that's a normal thing basically on most occassions.

Panama -> RE: Battles (9/28/2011 3:15:31 PM)
I don't know it there is anything in the manual that describes all of the elements that may cause early turn ending or 'turn burn'. Some of them burroughs describes. Attack complexity elements (in the manual) may have a hand. If color of the health indicator on the unit may have a hand. Best case to eliminate turn burn is to use all units of the same formation that have not moved at all with dark green health indicators with 'excellent chance of success' in the attack planner. And if the other guy has all his units green and on 'Ignore losses' you may still take more than one combat round to complete the battle. In any event, don't expect things to go according to plan. They never will. [:D] Hopefully the turn burn issue will be addressed in the next release. Makes no sense for a battle to take longer than it should because a battle 200km away caused turn burn. [:'(]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Battles (9/28/2011 3:28:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama Hopefully the turn burn issue will be addressed in the next release. It has been addressed to a significant degree: MRPB. If designers would just use it. Check the value for Europe Aflame (I assume that's the scenario at issue).

Panama -> RE: Battles (9/28/2011 3:41:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: Panama Hopefully the turn burn issue will be addressed in the next release. It has been addressed to a significant degree: MRPB. If designers would just use it. Check the value for Europe Aflame (I assume that's the scenario at issue). No, it is not addressed. It encompasses the entire map. A bad battle is a local affair. If the landing at Omaha beach was very difficult then, according to the game, the UK and Canadian landings should have been equally difficult. If the Omaha landing burned the entire turn then the UK and Canadian landings would not have been so successful.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Battles (9/28/2011 4:30:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: Panama Hopefully the turn burn issue will be addressed in the next release. It has been addressed to a significant degree: MRPB. If designers would just use it. Check the value for Europe Aflame (I assume that's the scenario at issue). No, it is not addressed. It encompasses the entire map. A bad battle is a local affair. If the landing at Omaha beach was very difficult then, according to the game, the UK and Canadian landings should have been equally difficult. If the Omaha landing burned the entire turn then the UK and Canadian landings would not have been so successful. Yes it has - by the MRPB parameter! Omaha can't burn the entire turn if that parameter has been set appropriately. TOAW can't be held accountable for designers that can't be bothered to use it.

Panama -> RE: Battles (9/28/2011 4:35:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: Panama quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: Panama Hopefully the turn burn issue will be addressed in the next release. It has been addressed to a significant degree: MRPB. If designers would just use it. Check the value for Europe Aflame (I assume that's the scenario at issue). No, it is not addressed. It encompasses the entire map. A bad battle is a local affair. If the landing at Omaha beach was very difficult then, according to the game, the UK and Canadian landings should have been equally difficult. If the Omaha landing burned the entire turn then the UK and Canadian landings would not have been so successful. Yes it has - by the MRPB parameter! Omaha can't burn the entire turn if that parameter has been set appropriately. TOAW can't be held accountable for designers that can't be bothered to use it. So then, what you are saying is that it is appropriate for every battle on a map 1000km by 1000km to take exactly as long as the longest battle on that map? No matter what the resistance is an any particular battle? And you think that is somehow reasonable and historical? [8\|][:D][:D][:D] With your reply it is safe to assume that this will never change. It is one of the most frustrating and ahistorical parts of TOAW and for some illogical reason it will stand. [:(][&:]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Battles (9/29/2011 5:09:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama So then, what you are saying is that it is appropriate for every battle on a map 1000km by 1000km to take exactly as long as the longest battle on that map? No matter what the resistance is an any particular battle? And you think that is somehow reasonable and historical? [8\|][:D][:D][:D] With your reply it is safe to assume that this will never change. It is one of the most frustrating and ahistorical parts of TOAW and for some illogical reason it will stand. [:(][&:] I am saying that if the scenario designer will make use of the MRPB parameter then there will be no battles lasting any longer than that MRPB setting. He could even set it to 1 if desired. Then no battle would last longer than 1 combat round. Europe Aflame still has the MRPB set to the default value of 99. That's the problem - and it's not TOAW's fault. Now, could there be a more sophisticated solution someday? Of course. But to say that it hasn't been addressed is a complete falsehood. There is a tool available for turn burn and it's called the MRPB parameter. It works - if designers would just use it.

Panama -> RE: Battles (9/29/2011 11:53:20 PM)
Here is everything that is wrong with your one size fits all solution. Please take particular note of the bolded underlined portion. That portion means that one battle will (sorry. that should be COULD instead of WILL) end the turn for all battles on the map no matter what the Maximum Rounds Per Battle is set at. Well, except maybe 1. This value can have a wide variety of different effects, particularly when coupled with Shock events. Low MRPB values can minimize “Turn burn,” but at the cost of attacks not having enough tactical rounds to retreat defenders. Low MRPB values can also yield better results from using Tactical and Local Reserve Deployments. You can more safely use progressively higher Loss Tolerance settings for Attacks, with low MRPB values, since the number of tactical rounds that stubborn units continue attacks and defenses will be attenuated. While some Scenarios will benefit from very low MRPB values, it is generally not recommended to set it lower than 3, as this also attenuates the number of rounds that Artillery, Naval, and Air units will bombard for, at their higher Loss Tolerance settings, and may also adversely affect the net bonuses that positive shock values have in reducing the number of tactical rounds expended during combat. It is recommended that Scenario designers using Shock events generally set this value to be no less than the following: (Highest Value Shock – 70) / 10 Your mileage may vary; playtest for overall effect throughout the campaign. Another effect to keep in mind when setting this value is that the chance for ending the Turn by a “Proficiency Check” is not affected. Thus, while players may realize more sets of Attacks throughout their Turn, with low MRPB values, they will conversely be more likely to have the Turn ended (eventually) by a failed Proficiency Check, since one is made at the end of each series of Attacks. See Turn Over (14.1) for details. Scenario designers who change this from the default should indicate the value used in their Scenario Briefing.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Battles (9/30/2011 4:29:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama Here is everything that is wrong with your one size fits all solution. Please take particular note of the bolded underlined portion. That portion means that one battle will (sorry. that should be COULD instead of WILL) end the turn for all battles on the map no matter what the Maximum Rounds Per Battle is set at. Well, except maybe 1. No. The check you underlined below is independent of individual battles. It's the same for any size scenario. And it's a good thing - one that we have no desire to eliminate. It counters some of the distortions of IGOUGO. "Turn Burn", on the other hand (which was the issue here) can be completely addressed by the MRPB parameter. quote: Low MRPB values can minimize “Turn burn,” but at the cost of attacks not having enough tactical rounds to retreat defenders. So what? It preserves the tactical rounds so you can then continue till they do retreat. quote: Low MRPB values can also yield better results from using Tactical and Local Reserve Deployments. ?? Only in the sense that there will now be more combat phases for them to react in - wasn't that the point? quote: You can more safely use progressively higher Loss Tolerance settings for Attacks, with low MRPB values, since the number of tactical rounds that stubborn units continue attacks and defenses will be attenuated. Sounds like a good thing. But, note that that would only be ensured if the setting was 1. Any value above that would still require some consideration of attack complexity. quote: While some Scenarios will benefit from very low MRPB values, it is generally not recommended to set it lower than 3, as this also attenuates the number of rounds that Artillery, Naval, and Air units will bombard for, at their higher Loss Tolerance settings,... Again, this causes no real harm. The rounds are still there. quote: ...and may also adversely affect the net bonuses that positive shock values have in reducing the number of tactical rounds expended during combat. It is recommended that Scenario designers using Shock events generally set this value to be no less than the following: (Highest Value Shock – 70) / 10 Your mileage may vary; playtest for overall effect throughout the campaign. I don't know for a fact that that is the case, and I don't know why it would be. I doubt it was rigorously tested. But, even if it is, for very large scenarios, eliminating turn burn trumps any consideration of the above. Nevertheless, I don't recommend setting the MRPB below 3 for most cases - it eliminates a lot of skill factors. But, if you really want to totally eliminate turn burn, you can. And for the case of Europe Aflame, a value lower than 99 would definitely be recommended. I repeat: That's the problem here. quote: Another effect to keep in mind when setting this value is that the chance for ending the Turn by a “Proficiency Check” is not affected. Thus, while players may realize more sets of Attacks throughout their Turn, with low MRPB values, they will conversely be more likely to have the Turn ended (eventually) by a failed Proficiency Check, since one is made at the end of each series of Attacks. See Turn Over (14.1) for details. Scenario designers who change this from the default should indicate the value used in their Scenario Briefing. Well, wouldn't that be the objective of eliminating turn burn? More combat phases? Nevertheless, the above actually depends upon the rounds strategy the player implements. You can still expend more than one round, even if the MRPB is set to 1, via late units. So, you could set up both round 1 and round 2 attacks at the start of the turn. Two rounds would be expended - and there would still only be one check against prof, etc. But at least that would be at the control of the player. Again, could there be more sophistication available in some fashion? Sure. But to say it hasn't been addressed is a complete falsehood. The MRPB addresses turn burn in a very effective fashion. If designers would just use it.

Panama -> RE: Battles (9/30/2011 7:34:47 PM)
Considering all of the above was directly from the manual are you saying whoever wrote those things is fairly full of donky doo? It would seem then that they didn't know what they were writing about. Manual: Low MRPB values can minimize “Turn burn,” but at the cost of attacks not having enough tactical rounds to retreat defenders. Your reply: So what? It preserves the tactical rounds so you can then continue till they do retreat. You still have not answered the question. How is it realistic or even reasonable that one battle anywhere on a map prevent any further action in any other battle on a map of any size? You keep avoiding an answer by throwing out MRPB. That does not answer the question. All you're doing is avoiding having to answer the question. How is it realistic that one battle anywhere on a map can prevent any further action in any other battle on a map of any size? Because one assault in France takes all day means all of the assaults in France also took all day? If that were the case then the landings on Utah beach would not have gotten any farther than those at Omaha. So the solution is to limit all the soldiers on the map to fighting only during the hours of 9 a.m. to 11 a. m. Take the rest of the day off. Answer the question. Stop talking about MRPB when that isn't the issue at all. Why does one battle on one part of a map of any size cause all other battles on the map to consume all remaining rounds regardles of how difficult the battle is, bringing the turn to a close? Battle one takes one round to conclude. Battle two takes all ten rounds to conclude. Because of battle two the units anywhere on the map are prohibited from using any time or movement they have left to them. It makes no sense, involves no logic and is contrary to time and space concerns. Might as well be playing War in the East. The answwer you keep throwing out isn't an answer to the question. It's merely an avoidance. I'm outta here. No use going on about it since the answer will always be 42.

vahauser -> RE: Battles (10/1/2011 7:12:58 AM)
Panama, The one bit of useful information that Curtis supplied (amidst all his other blather) is that the game is IGOUGO. Thus, battles 1000km apart will always have an unrealistic effect on "turn burn". It's the nature of the IGOUGO game engine. One way to counteract this is to 'incrementalize' the turn to a greater degree. What I mean is that if each turn is of short time duration, then the effects of widely separate (in distance) battles will tend to wash out over the course of the scenario. For example, let's say that a scenario uses 20km hexes and 1/2 week turns. However, if you edit the scenario and 'incrementalize' the turns from 1/2 week down to 1 day turns, then over the course of the scenario the effects of widely separate (in distance) battles will tend to even out. Of course, this is a lot of work and most players are not inclined to put forth that much effort -- they just live with the unrealistic nature of the IGOUGO game engine and enjoy a particular scenario for what it is.

Panama -> RE: Battles (10/1/2011 10:29:38 AM)
I understand that IGOUGO is not perfect and the side effects causes many time traveling type of effects. And you are correct in that a Barbarossa or France 1940 or any lengthy campaign would be insane at one day turns. My head hurts just thinking of it. [:D] Norm's method of conducting battles and squaring the time they take with movement is one of the better methods I've come across in 52 years of wargaming. But it falls down when one battle truncates the time left to other units on the board. Using Maximum Rounds Per Battle to water down that truncating is not a solution because it truncates the entire turn. Where you should have ten rounds you are left with fewer. What needs to be done is have battles 'continue' if another ends sooner so you are able to move units whose battles have ended before others. Those whose battles are still ongoing simply cannot move until their battle is done. You could even throw reinforcements into the continued battles I suppose. How much movement the reinforcements consume before entering the battle would have to be compensated for so you would know which round they enter. It would certainly add some strategies to the game. In fact, the 'bang for the buck' factor is quite high. Or you could simply disallow reinforcements (not a good idea).

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Battles (10/1/2011 4:58:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama Considering all of the above was directly from the manual are you saying whoever wrote those things is fairly full of donky doo? It would seem then that they didn't know what they were writing about. No. I'm saying you didn't know what they were writing about. quote: Manual: Low MRPB values can minimize “Turn burn,” but at the cost of attacks not having enough tactical rounds to retreat defenders. Your reply: So what? It preserves the tactical rounds so you can then continue till they do retreat. Exactly! Suppose it would take five rounds for a combat to complete the clearing of a defender hex. Sans the MRPB setting, all five rounds would occur in one combat phase. But then suppose the MRPB was set to one. Then that combat will only last one round. But because of that setting, there will still be nine rounds remaining. So, the attack is set up again, and lasts one more round. Repeat three more times and the hex is cleared, etc. quote: You still have not answered the question. How is it realistic or even reasonable that one battle anywhere on a map prevent any further action in any other battle on a map of any size? You keep avoiding an answer by throwing out MRPB. That does not answer the question. All you're doing is avoiding having to answer the question. How is it realistic that one battle anywhere on a map can prevent any further action in any other battle on a map of any size? Because one assault in France takes all day means all of the assaults in France also took all day? If that were the case then the landings on Utah beach would not have gotten any farther than those at Omaha. So the solution is to limit all the soldiers on the map to fighting only during the hours of 9 a.m. to 11 a. m. Take the rest of the day off. Answer the question. Stop talking about MRPB when that isn't the issue at all. Why does one battle on one part of a map of any size cause all other battles on the map to consume all remaining rounds regardles of how difficult the battle is, bringing the turn to a close? Battle one takes one round to conclude. Battle two takes all ten rounds to conclude. Because of battle two the units anywhere on the map are prohibited from using any time or movement they have left to them. It makes no sense, involves no logic and is contrary to time and space concerns. Might as well be playing War in the East. The answwer you keep throwing out isn't an answer to the question. It's merely an avoidance. I'm outta here. No use going on about it since the answer will always be 42. ?? The MRPB is the answer. If you can't see that, it can only be because you don't understand what it does. MRPB = Max Rounds Per Battle. That's how many rounds a battle can last in one combat phase. So, Battle Two can't last 10 rounds unless the MRPB is set to 10 or higher. If it is set to 1, then both battles last 1 round. Battle Two won't have cleared it's hex, but it can then be set up again...and again, etc. till it does.

Panama -> RE: Battles (10/1/2011 8:38:26 PM)
So in order to prevent any scenario from ending in an unrealistic manner the number of rounds needs to be watered down until it suits your vision. Forget what anyone else wants a scenario to be. As long as it fits your vision in a watered down truncated version everything is ok. No, I understand how MRPB works and I understand you fully. [&o]

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Battles (10/1/2011 9:29:06 PM)
I think when this was discussed before the turn burns were traced to failed Profociency Checks (when the MRPB was less than 6), and it was suggested then that units and formations that failed Proficiency Checks should have their movement allowances zeroed, thus allowing the rest of the turn to continue. I can't remember if there was something wrong with this idea.

Panama -> RE: Battles (10/2/2011 4:40:26 PM)
I guess I just have a problem when something happens to a portion of the units it becomes a map wide event. Probably easier to program that way is all. Anyway, time to stop beating the dead horse. [sm=00000436.gif]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Battles (10/2/2011 6:15:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama So in order to prevent any scenario from ending in an unrealistic manner the number of rounds needs to be watered down until it suits your vision. Forget what anyone else wants a scenario to be. As long as it fits your vision in a watered down truncated version everything is ok. No, I understand how MRPB works and I understand you fully. [&o] Based upon that statement I can't imagine that you understand anything about it. You are definitely misunderstanding something. I just can't figure out what. What do you mean by "watered down" and "truncated"? I can't help if you don't explain what you're talking about. Those are nonsense terms. But let's at least make it clear for everyone else reading what the MRPB does do for scenarios: The lower the MRPB setting the less turn burn issues the scenario will have - period. A setting of 1 will eliminate all turn burn, and all combats will last exactly one round. (Turn burn being defined as a combat lasting multiple combat rounds in a single combat phase). There can be no question what the cause of the original problem noted at the start of this thread was: Europe Aflame still has the default setting of 99 for the MRPB. That should be changed to something more reasonable - 3 or lower. And, because this tool is so effective, there is no pressing need for any more elaborate fix any time soon. We just need to get the misunderstandings cleared up so that designers can start making proper use of it.

Panama -> RE: Battles (10/2/2011 10:53:13 PM)
It is effective in reducing the number of rounds you have to work with. Thus, watered down and/or truncated. If it's possible to have ten rounds and you have fewer than ten rounds to accomplish what you want done the turn is truncated, i.e., Merriam-Webster: cut short : curtailed. If the default is ten rounds per battle (it is) and you have fewer than ten rounds per battle then you have cut short the default number of rounds per battle. Curtailed. Truncated. Having reduced the amount of time you have to accomplish a goal you've made a scenario less fluid. With ten combat rounds the possiblity of achieving a breakthrough is greater than if you have five combat rounds. Hence the turn has become watered down, less capable of mirroring historical movements. Watered Down: Diminished in force or effect. Now that I've explained what is obvious and I already know you won't agree to anything I've just put down and to go on is really not productive I'm through with this thread. Feel free to disagree with the knowledge I understand what MRPB is, how reducing them affects a scenario and that limiting the turn to the combat that takes the longest is not accurate or realistic. [;)]

Bill Earley -> RE: Battles (10/3/2011 2:15:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama It is effective in reducing the number of rounds you have to work with. Thus, watered down and/or truncated. If it's possible to have ten rounds and you have fewer than ten rounds to accomplish what you want done the turn is truncated, i.e., Merriam-Webster: cut short : curtailed. If the default is ten rounds per battle (it is) and you have fewer than ten rounds per battle then you have cut short the default number of rounds per battle. Curtailed. Truncated. Having reduced the amount of time you have to accomplish a goal you've made a scenario less fluid. With ten combat rounds the possiblity of achieving a breakthrough is greater than if you have five combat rounds. Hence the turn has become watered down, less capable of mirroring historical movements. Watered Down: Diminished in force or effect. The point being all you have to do is set the MRPB to 1 and then you will have 10 rounds of battle for everyone on the entire map. No truncation. No curtailment (per your definitions of truncation and curtailment). The default is a variable number of rounds per battle, the longest of which curtails or truncates the turn for other units whose battles were shorter. The MRPB addresses your concerns perfectly.

Panama -> RE: Battles (10/3/2011 2:57:01 AM)
Oh FFS. I DON'T CARE IF A BATTLE TAKES TEN ROUNDS. I don't. That's not a bad thing. The fact that a ten round battle will end the turn for every unit on the map is the problem. That's what I objected to in the first place. Read the posts. Understand. [8\|] [sm=00000028.gif][sm=00000055.gif][sm=00000023.gif][sm=00000003.gif][sm=00000939.gif]

Bill Earley -> RE: Battles (10/3/2011 3:04:47 AM)
You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want turn burn set the MRPB to 1 and ATTACK 10 TIMES for the battle that would take 10 rounds. What could be simpler.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Battles (10/3/2011 4:16:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama It is effective in reducing the number of rounds you have to work with. Thus, watered down and/or truncated. What on earth are you talking about??? The MRPB reduces or eliminates turn burn - giving you more rounds, not less. quote: I'm through with this thread Let's hope so - someone reading might think you know what you're talking about. Let's be clear: Designers wanting to limit turn burn in their scenarios have a perfectly good tool to use: The MRPB setting. Most scenarios would do well to set it to three - unless you really want turn burn effects. Leaving it at the default value of 99 will not reduce turn burn at all, and you can expect players to squawk. Now, of course, it's not absolutely perfect. No one has said that it was. But it is very effective and will do fine for now.

Panama -> RE: Battles (10/3/2011 6:36:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Earley You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want turn burn set the MRPB to 1 and ATTACK 10 TIMES for the battle that would take 10 rounds. What could be simpler. Do you have any idea what you are saying? Let me explain. You are saying to take a large scenario such at Fire in the East, which is already complex, and cutting each turn up into ten more turns. So after each round each battle has to be revisited, if you can even remember where they all are, and redo each and every one of them. Do you understand that changing MRPB in all scenarios is NOT advisable? That reducing the MRPB adds complexity to a scenario? It's like saying to avoid running out of gas you should stop at each and every filling station you come to and fill up. A) Now, I will agree that, in order to avoid turn burn, the only option is to reduce MRPB. I'm NOT arguing that and I've never argued that. I'm in complete agreement as things stand now. If you'll go back to the beginning of this thread you will see I simply stated that turn burn is not realistic. That for one combat to cause an entire map to suffer the same fate is ahistorical and not realistic. Omaha Beach should not cause Utah Beach to be less succesful. Omaha Beach is a turn burner. Utah Beach is a six to eight round affair. One does not equal the other without turn burn. (Read A before continuing)

Panama -> RE: Battles (10/3/2011 6:43:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: Panama It is effective in reducing the number of rounds you have to work with. Thus, watered down and/or truncated. What on earth are you talking about??? The MRPB reduces or eliminates turn burn - giving you more rounds, not less. quote: I'm through with this thread Let's hope so - someone reading might think you know what you're talking about. Let's be clear: Designers wanting to limit turn burn in their scenarios have a perfectly good tool to use: The MRPB setting. Most scenarios would do well to set it to three - unless you really want turn burn effects. Leaving it at the default value of 99 will not reduce turn burn at all, and you can expect players to squawk. Now, of course, it's not absolutely perfect. No one has said that it was. But it is very effective and will do fine for now. I can see why Colin gets so frustrated. Read the previous post please. Try and comprehend what is being posted. quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Let's hope so.

Bill Earley -> RE: Battles (10/4/2011 5:36:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Earley You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want turn burn set the MRPB to 1 and ATTACK 10 TIMES for the battle that would take 10 rounds. What could be simpler. Do you have any idea what you are saying? Let me explain. You are saying to take a large scenario such at Fire in the East, which is already complex, and cutting each turn up into ten more turns. So after each round each battle has to be revisited, if you can even remember where they all are, and redo each and every one of them. No need to be so condescending. I knew what I was saying and it works for me. - If my only goal was to eliminate turn burn. quote: ORIGINAL: Panama Do you understand that changing MRPB in all scenarios is NOT advisable? That reducing the MRPB adds complexity to a scenario? It's like saying to avoid running out of gas you should stop at each and every filling station you come to and fill up. Changing the MRPB to 1 is not advisable for all scenarios. A setting of 3 or 4 would work the best I believe, giving 3 or 4 rounds of combat map wide. About what we all want and find manageable. quote: ORIGINAL: Panama A) Now, I will agree that, in order to avoid turn burn, the only option is to reduce MRPB. I'm NOT arguing that and I've never argued that. I'm in complete agreement as things stand now. Excellent so we are on the same page so far. quote: ORIGINAL: Panama If you'll go back to the beginning of this thread you will see I simply stated that turn burn is not realistic. That for one combat to cause an entire map to suffer the same fate is ahistorical and not realistic. Omaha Beach should not cause Utah Beach to be less succesful. Omaha Beach is a turn burner. Utah Beach is a six to eight round affair. One does not equal the other without turn burn. (Read A before continuing) So what would be the ideal solution? Reducing the movement allowance of each group of attackers commensurate to the lengths of their attacks after each round and continuing the turn until all attackers have 0 MPS left? Let's explore your options of having and eating cake.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Battles (10/4/2011 4:03:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama Do you have any idea what you are saying? Let me explain. You are saying to take a large scenario such at Fire in the East, which is already complex, and cutting each turn up into ten more turns. So after each round each battle has to be revisited, if you can even remember where they all are, and redo each and every one of them. That's it? Having ten rounds is just too much work? What happened to the claim that it "watered down" and "truncated" the turn? May we assume you've now abandoned that falsehood? As for the work issue, I expect that anyone playing FITE yearns for as many combat phases as they can get. It's the difference between winning and losing. quote: Do you understand that changing MRPB in all scenarios is NOT advisable? That reducing the MRPB adds complexity to a scenario? It's like saying to avoid running out of gas you should stop at each and every filling station you come to and fill up. It's not advisable in scenarios where the designer wants turn burn to take place. (And there are such scenarios). But, for sure, FITE - and Europe Aflame - would particularly benefit from a low MRPB setting. quote: A) Now, I will agree that, in order to avoid turn burn, the only option is to reduce MRPB. I'm NOT arguing that and I've never argued that. I'm in complete agreement as things stand now. If you'll go back to the beginning of this thread you will see I simply stated that turn burn is not realistic. That for one combat to cause an entire map to suffer the same fate is ahistorical and not realistic. Omaha Beach should not cause Utah Beach to be less succesful. Omaha Beach is a turn burner. Utah Beach is a six to eight round affair. One does not equal the other without turn burn. (Read A before continuing) You have continuously argued that the MRPB was not the solution to it.

Shazman -> RE: Battles (10/8/2011 11:05:30 PM)
Wow. Arrogance abounds. This is why I stopped coming here.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9355469