OOB Information (Full Version)

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



Message

mmarquo -> OOB Information (1/18/2015 1:47:39 PM)

Is there anyway to see the hierarchy of command in TOAW? For example, I am trying Ardennes 44; there are many HQs on the map but no way to see the regiment-->division--->corps--->Army hierarchy. Many of the regiments are seemingly independent; seems like clicking on an HQ should indicate all the units which report to it at least on paper.

[&:]



mmarquo -> RE: OOB Information (1/18/2015 1:51:48 PM)

For example, there is an 8th corps HQ, I think an AA unit is the only unit which it seemingly commands...but how do I know which divisions? An which Army it reports to? Even if chrome for the game's sake, it should be demonstrable.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: OOB Information (1/18/2015 2:00:40 PM)

TOAW doesn't model command hierarchies - except for Formations => Units. It does have cooperation, though. And some designers associate related formations via the cooperation rules.



mmarquo -> RE: OOB Information (1/18/2015 2:06:02 PM)

So in Ardennes if I click on the 101 HQ all of the regiments show in grey on the map; if I hit the 101 HQ none of the regiments are displayed - why would that be?


I understand the TOAW function of HQs, but what does one do with 10 or 20 corps/Army HQs scattered about a map with no formations; there is a big temptation to use them primarily as stop gap defensive frontline units which is of course ludicrous. What good is the cooperation? I must be missing something.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: OOB Information (1/18/2015 3:00:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

So in Ardennes if I click on the 101 HQ all of the regiments show in grey on the map; if I hit the 101 HQ none of the regiments are displayed - why would that be?


?? Can you clarify that? What do you mean "show in grey" and "hit the 101 HQ"?

quote:

I understand the TOAW function of HQs, but what does one do with 10 or 20 corps/Army HQs scattered about a map with no formations; there is a big temptation to use them primarily as stop gap defensive frontline units which is of course ludicrous. What good is the cooperation? I must be missing something.


It depends upon the scenario. Sometimes designers give different color combinations to formations thereby allowing something of a hierarchy of cooperation. I don't know if that was the case for that scenario. An HQ only gives the supply bonus to fully cooperative units.



mmarquo -> RE: OOB Information (1/18/2015 3:08:11 PM)

If I hit the 101 HQ then it appears that all of the hexes with units which report to it in the formation report develop a grey hue; OTOH the 82 HQ has no units reporting to in in the formation report and no hexes develop a grey hue when the HQ is clicked.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: OOB Information (1/18/2015 4:42:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

If I hit the 101 HQ then it appears that all of the hexes with units which report to it in the formation report develop a grey hue; OTOH the 82 HQ has no units reporting to in in the formation report and no hexes develop a grey hue when the HQ is clicked.


Ok, you're talking about the Formation Highlight. (See 7.5 in the manual). That's a steel colored border around all units in the formation of the currently selected unit. So, for this scenario the 101 HQ has several units in its formation while the 82nd doesn't. That's up to the scenario designer.



Lobster -> RE: OOB Information (1/19/2015 3:40:58 AM)

Since most of the HQ in many scenarios are administrative only it's pointless to even have them in the game. It clutters the map and yes, entices the player to use the HQ in a very wrong manner. If TOAW is made to take advantage of a hierarchy system of command like the one in HoI then having all levels of HQ would make sense.



USXpat -> RE: OOB Information (1/20/2015 1:06:26 PM)

It depends upon the developer, but HQ's have several important/useful roles.

HQ's provide a small supply bonus to adjacent, cooperating units.

If an HQ is destroyed, units in its formation suffer from reduced proficiency (until it reconstitutes). Units without an HQ will never suffer that reduced proficiency. American RCT's are a good example of being able to operate independently of a Division HQ, while the arty, engineers, recon, etc., attached to a division are more dependent upon the Div HQ.

Both HQ's and Arty units are capable of carrying out "rear guard" actions enabling other units to retreat from a hex without disengagement penalty, and suffering no engagement penalty itself if as the last unit out of the hex it moves into a friendly occupied hex.

Given the above, it is frequently better to place artillery in an HQ because HQ's cannot divide; Arty units can - potentially providing rear guard duty for 3+ hexes.

There are other factors on the design side where a designer might want to make different types of formations for the PO to use, with or without HQ's to reflect capabilities, vulnerabilities and function/s. How the PO uses the assets assigned to it is very, very different from how players might use them. The PO is not easy to optimize, but a bit of effort can go "a fair distance".

The scope of scenarios within TOAW is radically varied from small battles to entire wars on multiple fronts. The system is very flexible. It all comes down to the designer though.

Another factor enabled by the boosting of events to 1000 is the potential for a designer to implement penalties for the loss of specific units like HQ's.

Players are free to use any unit as they might want - optimal or practical or not. There will be occasions where "anything and everything" will be thrown in to plug a gap, but there are also times where doing so can be a catalyst for disaster, too. Imagine getting a couple of automatic overruns against HQ's thrown in this way, before the first round of combat. Sometimes, it is better to have a vacant hex and just depend upon ZOC friction on movement.

But, that's the glory of TOAW - and half the fun of losing for those who enjoy its detail is staring down the barrel of a Soviet Tank Army with a shattered line and trying to build up "something" to prevent disaster for one more turn...

Whenever my Army Group Center explodes into a thousand unrecognizable fragments, I always call in the water purification units, a force so abstract and strategic, that it is difficult to accurately model even with the extensive capabilities of the Bio Ed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOlfNC-_5TU













mmarquo -> RE: OOB Information (1/20/2015 3:29:16 PM)

I agree with all above - but many scenarios have Higher HQs with no attached units seemingly for historical info purpose or completeness sake. Unless the player has intimate knowledge of the action being played they are frustrating clutter. They serve only as gamey speed bumps or some other ahistorical purpose. When was the last time an Army Group HQ with senior leaders advanced to the front directly into contact with a marauding Guards Tank regiment to cover the retreat of a handful of decimated landsers??? Or advanced to plug the gaps in a faltering line?

Let's be objective and honest: they serve no real historical purpose.

Cheers



USXpat -> RE: OOB Information (1/20/2015 6:33:07 PM)

It depends upon how you define an HQ and how you define the personnel assigned to it. In the army, everyone is a basic infantryman first. Having been in an HQ, if we went to the field, we still carried a rifle or sidearm - whether supply, mechanic, chaplain assistant, radio operator, truck driver. For designers, representing tail to teeth issues is not a simple factor. If anything HQ and support elements are dramatically under-represented in most TOAW scenarios.

Consider if a division has a TO&E for 10,000 rifles - 3 regiments x 3 battalions x 3 companies x 3 platoons x 3 squads x 10 men each, provides a base of 2430 riflemen. Add in all of the support/heavy weapons, and we're still far, far short of a division's real strength. A division is not going to roll over just because its assigned infantrymen are dead/captured, but its typists and clerks will be filling in to the extent that they can in extreme situations. That's not to say that these components have the same stats as a rifle squad -- but not every situation where they are needed as a unit will involve taking on a Tank Corps. It could be partisans, a mauled rifle brigade which still has 1 horse team assigned, or a recon battalion.

Between the Winter of 1941 where chefs, cooks, mechanics, quartermasters were used to provide local fire brigades for the Germans, to Operation Bagration and the Destruction of AGC, a variety of other pockets, a few airborne operations, there were plenty of occasions where HQ components were thrown into the gap or became the only local opposition. Eisenhower complained about and asked for more infantrymen only to be told by Marshall to start reassigning clerks, etc. HQ's have duty rosters for guard details, also serve as temporary posts for personnel transiting to/from front line units for medical/leave/reassignment - have military police attachments, etc. and so forth.

Certainly, while the senior officers of a corps won't be meeting the Tank Corps head on... we're talking about a few men.

All in all though, it depends upon the scenario, map size, unit density, level of engagement, how partisans and other rear area threats are represented, supply settings, etc.

A scenario is not simply a map, an OOB and a TO&E thrown together - but one could do that and come pretty close to having something halfway worthwhile or even better - for potentially anything ranging from Alexander the Great to modern warfare.

TOAW does have some issues, but it has evolved over 15 years and there are efforts to evolve it further. Everyone has different expectations of what it should be able to do or handle different things -- part of that relates to the game engine itself and other parts relate to scenario design "by anyone who cares to design."



SMK-at-work -> RE: OOB Information (1/20/2015 6:57:59 PM)

another reason for "false" HQ's is, of course, intelligence - specifically the spoofing of the other guy's intel on you.

As for organisation - IMO Advanced Tactics has a nice system where you can drag and drop units between HQ's - it's been a couple of years since I played it but IIRC such a move costs the unit some readiness and/or some supply.



governato -> RE: OOB Information (1/20/2015 9:36:28 PM)

One of the important roles of HQs *with attached units* is to regulate the supply rate of their formation. The effective supply rate is linked to how many supply squads an HQ actually has vs its size (say Corps or Army) and what the 100% allocation 'd be. The replacement rate of support squads is a great way to regulate the staff capabilities of a formation. Loss of precious support squads are a good incentive to keep high level HQs away from the first line of fire (but often right behind it if they have artillery in their TOE).



Grognard -> RE: OOB Information (1/20/2015 9:44:19 PM)

Command span and command hierarchy is not modelled at all in TOAW and this has been a pet peeve of mine for years. Imagine a regimental level Barbarossa scenario with more than 4k units and just ONE HQ per side - Stavka and OKH. Aside from units not being able to get enhanced supply - this scenario would play just fine... Ridiculousness !!!

The addition of command groups was a big step in the right direction -but- Command and Control is/was a major factor in any military operation(s) and should be factored in if we're trying to model real life. Anybody who uses HQ's to proactively plug a gap just doesn't get it [:-]. Cooks and clerk typists picked up rifles and went to a combat unit when ordered or they grabbed their rifles real quick when overrun.

I love the old gal (TOAW) dearly but Norm [&o] sure missed the mark here and the surgery needed to fix the problem is NOT cosmetic. Sorry 'bout the rant [:@] [:D]



USXpat -> RE: OOB Information (1/21/2015 10:14:29 AM)

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a211610.pdf - from the US General Staff College is a look at German General Officer Casualties of WWII, specifically covering 136 Division level and higher deaths - not including WIA/MIA/Captured: 3 Army Commanders, 23 Corps Commanders, 110 Division Commanders. Air attacks accounted for the most 32%, small arms 13%, artillery 14%, tank fire 4%, partisans 9%, snipers 5%, minefields 9%, grenades 5%, anti-tank fire 9%.

"The doctrine of senior forward leadership and the quality of general officers carried the Germans to a high level of tactical and operational success."

A scenario could be done without HQ's at all, true enough and it would work just fine. I tend to include artillery, military police and construction (non-combat) engineers, with an AA attachment, sometimes other combat attachments to reduce the number of units. Adding artillery, engineer, and other units makes it too easy to disengage and reform front lines.

One artillery regiment could be broken down into 3 battalions, provide rearguard functions for 3+ hexes, and exert ZOC's across a 9 hex front. In the absence of artillery, one could still sacrifice... an engineer battalion to evacuate three hexes. Not too realistic there. Yet a scenario without some of these components would be kind of bland. Flavor, chrome, look-n-feel have a place.

If it can be done, players will do it. The same goes with the 33%/1% readiness and supply issue that has been a longstanding gripe of many. Employing HQ's as a front line unit is probably not something the average player is going to do unless the situation is extreme. Stand and Die orders are pretty extreme. It really helps in TOAW to try to see things in terms of averages and aggregates, that just because a unit is represented by an HQ symbol doesn't mean everything in it is sitting around a desk talking on a radio or happens to be a two-star general.

Scenario designers don't get paid anything, so the idea of asking them to model real life (at what level of detail?) is sort of a tall order when we have entire governments incapable of balancing budgets. The scenario editor is there for anyone to use, to model or tweak things however they would like. The game platform is a different story. Here, we're working with something originally designed in the 1990's that has evolved considerably -- and is still better than most anything else out there; stronger in some ways, not as strong in others. The platform is still evolving and until it is able to do everything we might want, we have to live with it... just as we lived with 3-3 infantry counters on board games that were either at full strength or dead back in the days that we sat barefoot in the snow, happy to eat dirt.

There are things that I don't necessarily like about TOAW, but to me it is still better than anything else out there. If I want something better -- and this goes for everyone really -- we have the option to try do make something better. That TOAW is still as competitive as it is indicates that is probably not very easy to do.

Hell... World in Flames finally came out after 10 years of development and it doesn't have an AI/PO.

Things like Panzer General and... Panzer Corps, make enough money to justify the effort. And most scenarios in TOAW involve a buttload more detail than them.

So... that's my rant... not that I'm ranting so much as stating the situation for what it is.



larryfulkerson -> RE: OOB Information (1/22/2015 1:31:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: USXpat
A scenario could be done without HQ's at all, true enough and it would work just fine. I tend to include artillery, military police and construction (non-combat) engineers, with an AA attachment, sometimes other combat attachments to reduce the number of units. Adding artillery, engineer, and other units makes it too easy to disengage and reform front lines.

One of the drawbacks about fighting the German side in something like FITE is that the Germans don't have much in the
way of facilitating disengagement besides their organic recon units. At least they function adequately in that role.

quote:

ORIGINAL: USXpat
If it can be done, players will do it.

And if the players haven't done it Elmer probably has. Elmer will rail somebody right up the front lines. I've seen it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: USXpat
The same goes with the 33%/1% readiness and supply issue that has been a longstanding gripe of many.

I agree that this is the one thing that I most regret about TOAW. Units that are out of supplies shouldn't be able to shoot.
Defensively or offensively. And they should have their MP's curtailed someway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: USXpat
Scenario designers don't get paid anything, so the idea of asking them to model real life (at what level of detail?) is sort of a tall order when we have entire governments incapable of balancing budgets. The scenario editor is there for anyone to use, to model or tweak things however they would like. The game platform is a different story. Here, we're working with something originally designed in the 1990's that has evolved considerably -- and is still better than most anything else out there; stronger in some ways, not as strong in others. The platform is still evolving and until it is able to do everything we might want, we have to live with it... just as we lived with 3-3 infantry counters on board games that were either at full strength or dead back in the days that we sat barefoot in the snow, happy to eat dirt.

There are things that I don't necessarily like about TOAW, but to me it is still better than anything else out there. If I want something better -- and this goes for everyone really -- we have the option to try do make something better. That TOAW is still as competitive as it is indicates that is probably not very easy to do.

Hell... World in Flames finally came out after 10 years of development and it doesn't have an AI/PO.

Things like Panzer General and... Panzer Corps, make enough money to justify the effort. And most scenarios in TOAW involve a buttload more detail than them.

So... that's my rant... not that I'm ranting so much as stating the situation for what it is.

Good synopsis. I left TOAW for WITE and then I left WITE for WITP-AE and then I left WIPT-AE for TOAW again full circle. All
this happened in about a years time. I still like it better than everything else I've played.



mmarquo -> RE: OOB Information (1/22/2015 12:14:04 PM)

I agree about TOAW.

What would happen if for example one were to simply assign division HQs to Corps HQs as formations, and then Corp HQs to Army HQs as formations?

Marquo



larryfulkerson -> RE: OOB Information (1/22/2015 1:10:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
I agree about TOAW.

What would happen if for example one were to simply assign division HQs to Corps HQs as formations, and then Corp HQs to Army HQs as formations?

I'm not sure anything would "happen" but it seems like you would end up with two formations that were useless for combat.



USXpat -> RE: OOB Information (1/22/2015 1:50:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

I agree about TOAW.

What would happen if for example one were to simply assign division HQs to Corps HQs as formations, and then Corp HQs to Army HQs as formations?

Marquo


That's how I work my division level scenarios, where the Corps HQ's are the lowest level HQ, with a few variations.

3-4 Divisions along with 1-2 smaller units are assigned to Corp HQ's for Germany/Western Nations. The Soviet Union only has Army/Front/Stavka HQ's and tend to be larger formations. Higher level formations have a few divisions attached, but more support units.

This works fine, but it's not the only way to skin the cat. The main variance is that division level artillery will take significantly more losses than when it is segregated into a division level HQ.



Oberst_Klink -> RE: OOB Information (1/22/2015 2:22:11 PM)

It is also a matter of flexibility, or the reflection of it. In Kharkov '43 I chucked the Div.Art and Div.Eng into the Rfl.Div HQs for the Soviets. For the Gds.Rfl.Div however I let'm have a separate Art.Rgt (Div.Art) as well as the Div.Reece as separate Reece.Btl. or Det.

Klink, Oberst



mmarquo -> RE: OOB Information (1/22/2015 10:37:00 PM)

Larry,

I am playing Ardennes 44, and trying to make some sense of the chain of command - impossible as it stands. My idea of assigning HQs to higher level ones is to simply be able to make some sense of the command structure even if it is chrome. I have an 8th corps HQ with an AA unit assigned and nothing else; just for the purposes of aesthetics - where should I place it???

If several divisional HQs were assigned to the proper corps HQ could I understand the history of the battle better???



larryfulkerson -> RE: OOB Information (1/23/2015 12:19:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Larry,

I am playing Ardennes 44, and trying to make some sense of the chain of command - impossible as it stands. My idea of assigning HQs to higher level ones is to simply be able to make some sense of the command structure even if it is chrome. I have an 8th corps HQ with an AA unit assigned and nothing else; just for the purposes of aesthetics - where should I place it???

I would place the 8th Corps HQ within the area where it could assist in the supply process for some units. Either that or you
could use it as the base HQ for an area where you send the tired units to get some refit and rest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
If several divisional HQs were assigned to the proper corps HQ could I understand the history of the battle better???

I doubt if I would understand the history of the battle any better but I can understand the desire to do so. Won't hurt anything.



governato -> RE: OOB Information (1/23/2015 12:26:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Larry,

I am playing Ardennes 44, and trying to make some sense of the chain of command - impossible as it stands. My idea of assigning HQs to higher level ones is to simply be able to make some sense of the command structure even if it is chrome. I have an 8th corps HQ with an AA unit assigned and nothing else; just for the purposes of aesthetics - where should I place it???

If several divisional HQs were assigned to the proper corps HQ could I understand the history of the battle better???



Marquo, a lot depends on the scenario, but I see high level HQs as leader+staff resources. Place them next to units you want to boost supply. Assign Corps level battalion and rgts to the formation of said HQ and set the formation to 'free support'. This is important. The level of support is fundamental in TOAW. This way they will be able to participate in combat with all units with no penalties. Once on free support you can give them a unique color scheme for chrome.



shunwick -> RE: OOB Information (1/23/2015 11:55:37 AM)

Multiple HQs in formations are certainly possible but do not assign Command and Support Squads to them - TOAW cannot properly work out the supply and command damage if there are multiple HQs (with Command and Support Squads) in a formation.

Best wishes,
Steve



Oberst_Klink -> RE: OOB Information (1/23/2015 1:13:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Multiple HQs in formations are certainly possible but do not assign Command and Support Squads to them - TOAW cannot properly work out the supply and command damage if there are multiple HQs (with Command and Support Squads) in a formation.

Best wishes,
Steve

Depends on the intention of the scenario designer, too. I'd not put more than 12 units, incl. HQ, Support, etc. in a formation because Elmer can't handle that well. The multiple HQs in a formation work more than OK though, see CFNA.

Klink, Oberst



mmarquo -> RE: OOB Information (1/23/2015 8:12:26 PM)

DO HQs enhance the supply of any units next to them - attached or not???



Curtis Lemay -> RE: OOB Information (1/23/2015 9:29:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

DO HQs enhance the supply of any units next to them - attached or not???


All units that have full cooperation with the HQ.



governato -> RE: OOB Information (1/24/2015 12:09:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Multiple HQs in formations are certainly possible but do not assign Command and Support Squads to them - TOAW cannot properly work out the supply and command damage if there are multiple HQs (with Command and Support Squads) in a formation.

Best wishes,
Steve


It works as long as onlyone HQ is present on the map at any time (this is a neat trick to simulate shifting efforts between different formations)



r6kunz -> RE: OOB Information (1/24/2015 2:02:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Is there anyway to see the hierarchy of command in TOAW? For example, I am trying Ardennes 44; there are many HQs on the map but no way to see the regiment-->division--->corps--->Army hierarchy.

[&:]

As the designer of Ardennes 1944, let me jump in with a couple of comments. First, thank you for your interest, and your constructive criticisms. Indeed TOAW has an issue with hierarchy of command, but that has bothered me less as time has gone by. Indeed in an ideal TOAW with a complete hierarchy, it would be difficult to model because many times subordinate units are switched to different major commands, new major commands are added, etc.

If you look at the Order of Battle in View in Ardennes 1944, you will see the Army HQ's and the army-level attachments, follow the Corps in that Army, each with their respective divisions then regiments (that are on the map at that time). Alternatively, go to the Army HQ, click F key to see the attached units, then the down button to go to the next formation- likely the Corps, then the next formation for the division, etc.

Some designers, however, put all of the Army HQ, then all of the Corps HQ, then all of the divisions without attempting to assign them.

quote:

Many of the regiments are seemingly independent; seems like clicking on an HQ should indicate all the units which report to it at least on paper.


If I understand, clicking an Army HQ should highlight all of the subordinate Corps HQ? That would be nice, but mostly chrome. Of coarse, clicking on the Army HQ would highlight all of the army-level units that are directly attached (AAA, arty, etc). Some designers do have all of the units in that Army in one Formation. That means, however, that all the units will have only one Formation path and objectives. It depends on the scale.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: OOB Information (1/24/2015 2:40:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

Indeed in an ideal TOAW with a complete hierarchy, it would be difficult to model because many times subordinate units are switched to different major commands, new major commands are added, etc.


This is what bugs me about the lust for a command hierarchy. Everyone who wants it also wants the ability to shift units between formations as well (and would want the ability to shift subordinate formations too, if there were such things). What they don't seem to realize is that those two features combined would sort of cancel each other out and get us about back to where we are now, where you can scatter your units all over the place without much consequence.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.921875