3 Sides of Beef

3 Sides of Beef (Full Version)

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

Message

mmarquo -> 3 Sides of Beef (2/21/2015 2:24:04 PM)
I have every version of TOAW from the first to the most recent; I keep coming back but there are three issues which otherwise detract from my enjoyment of this great game. 1.) Lack of C/C function of HQ's. 2.) The extreme difficulty in eliminating units unless surrounded on 6 sides. 3.) The disconnect between what the combat planner predicts as outcome versus what actually happens during combat resolution. Still a great game.... Cheers

Lobster -> RE: 3 Sides of Beef (2/21/2015 6:11:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo 2.) The extreme difficulty in eliminating units unless surrounded on 6 sides. 3.) The disconnect between what the combat planner predicts as outcome versus what actually happens during combat resolution. Still a great game.... Cheers #2) would be real world accurate. It's extremely difficult to completely destroy a unit unless surrounded. That's because they have someplace to run to if not surrounded. In 1941/1942 the Soviets lost 140 divisions because they were surrounded. Another 40 or 50 were disbanded because they lost so much strength it was easier using their remnants to reinforce other units. It should be noted that most of the disbanded units were in the north Caucasus area where getting replacements was more difficult due to geography. So just by that example alone it's apparent the easiest way to destroy a unit is by cutting it off, not bashing it. "In a normal attack, no matter how well planned and executed, both sides will suffer casualties in predictable proportion to their own starting strengths and the enemy's. Once surrounded, however, a military group of any size can be completely wiped out as an organized force at very little cost to the other side." Charles Sharp - "Soviet Order of Battle WW2 Vol 9" #3) You can never really know the outcome of a battle until it's been fought. As you say, it is a prediction, not a fact.

r6kunz -> RE: 3 Sides of Beef (2/21/2015 8:04:11 PM)
Marquo Item 1- no argument here, but I have learned to live with it, and as a "my house" rule, I try to keep formations with their parent HQ. Here is hoping this may corrected in the next version. Item 2- Lobster answered it. In fact I would say a surrounded unit seems to be eliminated a bit too easily compared to a unit with enemy units on five sides. (This was somewhat corrected in TOAW III.) As Lobster goes on to say, in looking at the history of modern warfare, rarely is a unit eliminated. In fact I researched the opening of WWI for 1914- Horrific losses- both sides all across the Western Front (August 22,1914 most deadly day for he French), yet virtually no French, German or British regular divisions were eliminated. In the Race to the Sea nearly all regular divisions were able to participate. Item 3- C'est la guerre Thanks for your interest and opinions. That is what keeps the Forum alive cheers

mmarquo -> RE: 3 Sides of Beef (2/21/2015 8:40:30 PM)
Elimination is abstract is such games - not meaning wiped out, rather dysfunctional and unable to offer meaningful resistance.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: 3 Sides of Beef (2/21/2015 9:29:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo 1.) Lack of C/C function of HQ's. I would say that there are a couple of C & C functions. First, depending upon the designer's design choices, cooperation factors can mean that a given HQ can only aid certain units. That can encourage players to keep their units grouped by formation. Second, loss of an HQ (or all its command squads) can halve a formation's proficiency - increasing combat reorganizations. There is no "command radius" feature. But games with such features usually come with reassignment features as well - more or less canceling the impact of the radius feature. quote: 2.) The extreme difficulty in eliminating units unless surrounded on 6 sides. I would disagree with this - although it depends upon the unit, of course. Just check out the opening turn of any of my Soviet Union 1941 AARs. quote: 3.) The disconnect between what the combat planner predicts as outcome versus what actually happens during combat resolution. That might be improvable with a bit of work. But it is like any staff report - you have to expect some fog-of-war.

Lobster -> RE: 3 Sides of Beef (2/21/2015 11:54:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo Elimination is abstract is such games - not meaning wiped out, rather dysfunctional and unable to offer meaningful resistance. Exactly. That's why somewhere between 40 and 50 Soviet divisions were disbanded in 41/42. After 1942 there were only 3 divisions disbanded. The disbanded divisions were as you describe, dysfunctional and unable to offer meaningful resistance. But that number only represents about 25% of the total number of 'lost' divisions in 41/42. Not a very large percentage. Units simply do not get bashed to death as often as you must think. Given proper leadership a division can be reduced to battalion strength and still offer appreciable resistance as long as a reasonable number of heavy weapons have survived.

mmarquo -> RE: 3 Sides of Beef (2/22/2015 2:58:47 PM)
What I think is there is a degree of abstract generalization is hexagon-based IGO-UGO systems; and that given the 4th dimension of time many of TOAW scenarios seem too generous in terms of functional survivability. We all agree that units project frontage into adjacent hexes; I have no problem with units retreating through one vacant hex in one enemy ZOC, but passing through a vacant hex with overlapping ZOC from 2 adjacent units is a problem. Simonvitch accounts for this elegantly in his games (A'44, U'43) by the concept of ZOC hex and hexside bonds. I fully understand the concept of attrited units maintaining a large degree of functionality, but IMHO there needs to be a careful balance for playability. Cheers

Falcon1 -> RE: 3 Sides of Beef (2/22/2015 3:27:20 PM)
I could accept that the attack planner is not always accurate concerning predictions, because that is fog of war. But, it seems like the prediction is always too pessimistic, not randomly inaccurate. So it seems more like a dysfunction in the prediction algorithm.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: 3 Sides of Beef (2/22/2015 4:54:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo ... many of TOAW scenarios seem too generous in terms of functional survivability ... Examples? Of course there must be many such - there are so many design parameters that many designers lose track of them all. That doesn't mean that it is impossible to get it right, though. quote: I have no problem with units retreating through one vacant hex in one enemy ZOC, but passing through a vacant hex with overlapping ZOC from 2 adjacent units is a problem. That depends upon just what the units are. Two weak units may be less of a problem than one strong one. TOAW deals with this via the disengagement rules. If the mover is too over-matched by the enemies around it then it is subjected to a disengagement attack before it can disengage. That's far more realistic than counting ZOCs around it.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.65625