Curtis Lemay
Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Industrial
Early turn endings don't even come close to simulate anything even remotely realistic, and certainly have nothing to do with making IGOYOUGO more WEGO.
The 'away with early turn endings' faction provided more than enough _examples_ where early turn endings totally ruined a turn and leed to very unrealistic results. I think it's time the pro-early-turn-endig faction finally steps down from their high chair and instead of only monotonly repeating that early turn endings are good, should finally state some examples from history (take the last 100 years, you should find some examples there... if there are any) where a situation reesembling a TOAW early-turn-ending actually happened.
Oh, and while you are at if, try to explain why early turn endings should only hit the attacker, because that's what they do, a defender who simply arranges his lines and than dig in will never be hit by early turn endings. If early turn endings simulate stuff going wrong, than you are saying murphys law can only happen to the attacker ?? *hollow laughter*
Ok, how about every battle of every operation of every campaign of every war in the history of Planet Earth – is that enough examples? In all those battles both sides were fully sentient beings consciously in control of their movements 24-7. No battle was ever fought using IGOUGO rules. IGOUGO is an abstraction.
And under those rules, the defender’s forces can’t respond to the attacker’s movements during the attacker’s turn. If the attacker is free to elaborately divide up his turn as fine as the maximum permitted by TOAW every time, without risk of failure, the defense can literally be carved up at will. Defense becomes very difficult. Now some forces (very high force proficiency), and some situations (very high shock) should accommodate those sorts of elaborate plans. But lesser forces and more normal situations should result in greater and greater risk to that sort of complexity as the force’s abilities degrade. In those cases, players should have good incentives to simplify their operational plans.
This simplification is done by aiming for a smaller number of sub-turns. For example, if, after moving your forces in the first phase, you find you have combats in place that will start over a range of the ten phases, the most elaborate plan would be to only schedule the attacks that could start immediately. That would be aiming for a 10-phase turn – or greater. But, alternately, you might schedule those attacks that could start immediately and those that could start one round later. Doing this consistently would tend to divide the turn up into only 5 phases, not the maximum of 10. Or you could even include the attacks that could start two rounds later, thereby dividing the turn into only 3 phases. And one can also shoot for only two phases or even only one by the same method. Of course, with recognition that the risk increases as the turn progresses, the above technique could be even more refined by going for finer division of the turn early in it, followed by progressively courser division as the turn progresses. It’s a high skill task.
It all depends upon the risk of early-turn-ending your force-proficiency and shock-level impose on you. In this fashion, low quality forces can be compelled to simplify their plans. And there is nothing unrealistic about that.
|
Printable Version
RE: Interface Wish List - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread