Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Turned flank

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Turned flank Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Turned flank - 1/27/2007 4:31:32 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zort

Thanks, so if A and B attack in the first round do they get the flanking bonus on round two?

Yes. Even if C attacks, by itself, on round two, it will cause the flanking penalty. You really should think of it as more of a penalty than a bonus. One that is inflicted on a unit anytime that it remains stationary through combat across two (or more) non-adjacent hexsides within the same full turn.

(in reply to Zort)
Post #: 31
RE: Turned flank - 1/27/2007 4:50:02 AM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
quote:

Orig: Ralphy
....as far as I know...

Is this a good thing to be hearing form the guy that is editting our beloved game???

Think of it as 'Objectivity'<g>. I don't have a clear idea of what is 'right.'

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 32
RE: Turned flank - 1/27/2007 5:17:39 AM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline 		Player 1-2 assymetries are being worked on in the next patch, right, Ralph?

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 33
RE: Turned flank - 1/27/2007 5:58:40 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline 		Not in the next patch, but they are on the drawing board.

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 34
RE: Turned flank - 1/27/2007 6:48:11 AM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Not in the next patch, but they are on the drawing board.


Good to hear.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 35
RE: Turned flank - 2/2/2007 9:59:53 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline 		Does a unit doing a 'limited attack' count as a unit doing an attack when calculating flanking penalties?

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 36
RE: Turned flank - 2/2/2007 10:23:38 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Does a unit doing a 'limited attack' count as a unit doing an attack when calculating flanking penalties?

Yes.

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 37
RE: Turned flank - 2/2/2007 10:29:31 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline 		Danke, James.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 38
RE: Turned flank - 2/2/2007 10:52:20 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline 		No problem. "Yes or no" questions are my favorites...

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 39
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 12:45:56 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		What is a player 1-2 assymetry??!

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 40
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 12:54:17 AM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline 		Well,the fact that player 2's retreated units can't dig in is a player 1-2 assymetry. The fact that player 1 has full movement at the beginning of his turn, no matter what, but player 2 has only what's left if his units have been pushed around is a player 1-2 assymetry. The list goes on. Ralph and James are going to be so kind as to fix each and every one of them for us.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 41
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 1:01:49 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

What is a player 1-2 assymetry??!

I wouldn't know. However, an example of player 1-2 asymmetry ...... would the effect of player two units that were retreated by player one's attacks during his turn, having less than their full compliment of movement points left over, at the start of player two's player turn. The units of player one that are retreated by player two's attacks have full movement at the start of his turn, since his turn follows the Automatic Bookkeeping Phase, where the movement allowances for all units are reset.

There are many other examples, where the strict turn order of pbem and hotseat games impose an asymmetry between player one and player two. If players were more open to variable initiative, and it was available in pbem/hotseat, and it was a little more interactive, or "influence-able" it wouldn't be such a problem. However, it seems that most players (especially ladder players) seem to loathe that feature...

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 42
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 1:04:16 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Well,the fact that player 2's retreated units can't dig in is a player 1-2 assymetry.

Sure they can, and we even told everyone how to do it in the manual. True, it's a "workaround" until we do things in more depth later, but still...

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 43
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 1:04:51 AM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline 		Much better put.
What are your feelings on variable initiative, James?

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 44
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 1:07:42 AM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Well,the fact that player 2's retreated units can't dig in is a player 1-2 assymetry.

Sure they can, and we even told everyone how to do it in the manual. True, it's a "workaround" until we do things in more depth later, but still...

Yeah, of course, I just meant that it is an assymetry, though we have a work around that works most of the time.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 45
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 3:54:43 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
What are your feelings on variable initiative, James?

Oh, I think it's great. In fact, I would like to get it even more entrenched as a usable option in PBEM. Especially as a big emphasis since day one, with Matrix, has been to close the cheat loopholes in TOAW.

Where I think that Variable Initiative (VI) would truly shine, is on those longer, more strategic level scenarios, where a turn flip-flop, or ten, won't suddenly cause a player to have their entire force wiped out, and the game totally lost. It may take some further refinement of the engine to convince people of VI's benefits, but I think it can be done.

Then again...given how much people bitch, gripe, moan and complain about early turn endings...

Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...

< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 2/3/2007 4:06:36 AM >

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 46
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 4:13:42 AM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

James:
Where I think that Variable Initiative (VI) would truly shine, is on those longer, more strategic level scenarios, where a turn flip-flop, or ten, won't suddenly cause a player to have their entire force wiped out, and the game totally lost. It may take some further refinement of the engine to convince people of VI's benefits, but I think it can be done.


True, it would be nice in EA, for example to have the initiative switch about half way through the war.

Howevers, regarding EA.
The initiative switches prior to when it all-out switches (ie: Soviet winter offensives).
EA has many units that are sitting out the war (or parts of it) that would add to each side's initiative variable (whatever it is that determines who has the first turn).

In its current state, would VI work for EA by flipping somewhere in 43-ish to the Allies?
In its current state is it totally broken because of the Spanish/Swedish/Swiss/Turkish neutrals?

In the future would you like it to:
Be able to flip over when the Allies had the momentive, but not for the rest of the war (winter '41, winter '42)?

Perhaps it could be partially (or fully) driven by the Event Engine, with the designer choosing when the initiative should switch from one side to the other? (The obvious drawback being that a designer can rarely judge just when the initiative should switch on a large strategic scenario).
Sorry this isn't your favourite kind of question, as a yes or no wouldn't really do it justice. (Of course now you will just give me one of those simple answers, eh?)

Editted twice for clarity.



< Message edited by Veers -- 2/3/2007 5:09:03 AM >

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 47
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 5:59:59 AM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...

Onwards Alonso.

--
Pancho


< Message edited by ralphtrick -- 2/3/2007 6:12:49 AM >

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 48
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 6:03:38 AM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...

Onwards Alonso.

--
Pancho


Ok, I'll admit, what's with the windmills?

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 49
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 6:44:52 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...

Onwards Alonso.

--
Pancho


Ok, I'll admit, what's with the windmills?

Wiki is your friend...

< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 2/3/2007 6:57:43 AM >

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 50
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 7:24:36 AM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...

Onwards Alonso.

--
Pancho


Ok, I'll admit, what's with the windmills?

Wiki is your friend...


You know, I had a hunch, but after searching for both names together I got nothing, so I had to admit defeat.
Now about that other long post I made...?

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 51
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 11:35:31 AM   
saintsup

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: La Celle Saint-Clouud
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
What are your feelings on variable initiative, James?

Oh, I think it's great. In fact, I would like to get it even more entrenched as a usable option in PBEM. Especially as a big emphasis since day one, with Matrix, has been to close the cheat loopholes in TOAW.

Where I think that Variable Initiative (VI) would truly shine, is on those longer, more strategic level scenarios, where a turn flip-flop, or ten, won't suddenly cause a player to have their entire force wiped out, and the game totally lost. It may take some further refinement of the engine to convince people of VI's benefits, but I think it can be done.

Then again...given how much people bitch, gripe, moan and complain about early turn endings...

Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...


Could anyone explain me how this 'workaround' works ?

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 52
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 12:36:31 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
What are your feelings on variable initiative, James?

Oh, I think it's great. In fact, I would like to get it even more entrenched as a usable option in PBEM. Especially as a big emphasis since day one, with Matrix, has been to close the cheat loopholes in TOAW.

Where I think that Variable Initiative (VI) would truly shine, is on those longer, more strategic level scenarios, where a turn flip-flop, or ten, won't suddenly cause a player to have their entire force wiped out, and the game totally lost. It may take some further refinement of the engine to convince people of VI's benefits, but I think it can be done.

Then again...given how much people bitch, gripe, moan and complain about early turn endings...

Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...


Guys,

I love VI. It always surprises me when people complain about it. Real war is a mess and it doesn't progress in neat UgoIgo packages.

Best wishes,


_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 53
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 6:33:29 PM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

What is a player 1-2 assymetry??!

However, an example of player 1-2 asymmetry... would the effect of player two units that were retreated by player one's attacks during his turn, having less than their full compliment of movement points left over, at the start of player two's player turn....


Sounds like the house keeping calculations that are performed at the start of player #1 turn actually need to be performed at the start of both the #1 and #2 player turns. In this way both players would always start with an entire compliment of turns. Think this would make the use of Tactical and Local Reserve a much more realistic option. This would obviously alter game play (for the better I think), but I don’t think it would break any existing scenarios.

If you think about it, aircraft already enjoy this type of movement. Player #2 aircraft that participate in combat during the player #1 turn begin the player #2 turn with a full load of movement. Ground units should enjoy the same movement allowance. The same should be true of naval units if they are ever provided with an “interdiction” mode.

Since this reply is addressing house keeping calculations, I would like to insert another suggestion. Think the calculation (or whatever the control might be) for whether a unit is in the state of Reorganization, or Retreated, should be performed at the beginning of each combat pulse, not the single occurrence at the start of player #1 turn. I have a difficult time believing that a unit is required to spend an entire turn in such a helpless state. Would expect units with above average characteristics to recover quicker from heavy combat instead of spending the entire time period incapacitated. Units should also go into, and out of, reorganization/retreated status during the course of a turn depending on their readiness, communications check, combat losses and proximity to a Headquarters. Again, I don’t see how this would break any existing scenarios.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 54
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 7:12:07 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Oh, I think it's great. In fact, I would like to get it even more entrenched as a usable option in PBEM. Especially as a big emphasis since day one, with Matrix, has been to close the cheat loopholes in TOAW.

Where I think that Variable Initiative (VI) would truly shine, is on those longer, more strategic level scenarios, where a turn flip-flop, or ten, won't suddenly cause a player to have their entire force wiped out, and the game totally lost. It may take some further refinement of the engine to convince people of VI's benefits, but I think it can be done.

Then again...given how much people bitch, gripe, moan and complain about early turn endings...

Excuse me, but I see some vicious windmills out there that need slaying...


The problem with VI as it now stands, is that it is so unrealistic, being based upon average movement allowance. So the side with more air, naval, and entrained units gets the initiative. That means the Commonwealth have it during Rommel's First Offensive (they have a navy and a rail line), and the Soviets have it in Barbarossa (due to entrained units).

A better way to do it would be to base initiative on which side was gaining ground. Just keep track of the total hex ownership count for each side, and the side which increased its count in the last turn would be favored to get the initiative in the next.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 55
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 9:59:12 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
It may take some further refinement of the engine to convince people of VI's benefits, but I think it can be done.


The problem with VI as it now stands, is that it is so unrealistic, being based upon average movement allowance. So the side with more air, naval, and entrained units gets the initiative. That means the Commonwealth have it during Rommel's First Offensive (they have a navy and a rail line), and the Soviets have it in Barbarossa (due to entrained units).

I agree here, Bob, which is why I threw in the above statement, now bolded for emphasis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

A better way to do it would be to base initiative on which side was gaining ground. Just keep track of the total hex ownership count for each side, and the side which increased its count in the last turn would be favored to get the initiative in the next.

There are several parameters that I have in mind that will contribute to influencing initiative, and I would like to make it part of a separate EEV-like tracking system, so that events/TO's/etc can all factor into shifting initiative. We'll hash this out more in the private development forum, when we get to that stage.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 56
RE: Turned flank - 2/3/2007 10:11:22 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
There are several parameters that I have in mind that will contribute to influencing initiative, and I would like to make it part of a separate EEV-like tracking system, so that events/TO's/etc can all factor into shifting initiative. We'll hash this out more in the private development forum, when we get to that stage.

Sounds great!

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 57
RE: Turned flank - 2/4/2007 12:44:07 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		VI is, quite frankly, a pain in the butt from this player's pov.

It really does nothing to simulate simultaneous movement by both sides - all you really get is alternative movement punctuated by "random" double moves by one side or other.  At an extreme you get double moves almost every move!!

I've played many games with it and would strongly advise game designers to avoid it and see if there can't be some means of making things a bit more equitable by other means.

Assymetry or not!

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 58
RE: Turned flank - 2/4/2007 1:21:00 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

VI is, quite frankly, a pain in the butt from this player's pov.

It really does nothing to simulate simultaneous movement by both sides - all you really get is alternative movement punctuated by "random" double moves by one side or other.  At an extreme you get double moves almost every move!!

I've played many games with it and would strongly advise game designers to avoid it and see if there can't be some means of making things a bit more equitable by other means.

Assymetry or not!



SMK-at_work,

It's supposed to be a pain in the butt. Operationally, I think of it as one commander getting inside the planning cycle of the opposing commander. I agree that it needs refining but it's something that should be a part of any turn-based simulation of war. Real war is not strictly predictable or strictly linear.

Best wishes,


< Message edited by shunwick -- 2/4/2007 1:33:31 PM >

_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 59
RE: Turned flank - 2/4/2007 2:54:47 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

We'll hash this out more in the private development forum, when we get to that stage.



Sounds like a Nemeton for TOAW fanatics.

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Turned flank Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.281