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: Comprehensive Wishlist

 
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 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/9/2009 5:52:16 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I wouldn't (and didn't) say their time is completely misspent. However, I am sure that Curt (the designer of Vietnam and Erik Nygaard (who has essayed several 1 km/hex scenarios) would both agree that their tasks would have been considerably easier -- and presumably better executed -- if they had had a purpose-designed vehicle at hand.


So, you are saying that not only is the tactical possible, but that some designers have actually made respectable tactical scenarios. Is this what you meant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Loll. Nevermind if it's explicitly called 'operational' -- and designed accordingly -- it's intended as a universal war game engine. That's obvious.


By "obvious" do you mean that TOAW is truly universal, i.e. tactical, operational and strategic?

Also note that you wrote this before Apple Boy popped up with the manual quote . . . so do you still stand by your words or do you need to retract?

Regards, RhinoBones



If you are determined to distort what I said, I can't prevent you. I don't even see the point in making the attempt.

As a rule -- indeed, invariably -- all attempts at conversation with you promptly descend into this sort of sterile bickering. Indeed, that's why there's no point in my trying to remain civil. You won't in any case, so there's nothing to be lost.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/9/2009 11:37:53 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 481
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/10/2009 1:22:15 PM   
parmenio

 

Posts: 266
Joined: 8/6/2009
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline
13.20 More "hotkey" shortcuts for various mouse tasks.

Would "S" for cycling through the Supply display be one of these?


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 482
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/10/2009 6:35:56 PM   
damezzi

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 7/18/2007
Status: offline
One interface feature I think is really needed, are markers showing which units have already been attacked/bombarded and which ones are scheduled to be bombarded by air units or art.

The first one could bring a marker on the already attacked units like the little arrow showed on the unit scheduled to attack. The second one could show an arrow (mini map included) coming from the air unit when the cursor is over an enemy unit if it .

Sometimes I save the game on the middle of a turn and forget which units have already been bombarded/attacked, which have been displaced and which units are scheduled to be bombarded by air. It's painful to go through my air units or having to plan an attack just to confirm if a hex is scheduled to be bombarded. Maybe I'm missing an already existent feature of the interface; if so, I would like to know.

(in reply to parmenio)
Post #: 483
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/13/2009 12:49:03 AM   
rhinobones

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If you are determined to distort what I said, I can't prevent you. I don't even see the point in making the attempt.

As a rule -- indeed, invariably -- all attempts at conversation with you promptly descend into this sort of sterile bickering. Indeed, that's why there's no point in my trying to remain civil. You won't in any case, so there's nothing to be lost.


All these quotes seem to lead to the fact that Colin Wright

_____________________________

Colin Wright:
Comprehensive Wishlist Forum #467 . . . The Norm (blessed be His name, genuflect three times and accept all values in the program as revealed truth)

Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 484
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/13/2009 6:36:09 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


All these quotes seem to lead to the fact that Colin Wright


We could leave it at that.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 485
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/19/2009 2:51:48 PM   
parmenio

 

Posts: 266
Joined: 8/6/2009
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline
I'm assuming that items in the wish-list that are are marked as having been implemented (i.e. in blue) also include those in the yet-to-be-released 3.4 patch ....

...so apologies if this has been discussed before but item 7.19 (Surrounded defender breakout from combat – retreating units could check RBC against the weakest or all blocking enemy units) ties in with the draft 3.4 readme (Units surrounded now get a chance to RBC) from Ralph's blog.

My question is what happens to the blocking enemy unit(s)?

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 486
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/19/2009 3:49:26 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: parmenio

I'm assuming that items in the wish-list that are are marked as having been implemented (i.e. in blue) also include those in the yet-to-be-released 3.4 patch ....


Correct.

quote:

...so apologies if this has been discussed before but item 7.19 (Surrounded defender breakout from combat – retreating units could check RBC against the weakest or all blocking enemy units) ties in with the draft 3.4 readme (Units surrounded now get a chance to RBC) from Ralph's blog.

My question is what happens to the blocking enemy unit(s)?


They may RBC.

(in reply to parmenio)
Post #: 487
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/19/2009 3:56:37 PM   
parmenio

 

Posts: 266
Joined: 8/6/2009
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They may RBC.


Will they be forced back along the line of their advance (i.e something along the lines of 7.20.3 but without the "reversal of time") or is the RBC random?


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 488
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/19/2009 4:43:09 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: parmenio


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They may RBC.


Will they be forced back along the line of their advance (i.e something along the lines of 7.20.3 but without the "reversal of time") or is the RBC random?


There is no "reversal of time" issue. They will just RBC - like any other RBC. It will model the defenders breaking out of containment in real time.

(in reply to parmenio)
Post #: 489
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/19/2009 7:04:53 PM   
parmenio

 

Posts: 266
Joined: 8/6/2009
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

There is no "reversal of time" issue. They will just RBC - like any other RBC. It will model the defenders breaking out of containment in real time.


That clarifies things thanks.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 490
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/24/2009 9:19:15 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
On the shortcomings of the supply engine, I think I've just hit upon one way of ameliorating some of them short of actually rewriting the whole thing.  Not that this last shouldn't happen, but pending Ralph Tricky quitting his day job...

One area where the current system falls down is that an army that's moving about burns a whole lot more supplies than one that's sitting still -- particularly a motorized army.  This played a big role in what the Axis could and could not do in Tunisia, for example.  Every Panzer thrust burnt up an awful lot of the available fuel.  Similarly, moving artillery units (and their shell stockpiles) about is going to burn supplies.  The same argument could be made for HQ's and what they represent.

In a scenario I'm working on, I toyed with sticking surplus trucks into such units to drive up  transport asset sharing.  I got a percent or so -- but it was clear that to get a useful effect, I was going to have to put in so many trucks that real problems were going to arise with unit density and passive defenders.

However, what if the transport asset sharing effect could be scaled by the designer?  That shouldn't be too hard -- and if there was a scale that allowed the current effect to be increased up to one-hundred fold, designers could create scenarios where extensive movement would cause very rapid depletion of supplies.  So default could be one, and the value could be set up to 100 by the designer. Fairly clearly, the effect should be set independently for each force.

Depending on what the composition of the force was, and what effect was desired, one could create forces that would find extensive movement virtually crippling. They could fight in place fairly well, but once pushed into a war of maneuver, units would be going red fast and staying red. Conversely, their opponent might or might not suffer as severely under such circumstances. Rommel can try a short punch at Alam Halfa Ridge. It is going to kill him if he swings wide. Having done what they could do at Kasserine, the Germans find themselves panting heavily for a few turns.

At worst, the change wouldn't actually do any harm -- designers could always just leave the default value alone. At best, it would substantially increase the ability to simulate situations where one side or the other suffered from severe supply constraints.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/24/2009 9:27:32 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to parmenio)
Post #: 491
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/23/2009 7:37:17 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
An issue I've mentioned in the past is the inaccuracy of armor and artillery still being able to fight at some portion of their original effectiveness even after they've gone to red-light supply.

Infantry is okay. After all, as long as you can get a few tons of ammo up to the rifle regiment, it'll still be able to function with a significant portion of its original effectiveness. A man with only twenty rounds in his clips becomes quite chary with his bullets -- and if you can just get him another handful of bullets when he uses those he has, he'll keep posing quite a threat to the enemy.

Not so with artillery and armor. Cannon without shells remain visually interesting, but cannot do anything to disturb people ten kilometers away. Tanks, similarly, simply cannot move without fuel. Infantry can still march if they're hungry -- they'll start spending an awful lot of time foraging, but they will move. Not tanks. No fuel, no go. No shells, no shoot.

And both tanks and artillery go through materiel very fast. If they're not getting a nice steady stream, their effectiveness plummets to nil in very short order. Like maybe a day of intense battle.

As I said, this has been observed before. Trick is how to simulate it -- and I think I thought of a fairly doable way.

There's a mechanism for checking after each battle for whether a unit goes into reorganization, and at the beginning of each turn to see if it comes out of it. So add a (preferably designer controlled) parameter to send armor- and artillery-iconed units into re-org if their supply has fallen below x percent and keep them their until their supply rises above x percent. If 'x' is designer controlled, it can have a default value of zero, older scenarios won't be affected, and designers that don't like it can leave it at zero. The rest of us can pick whatever value serves our purposes.

This opens a lot of interesting possibilities. For one thing, one can manipulate which units are subject to the effect by choosing one's icon accordingly. Want some infantry to stop if they don't have supplies? Make them armored infantry. Want some artillery to keep being able to fire but not others? Put the artillery you want to keep getting shells in HQ's.

Another aspect of such a change is that one would have an incentive to really rest artillery -- that is to say, build up for the 'big push.' Right now of course, start right away. The defender will be resting too. But if the parameter is set at 40% supply --well. If you go as soon as your artillery comes out of re-org, it'll all go back into re-org after one round. If you want that big breakthrough, you'd best wait until all the artillery is at 100%.

This change would also make it possible for an offensive to 'run out of steam.' As matters stand, by the time an attacking force has gone to red-light, like as not so has the defender, so one might as well plunge on. Absent the defender actually getting new units, the balance hasn't changed. If artillery and tanks started coming to a halt -- vide innumerable Red Army offensives -- that would change. Model could indeed patch up the Eastern Front even without an end to the shock effect. Not much chance of counter-attacking, but those scattered tank units still moving and those unsupported hordes of infantry can be held at bay.

About the only real complexity I see is that artillery firing in support of attacks would also needed to be included in the reorg check -- which I don't believe it is now. Other than that, it seems to me that this would be a matter of plugging additional routines into existing programming.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 492
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/28/2009 4:51:26 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
I don't buy the premise whatsoever.

Nevertheless, there is a technique you could use to increase the impact of low supply on artillery units. Lower their proficiency. The attached table compares the impact of proficiency on low supply. The 80 prof unit still has 53.9% of its full strength at minimum health (1% supply, 33% readiness), while the 20 prof unit only has 30.8%. That's 75% less strength. (Note: this is modeling a unit characteristic called "Fire Discipline". High prof units have much more of it than low prof ones.)

To get back to the strength of the original 80 prof unit, you would have to increase the strength of the equipment by 50% via the BioEd.

I wouldn't recommend this for an armor unit, due to the impact proficiency has on ground combat checks beyond actual combat strength. But it would probably be ok for artillery.

Edit: Just for reference, the max adjustment would be with a prof of 1%. At that level, the min health strength is 17.82% of the full health strength. The BioEd equipment adjustment would have to be 78%.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 9/28/2009 5:01:38 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 493
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/28/2009 5:54:09 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I don't buy the premise whatsoever.

Nevertheless, there is a technique you could use to increase the impact of low supply on artillery units. Lower their proficiency. The attached table compares the impact of proficiency on low supply. The 80 prof unit still has 53.9% of its full strength at minimum health (1% supply, 33% readiness), while the 20 prof unit only has 30.8%. That's 75% less strength. (Note: this is modeling a unit characteristic called "Fire Discipline". High prof units have much more of it than low prof ones.)

To get back to the strength of the original 80 prof unit, you would have to increase the strength of the equipment by 50% via the BioEd.

I wouldn't recommend this for an armor unit, due to the impact proficiency has on ground combat checks beyond actual combat strength. But it would probably be ok for artillery.

Edit: Just for reference, the max adjustment would be with a prof of 1%. At that level, the min health strength is 17.82% of the full health strength. The BioEd equipment adjustment would have to be 78%.





I'd hate to do something like this. It may be irrational, but if I start modeling artillery by trebling the number of barrels and dividing the proficiency by three, I no longer feel like I'm simulating anything.

After all, one of the appeals of TOAW is that the units do contain what they actually contained, in some sense.

More importantly, though, I do buy the premise. Look at the Stalingrad pocket. German artillery and armor quickly ceased to be usable militarily. The infantry was able to function at some level for three months. Equally to the point, such a change promises to bring an end to the spectacle of red lights profitably chasing other red lights endlessly across the plains.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 494
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/28/2009 9:09:54 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'd hate to do something like this. It may be irrational, but if I start modeling artillery by trebling the number of barrels and dividing the proficiency by three, I no longer feel like I'm simulating anything.

After all, one of the appeals of TOAW is that the units do contain what they actually contained, in some sense.


I suggested increasing the strength of the equipment via the BioEd, not increasing the quantity of equipment. So you would still have the TO&E right, you would just be using an equipment mod.

quote:

More importantly, though, I do buy the premise. Look at the Stalingrad pocket. German artillery and armor quickly ceased to be usable militarily. The infantry was able to function at some level for three months.


Not a typical case, of course - air supply only. TOAW could sort of model that if the infantry had paratroop icons and the artillery didn't.

quote:

Equally to the point, such a change promises to bring an end to the spectacle of red lights profitably chasing other red lights endlessly across the plains.


There are plenty of cases of offensives continuing unabated for months at a time - red lights chasing red lights. They usually only stopped when they ran into green lights. Try France in 1944. TOAW models that just fine.

TOAW's logistic system doesn't have the option to just send bullets and not shells. All else being equal, that infantry unit and that artillery unit will each get the same fraction of their full load each turn. And, armed with that same fraction, they will each manifest about the same fraction of their full combat strength. Why wouldn't they?

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 495
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/29/2009 6:42:00 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'd hate to do something like this. It may be irrational, but if I start modeling artillery by trebling the number of barrels and dividing the proficiency by three, I no longer feel like I'm simulating anything.

After all, one of the appeals of TOAW is that the units do contain what they actually contained, in some sense.


I suggested increasing the strength of the equipment via the BioEd, not increasing the quantity of equipment. So you would still have the TO&E right, you would just be using an equipment mod.


I stand corrected -- and that would be more satisfactory than what I thought you said. However, still more of a stop-gap than a real response to the problem.
quote:



quote:

More importantly, though, I do buy the premise. Look at the Stalingrad pocket. German artillery and armor quickly ceased to be usable militarily. The infantry was able to function at some level for three months.


Not a typical case, of course - air supply only. TOAW could sort of model that if the infantry had paratroop icons and the artillery didn't.


I think it's clear that while the case may be extreme, the principal is pretty general. That air supply only was available didn't physically prevent fuel, artillery shells, and other heavy munitions from being lifted in. The point is that infantry can continue to function at some level with a minimal amount of supplies: tanks and artillery can't.
quote:



quote:

Equally to the point, such a change promises to bring an end to the spectacle of red lights profitably chasing other red lights endlessly across the plains.


There are plenty of cases of offensives continuing unabated for months at a time - red lights chasing red lights. They usually only stopped when they ran into green lights. Try France in 1944. TOAW models that just fine.


TOAW models it just fine because the 'green' defenders rather serendipitously show up just as the attackers are going to red-light. In other words, it's good luck. Even though TOAW fails to model the effects of supply depletion properly, the scenario works.

The contrary is more common. In fact, retreating a few hundred miles almost invariably leaves the pursuer incapable of immediately renewing the attack. Those that have tried to defy the law of gravity have usually failed. Rommel in both 1941 and 1942 comes to mind. On the Eastern Front, first the Germans in 1941 and then the Russians in 1942 involuntarily demonstrated the futility of attempting to continue the offensive with what in TOAW would be red-light artillery and armor.

I see this as a matter of infantry retaining an ability to resist while the offensive arms are pretty much useless until extensive supplies have been brought up. Run an infantry regiment ragged and you've got three thousand tired riflemen. Run a tank regiment ragged and you've got three tanks still in running order, no shells, and no fuel.
quote:




TOAW's logistic system doesn't have the option to just send bullets and not shells. All else being equal, that infantry unit and that artillery unit will each get the same fraction of their full load each turn. And, armed with that same fraction, they will each manifest about the same fraction of their full combat strength. Why wouldn't they?


They won't manifest the same fraction of their full combat strength because an infantry battalion with twenty rounds per man and a few turnips still constitutes a militarily useful force. An artillery battery with three shells left can't do much, and a tank with one quart of fuel left in the tank just isn't going very far.

The point is that different combat arms are affected differently by severely curtailed supply. I would think that if that were agreed rather than disputed, then we could move on to the actual merits of my suggestion.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 9/29/2009 7:08:17 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 496
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/29/2009 5:09:30 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I think it's clear that while the case may be extreme, the principal is pretty general. That air supply only was available didn't physically prevent fuel, artillery shells, and other heavy munitions from being lifted in. The point is that infantry can continue to function at some level with a minimal amount of supplies: tanks and artillery can't.


I think all it proves is that the infantry was getting some resupply, while the artillery wasn't. It was a choice they made.

quote:

TOAW models it just fine because the 'green' defenders rather serendipitously show up just as the attackers are going to red-light. In other words, it's good luck. Even though TOAW fails to model the effects of supply depletion properly, the scenario works.


But that's just what happened historically. They fought for four months continuously, till they ran into fresh defenders.

quote:

The contrary is more common. In fact, retreating a few hundred miles almost invariably leaves the pursuer incapable of immediately renewing the attack. Those that have tried to defy the law of gravity have usually failed. Rommel in both 1941 and 1942 comes to mind. On the Eastern Front, first the Germans in 1941 and then the Russians in 1942 involuntarily demonstrated the futility of attempting to continue the offensive with what in TOAW would be red-light artillery and armor.


Very similar cases to France 1944. Rommel was on a logistical tightrope while advancing on defenders that were being supplied by rail and getting fresh reinforcements. Same for Barbarossa. TOAW can model that just fine.

quote:

They won't manifest the same fraction of their full combat strength because an infantry battalion with twenty rounds per man and a few turnips still constitutes a militarily useful force. An artillery battery with three shells left can't do much, and a tank with one quart of fuel left in the tank just isn't going very far.


That's not a fair comparison. It was if they had the same fraction of their full load. So:

Infantry full load: 2000 rounds per squad. Fraction: 200 rounds per squad.
Artillery full load: 200 rounds per gun. Fraction: 20 rounds per gun.
Tank full load: 500 gallons per tank. Fraction: 50 gallons per tank.

Whatever the strength of that infantry squad is relative to its full strength, the gun and the tank will be comparable.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 497
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/29/2009 7:23:43 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Infantry full load: 2000 rounds per squad. Fraction: 200 rounds per squad.
Artillery full load: 200 rounds per gun. Fraction: 20 rounds per gun.
Tank full load: 500 gallons per tank. Fraction: 50 gallons per tank.

Whatever the strength of that infantry squad is relative to its full strength, the gun and the tank will be comparable.


What you ignore is that while two hundred rounds of ammunition will weigh perhaps fifteen pounds, fifty gallons of fuel will weigh 350 pounds, and twenty 105 mm artillery rounds come in at about 2000 pounds.

Equally to the point, infantry -- at least in the defensive -- tends to preserve some combat value so long as the natural human impulse towards self-preservation remains channeled in a militarily efficacious direction (i.e., unit cohesion holds and the men don't flee or surrender). That dug-in infantry battalion remains a formidable obstacle so long as it has a minimum of food and a minimum of ammunition. A few hundred rounds of ammo and the men not actually passing out from fatigue or hunger and no one's going to want to try going up that hill unless they've got a whole lot of help. In this connection, look at how long it would take to actually clear Pacific Islands of all Japanese -- even long after they had exhausted all their heavy munitions. Had the Japanese defenders had to rely solely on their ability to continue artillery fire, those islands would have all been cleared up in short order.

The other arms are able to exploit the human element to a much less significant degree. It doesn't matter how resolute and able the gunners of a battery may be: they can't hurl shells ten miles if they haven't got them. Similarly, of course, for tanks.

I see a real variation in the degree to which combat efficacy declines according to supply and 'readiness' condition. This variation depends heavily on the type of weapon under discussion. Similarly, and for related reasons, offensive potency declines more rapidly than defensive potency. The arms and abilities needed for offensive action wane far more quickly than the ability to conduct a reasonably effective defense.

This goes far to explain why offensives tended to come to a halt -- your rather predictable attempts to argue otherwise notwithstanding. If we were able to simulate this differing rate of decline, TOAW would model the dynamics governing offensives more accurately.

I have proposed what I think is a practical way of doing this. My interest is not actually in a sterile debate where you are (once again) attempting to deny the desirability of any change at all, but in the feasibility and advisability of the change I have proposed.

This is an area where TOAW fails to adequately model an important aspect of twentieth century warfare. It's simply pointless obstinacy to argue otherwise. Now, whether my suggestion would improve matters, whether it's feasible, whether there's some more attractive mechanism -- those really are the points that should be under discussion.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 9/30/2009 8:32:21 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 498
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/30/2009 4:55:09 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Infantry full load: 2000 rounds per squad. Fraction: 200 rounds per squad.
Artillery full load: 200 rounds per gun. Fraction: 20 rounds per gun.
Tank full load: 500 gallons per tank. Fraction: 50 gallons per tank.

Whatever the strength of that infantry squad is relative to its full strength, the gun and the tank will be comparable.


What you ignore is that while two hundred rounds of ammunition will weigh perhaps fifteen pounds, fifty gallons of fuel will weigh 350 pounds, and twenty 105 mm artillery rounds come in at about 2000 pounds.


That would only matter if the squad, gun, and tank were required to receive the same weight of supply. But that's just not how it works. Not in TOAW, and not in the real world either. The squad, gun, and tank each would receive the same fraction of their full load, all else being equal. The quartermasters know what the needs are of each unit, and they fill them proportionately. They really will send fifteen pounds of bullets, 350 pounds of fuel, and 2,000 pounds of shells, if that's what the needs are.

quote:

In this connection, look at how long it would take to actually clear Pacific Islands of all Japanese -- even long after they had exhausted all their heavy munitions. Had the Japanese defenders had to rely solely on their ability to continue artillery fire, those islands would have all been cleared up in short order.


I seem to remember actually designing a scenario about one of those island topics. Works pretty well. Thus far, that's the case for just about every example you've listed (France 1944, Barbarossa). Could it be that your theory just might need to be revised due to my ugly facts?

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 499
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/1/2009 4:45:01 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
I just want to add one other point. Even if you buy into the premise, the mechanism proposed is not going to do what you want. Putting the guns and armor into reorganization will actually facilitate keeping offensives going, because the defenders will have to abandon their artillery and armor - they'll be fixed in place and unable to escape. In fact, given enough range, the attacker's artillery will still provide support while in reorganization, if it had been in reserve or dug-in before reorganizing.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 500
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 11/22/2009 8:07:40 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I just want to add one other point. Even if you buy into the premise, the mechanism proposed is not going to do what you want. Putting the guns and armor into reorganization will actually facilitate keeping offensives going, because the defenders will have to abandon their artillery and armor - they'll be fixed in place and unable to escape. In fact, given enough range, the attacker's artillery will still provide support while in reorganization, if it had been in reserve or dug-in before reorganizing.


I'm ignoring your other posts on this issue -- but this is a good point.

On the other hand, there's a good deal to be said for a retreating player having to abandon out-of-supply armor and artillery.

That's what often happened. Tanks without fuel do get abandoned. Presumably, guns whose tractors don't have fuel suffer a similar fate. So it would -- as it did in real life -- behoove a player to withdraw in a timely manner, whilst his artillery and armor still have the ability to move.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 501
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 11/23/2009 4:16:02 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I just want to add one other point. Even if you buy into the premise, the mechanism proposed is not going to do what you want. Putting the guns and armor into reorganization will actually facilitate keeping offensives going, because the defenders will have to abandon their artillery and armor - they'll be fixed in place and unable to escape. In fact, given enough range, the attacker's artillery will still provide support while in reorganization, if it had been in reserve or dug-in before reorganizing.


I'm ignoring your other posts on this issue -- but this is a good point.

On the other hand, there's a good deal to be said for a retreating player having to abandon out-of-supply armor and artillery.

That's what often happened. Tanks without fuel do get abandoned. Presumably, guns whose tractors don't have fuel suffer a similar fate. So it would -- as it did in real life -- behoove a player to withdraw in a timely manner, whilst his artillery and armor still have the ability to move.


We're not talking about guns and tanks that are completely out of supply - that's already handled in TOAW via attrition of unsupplied units. We're talking about guns and tanks that don't have enough supply to warrant their use in offensive operations. Not only would they have sufficient fuel to escape, they presumably could still be used effectively defensively.

Again, this feature would penalize the defender more severely than the attacker. The attacker could leave his artillery to recover in the rear. The defender would have to abandon his. It would actually increase the ability of red-lined attackers to continue pressing their offensives.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 502
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 11/26/2009 2:21:44 AM   
BillLottJr


Posts: 333
Joined: 4/24/2006
Status: offline
I'd like to see the date restriction on recon helicopters lifted. Currently they can only be used after 1957.

See "WWI Reconnaissance Aircraft" thread at the Game squad site: http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?t=80355


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 503
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 11/26/2009 6:04:02 AM   
L`zard


Posts: 362
Joined: 6/3/2005
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline
Me too!



_____________________________

"I have the brain of a genius, and the heart of a little child! I keep them in a jar under my bed."


(in reply to BillLottJr)
Post #: 504
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 12/17/2009 8:56:32 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
We're not talking about guns and tanks that are completely out of supply - that's already handled in TOAW via attrition of unsupplied units.


And that's just the problem! An infantryman who's gone without lunch is handled just the same as a tank without fuel.

Historically, just the opposite was the case. Once encircled, Sixth Army effectively had no tanks within fairly short order. Its infantry remained combat-worthy for two months.

You know, you really could drop this 'all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds' schtick, consider that there is something behind points such as those I am making, and think about what would be the best solution. Then you could help to improve TOAW rather than doing the reverse.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 505
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 12/17/2009 9:02:48 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill II

I'd like to see the date restriction on recon helicopters lifted. Currently they can only be used after 1957.

See "WWI Reconnaissance Aircraft" thread at the Game squad site: http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?t=80355




There's certainly no valid reason for such a restriction. After all, if the designer finds something useful, he should be able to use it.

However, if one really wanted, one probably could tell the computer that the scenario is happening in 1960 -- and get it to display '1915' for the player.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to BillLottJr)
Post #: 506
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/1/2010 8:06:46 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Wishlist updated. See post #1 of this thread.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 507
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/2/2010 7:14:22 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
It may well already be there, but as long as I'm on the subject...

Interdiction should only occur when moving, and the chance of interdiction should increase disproportionately as a unit exhausts its movement allowance.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 508
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/3/2010 5:23:05 AM   
rhinobones

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Interdiction should only occur when moving, and the chance of interdiction should increase disproportionately as a unit exhausts its movement allowance.


Think the TOAW definition of “Interdiction” should be changed so that it encompasses both pure attacks of interdiction and planned/opportunistic attacks on static targets. Air units assigned interdiction might have a first priority to attack mobile units but in the absence of appropriate mobile targets they should be redirected to known static targets. I think TOAW models this aspect of aerial warfare quite well.

Also, there are ample examples of air units which, lacking a target of opportunity, instead attacked planned static targets. There is no need to get hung up on semantics and make “interdiction” an absolute single purpose TOAW definition.

As for movement and the possibility of being attacked . . . I would prefer to see enemy interdiction capability and time scale/unit size/terrain for each individual unit used in calculating the probability of an enemy air attack. This should be done on a per move basis. I see no sense in attaching the moves made, or moves remaining, as part of the interdiction calculation.

Regards, RhinoBones


_____________________________

Colin Wright:
Comprehensive Wishlist Forum #467 . . . The Norm (blessed be His name, genuflect three times and accept all values in the program as revealed truth)

Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 509
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/4/2010 8:18:28 PM   
Abnormalmind


Posts: 200
Joined: 11/24/2009
Status: offline
Hi,

I didn't see this on the list, and thought maybe it would be desirable:

Concept Purpose: to abate Player 1, Turn 1, perfect turns.

Concept: player 2 initiates the PBEM without being able to perform actions and sends player 1 the initial game start data. Play proceeds normally.

Very nice list. Quite impressive, really.

Thanks,
-Patrick

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 510
Page:   <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   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

0.938