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  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/4/2010 8:54:12 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		The fact of the matter is, Curtis, that in the last week or however long this particular solar flare has lasted, you've made two valid points that I can recall.

The first was your objection to making rivers highways for movement by imposing the cost when one leaves the hex.

What happens when the rivers branch? Good point.

The second was your reference to wish list item 5.9. Yes, that would be an improvement.

Otherwise, it's been like listening to Hitler on a bad day. Abusive, poorly reasoned, often resting on a faulty appreciation of reality, and with unpleasant implications for the future.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 721
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/5/2010 6:26:52 AM   
fogger

 

Posts: 1446
Joined: 9/17/2006
Status: offline 		Colin,
I would question your learned Muslims again as the Koran states "Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" (7:54)

_____________________________

Thought for the day:
If you feel like doing some work, sit down and wait....... The feeling does go away.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 722
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/5/2010 6:53:02 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: fogger

Colin,
I would question your learned Muslims again as the Koran states "Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" (7:54)


Christians and Jews agree: according to them, he rested on the seventh day.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to fogger)
Post #: 723
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/5/2010 9:46:55 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



It isn't a matter of scale. Start walking and don't stop. Your pace will slack off - all the way to zero eventually. Fatigue definitely impacts march rates. Battle fatigue too.


This is pretty representative of what you have to say.

The point would be meaningful -- if the TOAW foot movement rate for a fully rested unit represented continuous walking. At 35 km per every 24 hour period, it obviously doesn't. The rate isn't force-marching in the first place -- so to argue as if it does is simply pointless.

And so on, and so on, and so on... All you're doing is demonstrating how unfit you are for the position you hold. You're incapable of acknowledging that anyone else's ideas but your own have any merit, and unable to see the flaws in your own.


So now you're going to use the movement rate of TOAW foot units as evidence that fatigue doesn't affect foot movement rates! That's a unique source of evidence.

A unit that marches 20 miles, then sleeps 8-hours, will get up more or less fully rested. It is not fatigued. The issue is entirely what a unit that is actually fatigued would do. And, for sure, a unit truely at the limit of fatigue - one at the limit represented by 33% readiness, would have it's mobility seriously impacted. You're just ridiculusly wrong - as usual (and hilariously cocksure about it, too).

And, as I pointed out, this is a serious issue with TOAW. The main benefit of moving infantry by truck is that they arrive at the battlefield fresher than the ones that have to move by foot. Not so under TOAW.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 724
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/5/2010 9:50:21 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

And Leningrad. You forgot Leningrad. All the way to Gorodok on the Neva, south of Schusselburg.


Still 'n as a rule...

Two of the scenarios I'm working on -- Seelowe and one covering the Commonwealth invasion of Syria involve what are really rather modest naval squadrons that can provide fire support.

Left to the game engine, these squadrons can flail opposing forces up to twenty kilometers inland. It becomes very hard to hold a line near the coast.

In fact, and going by what actually happened both in the Syrian campaign and in Italy, ship's guns could be have a big impact -- but usually only right on the coast. As I say, as a rule the limit for really effective fire seems to have been something like five kilometers.


Are you seriously suggesting that TOAW be revised so that battleships can't support more than 5km from the coast, just because you can't find an example of them doing so?

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 725
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/5/2010 10:04:18 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Sure: as wargames they were often commendable. This does not make them valid sources of data.


The more commendable they were as wargames the more valid as sources they were. They can't be commendable wargames without it. Successful operation as a wargame validates the game's parameters, to whatever extent it's successful.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 726
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/5/2010 10:16:07 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

On the other hand, the game has to actually work. That gives it a legitimacy no book or document can ever match.


The problem with the reasoning here is that the means used to obtain the historical result often owe nothing to historical reality.


There's no problem with the reasoning. To the extent that the game works (and there can be an extensive suite of metrics to establish that) however it brought that about warrants legitimacy no book or document can match.

Anybody that thinks that all you have to do is get the minutia right and the scenario will work, is in for a rude awakening. There are a host of subjective parameters that have to be gotten right for any hope of success. And they tend to be far more important than the minutia.

quote:

quote:

When I was researching "Soviet Union 1941" I made a comparative study of the OOBs & TO&E of all existing Barbarossa scenarios. Nobody had the same answer. Some of them were pretty awful. But the combination of them all formed something of a concensus that was superior to any one of them by itself. And filled in a gap or two that other sources couldn't.


The 'consensus' of all the scenarios out there...


Key point was that it was info that other sources couldn't fill. Official sources are often incomplete, contradictory, or ambiguous. I use as many sources as possible.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 727
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/5/2010 10:17:46 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The fact of the matter is, Curtis, that in the last week or however long this particular solar flare has lasted, you've made two valid points that I can recall.


Drat! Now I'm worried about those two.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 728
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/5/2010 11:30:16 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The more commendable they were as wargames the more valid as sources they were. They can't be commendable wargames without it. Successful operation as a wargame validates the game's parameters, to whatever extent it's successful.


If I were writing an encyclopedia I would not use other encyclopedias as my primary source- no matter how good they are.

Like a photocopy (an HP photocopy at least), with each iteration you get further and further from the original image. If you want to produce the best image possible, you have to go back to the source.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 2/5/2010 11:31:07 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 729
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 12:32:39 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

On the other hand, the game has to actually work. That gives it a legitimacy no book or document can ever match.



On the face of it, that remark's indefensible. Vide France 1940. It obtains entirely plausible results through entirely illegitimate means.

One can brute-force any result one wants. Simulating what actually happened is a different matter entirely.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/6/2010 12:36:33 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 730
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 12:37:29 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Sure: as wargames they were often commendable. This does not make them valid sources of data.


The more commendable they were as wargames the more valid as sources they were. They can't be commendable wargames without it. Successful operation as a wargame validates the game's parameters, to whatever extent it's successful.


That's nonsense. The original Avalon Hill Battle of the Bulge is, was, and remains an outstanding war game. As simulation, it's almost absurdly bad.

Your statement essentially boils down to saying that because this game works, we know that German Volksgrenadier regiments at the end of 1944 were fully a match for American infantry regiments, and because this game works, we know that Panzer Lehr was indeed at full strength at the start of the battle.

After all, this is how they are portrayed in Battle of the Bulge and since that game can deliver historical results, it follows that the portrayal of the units is accurate.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 731
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 12:49:21 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		I'll grant that working through a scenario can be illuminating. For example working though Seelowe has made it clear to me that any claim that Hitler should have gone right ahead and invading England without hesitation is unjustifiable. Even making a string of assumptions to give the invasion any chance at all still leaves a hard fight with a problematical outcome.

However, that's a different matter from concluding that a scenario design is ipso facto more valid than a book. After all, in my scenario (which is almost absurdly well-researched) you will find the British employing x number of Vickers B tanks. Well, that number -- and even the type -- is a wild guess. However, since this isn't a book, I have to take that guess. After all, it would be even less reasonable to assume the British wouldn't have pressed whatever was available into service.

If I was writing a book, I would have the luxury (as my sources do) of simply noting that the British did have obsolete tanks available and perhaps providing a few scattered references to their employment.

A scenario designer doesn't have that luxury. He has to pick a number. That one fact renders all numbers provided more or less suspect.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 732
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 12:54:45 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

And Leningrad. You forgot Leningrad. All the way to Gorodok on the Neva, south of Schusselburg.


Still 'n as a rule...

Two of the scenarios I'm working on -- Seelowe and one covering the Commonwealth invasion of Syria involve what are really rather modest naval squadrons that can provide fire support.

Left to the game engine, these squadrons can flail opposing forces up to twenty kilometers inland. It becomes very hard to hold a line near the coast.

In fact, and going by what actually happened both in the Syrian campaign and in Italy, ship's guns could be have a big impact -- but usually only right on the coast. As I say, as a rule the limit for really effective fire seems to have been something like five kilometers.


Are you seriously suggesting that TOAW be revised so that battleships can't support more than 5km from the coast, just because you can't find an example of them doing so?


Yes.

To be strictly accurate, in the cases I have encountered, naval gunfire has exerted a strong effect only on fighting near the coast -- much closer than the range of TOAW ships would permit. Therefore, the game should simulate that.

For whatever reason, most ships did not provide naval support very far inland. I suspect that it was because they generally lacked any kind of good fire control coordination with the army, and so had to confine themselves to shelling what they could see, but that's secondary.

Since they generally didn't in reality, they shouldn't in TOAW -- even if the US Navy at Okinawa provides counterexamples.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 733
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 1:05:04 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Since they generally didn't in reality, they shouldn't in TOAW -- even if the US Navy at Okinawa provides counterexamples.


There can't be many places on Okinawa that are more than 5km from the sea.


_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 734
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 3:16:24 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Since they generally didn't in reality, they shouldn't in TOAW -- even if the US Navy at Okinawa provides counterexamples.


There can't be many places on Okinawa that are more than 5km from the sea.



You have to give him that one.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 735
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 6:34:22 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		I did some testing and managed to figure out the formula the game uses for movement allowance. I used 2.5km/half week turns with an adjustment of 455% to get the numbers high enough. The attached table shows the test values, and how the formula I deducted gets those same values.

The formula I deduced is:

Movement Allowance = Full x (0.5 + 0.5 x (Readiness + Supply)/2)

Note that proficiency has no effect, and the formula is the same regardless of movement type. Even if we could set R and S to zero, the MA would drop no further than 50% of full. Foot and Fast Motor both use the above formula. This is a problem.

What I'm suggesting is that foot and motor types need to have different formulas. Foot should be more dependent upon readiness while motor should be more dependent upon supply (better would be fuel, of course).

I tried a couple of alternate formulas (shown in the table). They assume we have component supply, so I use Fuel instead of Supply in them.

For foot, I tried:

Movement Allowance = Full x (0.4 + 0.6 x (9 x Readiness + Fuel)/10)

This causes foot to be much more impacted by readiness than fuel. The 33/1 value is about the same, though.

For motor, I tried:

Movement Allowance = Full x (0.2 + 0.8 x (Readiness + 9 x Fuel)/10)

This causes motor to be much more impacted by fuel than readiness. The 33/1 value is now much lower.

Horse types would be similar to foot, but perhaps a bit more impacted by fuel. Mixed would be somewhere inbetween.

This illustrates how component supply could allow better modeling of mobility issues.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 736
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 6:41:47 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yes.

To be strictly accurate, in the cases I have encountered, naval gunfire has exerted a strong effect only on fighting near the coast -- much closer than the range of TOAW ships would permit. Therefore, the game should simulate that.

For whatever reason, most ships did not provide naval support very far inland. I suspect that it was because they generally lacked any kind of good fire control coordination with the army, and so had to confine themselves to shelling what they could see, but that's secondary.

Since they generally didn't in reality, they shouldn't in TOAW -- even if the US Navy at Okinawa provides counterexamples.


A "fact" used without context is a dangerous thing.

I can think of lots of reasons other than "it was not possible". (In fact, it's absurd to think that it was not possible.) For example, that battleships are costly things to repair or replace and therefore Admirals like to keep them out of range of shore batteries. If shore batteries could be placed on interdiction...

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 737
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 6:54:30 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

If I were writing an encyclopedia I would not use other encyclopedias as my primary source- no matter how good they are.

Like a photocopy (an HP photocopy at least), with each iteration you get further and further from the original image. If you want to produce the best image possible, you have to go back to the source.


An encyclopedia, unlike a wargame, doesn't have to work to be successful. It just has to sound good.

A better example would be, say, a bridge design. If the bridge didn't fall down, and carried its traffic for decades, it's worth studying it. I can use the Golden Gate Bridge as a templet for design elsewhere. I don't have to start from scratch.

A wargame is an engineering project - similar to a bridge. To the extent that the wargame successfully simulated reality (and, as I said, there can be a multitude of metrics that determine that - not just a simple "who won?"), valuable information can be gleaned from it.

In contrast, you can get all the OOB and TO&E exactly right and still have a busted design. There are a host of non-objective parameters that have to be right for the game to work. They often can only be determined by trial and error. Consulting an existing wargame that has already sorted out those subjective parameters is a good thing.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 738
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 7:19:18 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Foot should be more dependent upon readiness while motor should be more dependent upon supply (better would be fuel, of course).


This is the problem with having you exert such an influence over the development of TOAW. You're simply impervious to either rational argument or fact.

It's been suggested to you that foot movement rates aren't particularly impacted by 'readiness' -- and yet you charge right ahead with a change that would cause them to be impacted by readiness.

You don't even bother to look to see if historical evidence supports your assumptions. It's like having a flat-earther in charge of a mapping project.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/6/2010 10:22:38 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 739
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 7:21:43 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yes.

To be strictly accurate, in the cases I have encountered, naval gunfire has exerted a strong effect only on fighting near the coast -- much closer than the range of TOAW ships would permit. Therefore, the game should simulate that.

For whatever reason, most ships did not provide naval support very far inland. I suspect that it was because they generally lacked any kind of good fire control coordination with the army, and so had to confine themselves to shelling what they could see, but that's secondary.

Since they generally didn't in reality, they shouldn't in TOAW -- even if the US Navy at Okinawa provides counterexamples.


A "fact" used without context is a dangerous thing.

I can think of lots of reasons other than "it was not possible". (In fact, it's absurd to think that it was not possible.) For example, that battleships are costly things to repair or replace and therefore Admirals like to keep them out of range of shore batteries. If shore batteries could be placed on interdiction...


It doesn't really matter much what the reasons are. The fact of the matter is that it generally didn't happen -- for whatever reason.

Therefore, it shouldn't be allowed to happen in TOAW. Whatever the constraints were that prevented it, all us computer generals shouldn't effectively be permitted to override them by fiat.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 740
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 7:22:34 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yes.

To be strictly accurate, in the cases I have encountered, naval gunfire has exerted a strong effect only on fighting near the coast -- much closer than the range of TOAW ships would permit. Therefore, the game should simulate that.

For whatever reason, most ships did not provide naval support very far inland. I suspect that it was because they generally lacked any kind of good fire control coordination with the army, and so had to confine themselves to shelling what they could see, but that's secondary.

Since they generally didn't in reality, they shouldn't in TOAW -- even if the US Navy at Okinawa provides counterexamples.


A "fact" used without context is a dangerous thing.

I can think of lots of reasons other than "it was not possible". (In fact, it's absurd to think that it was not possible.) For example, that battleships are costly things to repair or replace and therefore Admirals like to keep them out of range of shore batteries. If shore batteries could be placed on interdiction...


Not to mention the fact that the sea has a tendancy to move in several directions at once making the shells land in a not so precise fashion. I've never had the opportunity to take part in a live fire exercise from a ship so I'm about as far from knowing anything about it as you can get. But if the ships were at anchor in a harbor...

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 741
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 7:26:25 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

If I were writing an encyclopedia I would not use other encyclopedias as my primary source- no matter how good they are.

Like a photocopy (an HP photocopy at least), with each iteration you get further and further from the original image. If you want to produce the best image possible, you have to go back to the source.


An encyclopedia, unlike a wargame, doesn't have to work to be successful. It just has to sound good.

A better example would be, say, a bridge design. If the bridge didn't fall down, and carried its traffic for decades, it's worth studying it. I can use the Golden Gate Bridge as a templet for design elsewhere. I don't have to start from scratch.

A wargame is an engineering project - similar to a bridge. To the extent that the wargame successfully simulated reality (and, as I said, there can be a multitude of metrics that determine that - not just a simple "who won?"), valuable information can be gleaned from it.


The problem here is two-fold.

First, merely that the design 'works' does not demonstrate that the data it rests on is valid. See 'Battle of the Bulge' again. Some real howlers in that OOB -- but the design does 'work.' It delivers historical results.

So your assumption that the data contained in a wargame that delivers historical results is necessarily reliable is absolute tripe.

Second, your notion of 'working' appears to be obtaining historical results. As the SPI designs I have mentioned demonstrate, historical results can be (and are) obtained by means that in fact distort or even contradict reality. Your approach is the equivalent of arguing that wealth is a sign of God's favor, and that therefore Al Capone was a good man.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/6/2010 7:32:11 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 742
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 7:32:41 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yes.

To be strictly accurate, in the cases I have encountered, naval gunfire has exerted a strong effect only on fighting near the coast -- much closer than the range of TOAW ships would permit. Therefore, the game should simulate that.

For whatever reason, most ships did not provide naval support very far inland. I suspect that it was because they generally lacked any kind of good fire control coordination with the army, and so had to confine themselves to shelling what they could see, but that's secondary.

Since they generally didn't in reality, they shouldn't in TOAW -- even if the US Navy at Okinawa provides counterexamples.


A "fact" used without context is a dangerous thing.

I can think of lots of reasons other than "it was not possible". (In fact, it's absurd to think that it was not possible.) For example, that battleships are costly things to repair or replace and therefore Admirals like to keep them out of range of shore batteries. If shore batteries could be placed on interdiction...


Not to mention the fact that the sea has a tendancy to move in several directions at once making the shells land in a not so precise fashion. I've never had the opportunity to take part in a live fire exercise from a ship so I'm about as far from knowing anything about it as you can get. But if the ships were at anchor in a harbor...


I can think of lots of excellent reasons -- but precisely which are or aren't valid is really secondary.

It generally didn't happen. That's all we need to be sure of. When one finds examples of effective naval fire support, they usually occur within a few km of the sea. Over and over -- the panzers can bull down to within about 5 km of the beach. They're not getting torn up and tossed in the air thirty km inland -- they get whacked when they get right down to the coast.

Obviously, a system like OPART has to go with what generally happened. Right now, the default assumption is that a battleship can provide devastating fire support up to 30 km inland. If we were going to go with what actually happened, the default would be that ships can only provide fire support in coastal hexes. This could be fine-tuned, and modified, and made modifiable in the scenario designer, and so on -- but that would be the simple solution.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/6/2010 8:56:55 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 743
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/6/2010 9:02:35 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		Thinking more seriously about the ship/fire support thing, another consideration that would have to be taken into account is that ships that under the current system, ships that provide fire support from hexes adjacent to the target are prone to sudden evaporation.

One way or another, either that would need to be dealt with (it already may be dealt with by the impending change in bombardment rules), or the range would need to be extended to a minimum of two hexes.

Anyway, we have nowhere to go but up. Right now, ships can do grossly ahistorical things.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 744
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 12:27:45 AM   
dicke bertha

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 6/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

So, please elucidate me. Firstly you say that the wishlist does not serve as more than a repository of info that may or may not be used, ...


Correct. It's just a list of everybody's wishes.

quote:

...then you say that looking through the wishlist would delay the issue of a patch that has been in the works for well over a year.


No I didn't. I said doing a feasibility study for the hundreds of items would do so.

quote:

Please tell me the connection between both things. What's the connection between both


?? I guess that there's hundreds of items on the list.

quote:

I must also add that Ralph said that the patch was done, and now going through playtest to iron bugs.


Ralph get's carried away a bit. I suppose you could say that all the features are implemented, but not bug free. But, I would say they're not finished till all the bugs are out.

quote:

Second, if that's the way you guys work, then I will refrain from further comments. If you guys cannot even estimate how much work it will take to make a small change contained in a patch , then please tell us how do you expect to even be able to pull off a TOAW 4.


Start. Then continue till we're finished.

quote:

And a third question, if the programmer does not read the wishlist, then who directs him about the changes to be introduced? Who is in charge of the overall team? Who judges how long would something take Ralph to do?


Ralph decides what he wants to do. But he is persuadable.

jmlima, I find your questions very to the point, and Curtis's answers curt and arrogant. It is absurd that Matrix has no official person to answer the community's questions about future development, sure as hell the developer himself is nowhere to be seen or heard, but we have Curtis in some inofficial official position telling us that this can and this can't be done. Why do we even bother. I've seen very bad project and business management in my life, and this is not good.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 745
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 1:15:24 AM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Thinking more seriously about the ship/fire support thing, another consideration that would have to be taken into account is that ships that under the current system, ships that provide fire support from hexes adjacent to the target are prone to sudden evaporation.

One way or another, either that would need to be dealt with (it already may be dealt with by the impending change in bombardment rules), or the range would need to be extended to a minimum of two hexes.

Anyway, we have nowhere to go but up. Right now, ships can do grossly ahistorical things.


Curtis said somewhere that naval and artillery units (the latter if they are made up of 50% or more ranged equipment) will bombard adjacent hexes instead of "assaulting" them in 3.4.

I think.

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to dicke bertha)
Post #: 746
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 8:57:45 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: desert

quote:

Thinking more seriously about the ship/fire support thing, another consideration that would have to be taken into account is that ships that under the current system, ships that provide fire support from hexes adjacent to the target are prone to sudden evaporation.

One way or another, either that would need to be dealt with (it already may be dealt with by the impending change in bombardment rules), or the range would need to be extended to a minimum of two hexes.

Anyway, we have nowhere to go but up. Right now, ships can do grossly ahistorical things.


Curtis said somewhere that naval and artillery units (the latter if they are made up of 50% or more ranged equipment) will bombard adjacent hexes instead of "assaulting" them in 3.4.

I think.


He did. However, one would want to make sure that dealt with the problem of evaporating ships before cutting their range.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 747
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 6:46:04 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

This is the problem with having you exert such an influence over the development of TOAW. You're simply impervious to either rational argument or fact.


I'm impervious to your crackbrained concept of rational argument and fact. And that's a good thing.

quote:

It's been suggested to you that foot movement rates aren't particularly impacted by 'readiness'


And the person who did so was hilariously wrong.

quote:

-- and yet you charge right ahead with a change that would cause them to be impacted by readiness.


Actually, what I'm doing is greatly reducing the the impact of fuel levels on foot movement.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 748
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 6:59:37 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It doesn't really matter much what the reasons are. The fact of the matter is that it generally didn't happen -- for whatever reason.

Therefore, it shouldn't be allowed to happen in TOAW. Whatever the constraints were that prevented it, all us computer generals shouldn't effectively be permitted to override them by fiat.


Let's see ... the Germans never captured Moscow, therefore, it should be impossible in TOAW, etc. etc.

Let's run down some more reasons:

1. By the time the ground forces get well inland, there are lots of ground artillery that better cooperate with the ground forces. Adding naval elements might actually be counter productive. That's already modeled in TOAW via cooperation levels (or will be once 3.4 is out with the fix for that). So properly modeled naval formations won't cooperate well with ground forces and their use will tail off once ground artillery becomes generally available.

2. Battleships aren't designed for prolonged shore support. They're designed for short, sharp, ship-to-ship engagements. Their barrels have to have the linings replaced after about 300 rounds or so. That's modeled in TOAW with the Withdrawal Event.

3. (My personal favorite) Just because you can't find a case of it, doesn't mean it never occurred or couldn't have occurred. We seem to have already had a counter example.

Unless you can actually prove that battleships were physically incapable of supporting beyond 5km, I'm sure there is no risk this will ever be implemented. I'm not going to waste another word on it.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 749
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/7/2010 7:02:31 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: Panama

Not to mention the fact that the sea has a tendancy to move in several directions at once making the shells land in a not so precise fashion. I've never had the opportunity to take part in a live fire exercise from a ship so I'm about as far from knowing anything about it as you can get. But if the ships were at anchor in a harbor...


Yet the USS Washington sank a Jap battleship that was over the horizon from it. That's how BB vs. BB action would normally take place.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 750
Page:   <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   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  23 24 [25] 26 27   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

0.781