Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

I'm not sure about the "bomber's tactics" to avoid excessive losses to AA fire, and in that way losing precision. Let's use an example, a heavy bomber raid against Germany: they would fly the mission in the same way regardless how heavy the AA fire they expect. Now, of course, if they knew that there was not to be any AA fire whatsoever, they could bomb at low altittude, but that is not realistic. So, they would bomb as always at 6000-7000m, and still, their precision would be affected by how accurate the AA fire is. So, it is possible that two different bomber raids, using the same tactics, would lose the same number of aircraft due to the AA fire, but the accuracy could vary a lot. .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I don't see how this addresses the issue at all. The point is that artillery, armor, etc both require a large amount of supply to function and decline in effectiveness in direct proportion to the lack of that supply. An artillery piece without shells is useless. It doesn't have 30% of the potency it would have if it was at full supply -- it's useless. A tank without fuel can't drive 80 km a day instead of 200 km a day -- it can't move at all.

The issue is when does that tank or gun actually run out of ammo/fuel. You are making the false assumption that it happens when the unit supply reaches 1%. It's a common misconception. But it's wrong.

It would be absurd if it were true: Waffen SS Division fights for one player turn, then is out of ammo/fuel and is reduced to zero combat strength and can't move. In the subsequent enemy player turn it is wiped out by a squad of grandmothers and their brooms. Real units were much more resilient than that.

This has already been discussed to death in an old supply thread here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1515321

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Indeed. However, the point is that sometimes an unlimited amount of munitions is not available. Under such circumstances, a couple of tons will suffice to restore some combat value to an infantry battalion -- and they can just go hungry for a day.

Try that with an artillery battalion, and you get ammo for six salvos. Physically, the guns can't be moved a few kilometers even though there's no gas -- they can't be moved at all.

Again, this assumes that the infantry battalion and the artillery battalion are being sent the same tonnage of supply. That won't be the case.

quote:

quote:

This exerts an effect in real life. Sixth Army's artillery and armor quickly lost most of its combat value -- and certainly wasn't going to be able to come along if there was a breakout. The infantry retained some viability. When the Germans advanced over the Caucasus, the trickle of supply they were receiving sufficed to maintain the infantry -- but any effective artillery was out of the question.

Sixth Army didn't have a line of communications. It is not a typical example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What you are saying implies some 'normal' level of AA protection.

No I am not. I'm not saying anything about the level of AAA in the hex. I'm only addressing the bomber's tactics. Bombers are already assumed to be taking precautions against AAA. The reduction in their bombing accuracy due to AAA is already built in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



That only leaves the rare case of a target that has no AAA whatsoever being poorly modeled. I don't think that's such a big deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


In general, though, tactical aircraft is what we are concerned with, and they generally do bomb from low altitude, and their impact is indeed affected by the flak the defenders can throw up. That's why armies have flak. As I say, it's not to shoot down planes -- any more than cops carry guns to cut down on the numbers of young males. The flak serves to force the planes to modify their behavior -- and the more flak, the more the behavior is modified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

I have not read the wishlist (but I'm gonna), so I don't know if this is covered.
One of the features of TOAW, the combat rounds, works well as long as the units that are attacking are concerned. I mean, an example: unit A has not moved, unit B has moved and have left 50% of movement points, and both are attacking unit C. The combat will start in a "middle" round, refelcting the fact that unit A have to wait to unit B to get there.
All very nice here.
The problem starts when we are talking about non-attacking units. Other example: unit A has not moved, and is attacking enemy unit G, which is sourronded by friendly units B, C, D, E anf F, so there's no escape. All of these friendly units ( B, C, D, E and F) have moved before. So, the combat starts in round one, and if succesfull, the result would be the destruction of unit G, who can not escape, because his retreat route is blocked by units that should be not there at that moment
Very unrealistic result.

Fix to this problem is very simple (that doesn't mean that would be easy to implement in TOAW code ): the round in which the combat starts, should not be based in the percentage of movement points of the units that are attacking, but instead, in the friendly unit that have less percentage of movement points available, and is adjacent to the unit that is attacked.
I'm thinking that an exception could be made to the units that are in the same hex of the ones attacking, as long as these units don't affect the retreat behaviour of the attacked unit (I don't know if that is the case now)
I don't know how popular this may be (considering how it would change the way of play the game, probably not much), but it would result in a more realistic simulation

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

I have not read the wishlist (but I'm gonna), so I don't know if this is covered.
One of the features of TOAW, the combat rounds, works well as long as the units that are attacking are concerned. I mean, an example: unit A has not moved, unit B has moved and have left 50% of movement points, and both are attacking unit C. The combat will start in a "middle" round, refelcting the fact that unit A have to wait to unit B to get there.
All very nice here.
The problem starts when we are talking about non-attacking units. Other example: unit A has not moved, and is attacking enemy unit G, which is sourronded by friendly units B, C, D, E anf F, so there's no escape. All of these friendly units ( B, C, D, E and F) have moved before. So, the combat starts in round one, and if succesfull, the result would be the destruction of unit G, who can not escape, because his retreat route is blocked by units that should be not there at that moment
Very unrealistic result.

Fix to this problem is very simple (that doesn't mean that would be easy to implement in TOAW code ): the round in which the combat starts, should not be based in the percentage of movement points of the units that are attacking, but instead, in the friendly unit that have less percentage of movement points available, and is adjacent to the unit that is attacked.
I'm thinking that an exception could be made to the units that are in the same hex of the ones attacking, as long as these units don't affect the retreat behaviour of the attacked unit (I don't know if that is the case now)
I don't know how popular this may be (considering how it would change the way of play the game, probably not much), but it would result in a more realistic simulation

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama



Easiest solution in a case such as this IMO. Have the combat consume as much time as it took the 'last' unit to arrive. The unit that consumed the most time to close the pocket is the one time consumed is based on.

quote:

Even more, if that unit consumed it's entire turn to get there then the combat can't take place until next turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

I have not read the wishlist (but I'm gonna), so I don't know if this is covered.
One of the features of TOAW, the combat rounds, works well as long as the units that are attacking are concerned. I mean, an example: unit A has not moved, unit B has moved and have left 50% of movement points, and both are attacking unit C. The combat will start in a "middle" round, refelcting the fact that unit A have to wait to unit B to get there.
All very nice here.
The problem starts when we are talking about non-attacking units. Other example: unit A has not moved, and is attacking enemy unit G, which is sourronded by friendly units B, C, D, E anf F, so there's no escape. All of these friendly units ( B, C, D, E and F) have moved before. So, the combat starts in round one, and if succesfull, the result would be the destruction of unit G, who can not escape, because his retreat route is blocked by units that should be not there at that moment
Very unrealistic result.

Fix to this problem is very simple (that doesn't mean that would be easy to implement in TOAW code ): the round in which the combat starts, should not be based in the percentage of movement points of the units that are attacking, but instead, in the friendly unit that have less percentage of movement points available, and is adjacent to the unit that is attacked.
I'm thinking that an exception could be made to the units that are in the same hex of the ones attacking, as long as these units don't affect the retreat behaviour of the attacked unit (I don't know if that is the case now)
I don't know how popular this may be (considering how it would change the way of play the game, probably not much), but it would result in a more realistic simulation

Easiest solution in a case such as this IMO. Have the combat consume as much time as it took the 'last' unit to arrive. The unit that consumed the most time to close the pocket is the one time consumed is based on. Even more, if that unit consumed it's entire turn to get there then the combat can't take place until next turn.

quote:



Any turn based game will have problems. Such as high movement point units moving through the opponents lines thus cutting them off without the opposing units reacting to the movement. In real life the opposing side could react and prevent such manuevers at least in part. Since no reaction is possible during the other side's turn lots of pockets are formed that wouldn't be possible in a real time environment.

quote:




But then again, you enable the non moving side to react to movement the same way they react to attacks with some kind of reactionary setting.

I'm beginning to believe Ralph's wego option might be a good idea if it doesn't add appreciably to how long email games take.

quote:



One desirable feature I see from the standpoint of playability is that when one goes to the attack dialogue, one would want to have the option of removing any units that were making the thing take all turn by having them back up to the last hex they were in before moving adjacent to the target unit...else planning and executing attacks would become enormously more difficult.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As long as we're on the subject, another part of the package that I've long advocated is that the defender needs to be able to check combat results against any adjacent stack, not just those that contain units that are participating in the attack.

One quickly learns not to include the solo 1-2 engineer company in the attack on those two 7-12 infantry regiments one has surrounded; if it's in the hex by itself, it'll get blown up by the two infantry regiments, which will then retreat into the now vacated hex.

This mechanism needs to apply whether or not the engineer company participates in the attack. As it is, a division's worth of forces can be 'surrounded' by a net that includes a solo company of any random junk stretched over 5 km. In real life, of course, the division would just run over such 'surrounding' forces if it had to retreat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

However, the current situation is at least as bad. Units can simply continue offensive action indefinitely. The system says they get enough supplies to retain 30% or so effectiveness no matter how long they continue attacking. The result is that -- contrary to all history -- it is often best just to keep pressing ahead regardless of the state of your forces so long as the defender is in just as bad shape.

quote:

In my opinion, the problem is really that supplied mechanized forces are too slow in the first place. They really do rip off some astonishing forward leaps. Currently, mechanized forces have about 2.5 times the MP's of leg infantry. Something like that. If the ratio was set at more like 4 to 1 -- but the tanks stop rolling and the guns stop shooting when the supplies run out, my betting's that we'd be on our way to a more accurate simulation. The infantry might eventually catch up, but absent any effective artillery and absent any mobile forces, it's not going to be able to mount much of an attack. That will be a function of the other arms being properly resupplied -- and that will lead to some very authentic pauses in advances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama



Easiest solution in a case such as this IMO. Have the combat consume as much time as it took the 'last' unit to arrive. The unit that consumed the most time to close the pocket is the one time consumed is based on.

That's similar, but not the same. In that way you still have the "gamey" tactic of surround the enemy with units, and start the combat at round 1. Yes, the combat would last longer, posibly the entire turn, but the result could be the same: enemy destroyed because it's surrounded by units that actually arrived after the combat started (and sometimes ended)

quote:

Even more, if that unit consumed it's entire turn to get there then the combat can't take place until next turn.

That also would happen with my idea: friendly units with 0 movement points, adjacent to the unit that would be attacked: attack can not take place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It will be the case if supplies are severely straightened. In fact, if there's only one ton of munitions that can be brought in, and it can go to either the infantry battalion or the artillery battalion, the entirety would probably go to the infantry battalion, and none at all to the artillery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Then we get back to how -- in reality -- could the 1939-1941 Luftwaffe be so effective but the 1944-1945 Allied tactical airforces fail to sweep all before them?

quote:

Flak impacts aircraft effectiveness -- and it does not do it primarily by shooting down planes. This impact is not somehow 'built in' -- else why the flak guns? Once this is acknowledged, it follows that it would be desirable to simulate this effect.

Why do you insist on denying this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As a bit of history here, in the beginning there was TOAW flak as it was represented in OPART I, WGOTY, ACOW, etc.

It didn't shoot down many planes. Of course, real flak doesn't shoot down all that many planes either. Some planes go down of course -- flying TacAir isn't safe -- but on any given sortie, the attacker has a pretty good chance of coming home safe and sound.

Curtis, however, in his wisdom detected what he assumed was an error in the program that was producing these low kills. Curtis fixed this 'error.' My own suspicion is that Norm realized the slaughter that the unmodified values would cause, and deliberately cut the effect, but that's not really either here or there.

The point is that Curtis 'fixed' the value. Rather typically, he doesn't seem to have bothered to run a few test cases and seen if the resulting slaughter bore any relation to the general run of historical outcomes. It would have been easy enough: I can think of two tests right off. No -- every day just became Sedan bridgehead day for attacking air forces.

Also rather typically, Curtis tried to defend this mayhem. His arguments, of course, were fallacious, but he kept tirelessly presenting them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

I have not read the wishlist (but I'm gonna), so I don't know if this is covered.
One of the features of TOAW, the combat rounds, works well as long as the units that are attacking are concerned. I mean, an example: unit A has not moved, unit B has moved and have left 50% of movement points, and both are attacking unit C. The combat will start in a "middle" round, refelcting the fact that unit A have to wait to unit B to get there.
All very nice here.
The problem starts when we are talking about non-attacking units. Other example: unit A has not moved, and is attacking enemy unit G, which is sourronded by friendly units B, C, D, E anf F, so there's no escape. All of these friendly units ( B, C, D, E and F) have moved before. So, the combat starts in round one, and if succesfull, the result would be the destruction of unit G, who can not escape, because his retreat route is blocked by units that should be not there at that moment
Very unrealistic result.

Fix to this problem is very simple (that doesn't mean that would be easy to implement in TOAW code ): the round in which the combat starts, should not be based in the percentage of movement points of the units that are attacking, but instead, in the friendly unit that have less percentage of movement points available, and is adjacent to the unit that is attacked.
I'm thinking that an exception could be made to the units that are in the same hex of the ones attacking, as long as these units don't affect the retreat behaviour of the attacked unit (I don't know if that is the case now)
I don't know how popular this may be (considering how it would change the way of play the game, probably not much), but it would result in a more realistic simulation

Curtis will explain to you why the current system is just fine, ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As long as we're on the subject, another part of the package that I've long advocated is that the defender needs to be able to check combat results against any adjacent stack, not just those that contain units that are participating in the attack.

One quickly learns not to include the solo 1-2 engineer company in the attack on those two 7-12 infantry regiments one has surrounded; if it's in the hex by itself, it'll get blown up by the two infantry regiments, which will then retreat into the now vacated hex.

This mechanism needs to apply whether or not the engineer company participates in the attack. As it is, a division's worth of forces can be 'surrounded' by a net that includes a solo company of any random junk stretched over 5 km. In real life, of course, the division would just run over such 'surrounding' forces if it had to retreat.

I think this one is already planned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama



Either I failed to communicate properly or someone failed to understand.

quote:

Have the combat consume as much time as it took the 'last' unit to arrive. The unit that consumed the most time to close the pocket is the one time consumed is based on.

quote:

If player B has one unit there already obviously this will NOT be that unit. One of the units that player B has moved to surround player A's unit has consumed 75% of it's turn. So, when the combat is conducted at least 75% of the turn is consumed in the combat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Another outrageous lie. You know perfectly well that the "Time Stamp" (Item 7.20) suggestion is mine. I'm all in favor of fixing this. It's not a trivial issue, though.

However, the issue not considered with the above idea is that the round that the unit retreats will not be the same round as when the combat starts, and the blocking unit only needs to get there by the time the retreat happens, not when the combat starts.

quote:


7.19 Surrounded defender breakout from combat – retreating units could check RBC against the weakest or all blocking enemy units.
7.20 Advanced: Surrounded defender breakout from combat - “time stamp”.
7.20.1 Defenders forced to retreat from combat may force blocking enemy units out of the way if those units’ “time stamp” exceed the combat round of the defender’s retreat.
7.20.2 A blocking unit’s “time stamp” is defined as the combat round the unit would be calculated to have arrived in the blocking hex.
7.20.3 Very advanced: Keep track of the hex each blocking unit entered from, and, if forced to move out of the way, move it back to that previous hex, and restore it’s movement that it had expended in entering the blocking hex.
7.20.4 After all such blocking enemy units are forced to move out of the way, if the defenders are still blocked, they can attempt to breakout via combat. The weakest blocking hex would be targeted for attack by the retreaters. Only one round of combat would be permitted. Only non-routed retreaters would be allowed to participate in the combat. (Alternate: instead of a combat round, a RBC would be attempted instead.)
7.20.5 If the combat succeeded in forcing all remaining blocking units out of the way, all retreaters would be allowed to retreat into the vacated hex. But if the attack failed, the retreaters would be destroyed just as now, and all their losses would go to the dead pile, none would go to the “on hand” pile.
7.21 Very advanced: Breakout before combat.
7.21.1 Under certain (yet to be determined) circumstances, the defending force might choose to attempt a better coordinated breakout than possible during a forced retreat by breaking out before the enemy combat is effected. Obviously, only non-reorganizing units could participate in such an attempt. If triggered, the above sequence would be followed the same way, except that the retreating force would obviously be in better condition to succeed, and it would occur in the beginning round of the attack.
7.21.1.1 Possible triggering factors could include defender average loss tolerance, attacker odds vs. breakout odds, Leader initiative (if implemented and applicable), or prearranged orders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As long as we're on the subject, another part of the package that I've long advocated is that the defender needs to be able to check combat results against any adjacent stack, not just those that contain units that are participating in the attack.

One quickly learns not to include the solo 1-2 engineer company in the attack on those two 7-12 infantry regiments one has surrounded; if it's in the hex by itself, it'll get blown up by the two infantry regiments, which will then retreat into the now vacated hex.

This mechanism needs to apply whether or not the engineer company participates in the attack. As it is, a division's worth of forces can be 'surrounded' by a net that includes a solo company of any random junk stretched over 5 km. In real life, of course, the division would just run over such 'surrounding' forces if it had to retreat.

I think this one is already planned.

Actually, it's already implemented. Units forced to retreat but are blocked by enemy units will get to attempt RBCs against all of them before being eliminated. So, it will take substantial forces to block retreat paths now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As long as we're on the subject, another part of the package that I've long advocated is that the defender needs to be able to check combat results against any adjacent stack, not just those that contain units that are participating in the attack.

One quickly learns not to include the solo 1-2 engineer company in the attack on those two 7-12 infantry regiments one has surrounded; if it's in the hex by itself, it'll get blown up by the two infantry regiments, which will then retreat into the now vacated hex.

This mechanism needs to apply whether or not the engineer company participates in the attack. As it is, a division's worth of forces can be 'surrounded' by a net that includes a solo company of any random junk stretched over 5 km. In real life, of course, the division would just run over such 'surrounding' forces if it had to retreat.

I think this one is already planned.

Actually, it's already implemented. Units forced to retreat but are blocked by enemy units will get to attempt RBCs against all of them before being eliminated. So, it will take substantial forces to block retreat paths now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Another outrageous lie. You know perfectly well that the "Time Stamp" (Item 7.20) suggestion is mine. I'm all in favor of fixing this. It's not a trivial issue, though.

However, the issue not considered with the above idea is that the round that the unit retreats will not be the same round as when the combat starts, and the blocking unit only needs to get there by the time the retreat happens, not when the combat starts.

That's true. I know is not perfect but would be an improvement, don't you think?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As a bit of history here, in the beginning there was TOAW flak as it was represented in OPART I, WGOTY, ACOW, etc.

It didn't shoot down many planes. Of course, real flak doesn't shoot down all that many planes either. Some planes go down of course -- flying TacAir isn't safe -- but on any given sortie, the attacker has a pretty good chance of coming home safe and sound.

Curtis, however, in his wisdom detected what he assumed was an error in the program that was producing these low kills. Curtis fixed this 'error.' My own suspicion is that Norm realized the slaughter that the unmodified values would cause, and deliberately cut the effect, but that's not really either here or there.

The point is that Curtis 'fixed' the value. Rather typically, he doesn't seem to have bothered to run a few test cases and seen if the resulting slaughter bore any relation to the general run of historical outcomes. It would have been easy enough: I can think of two tests right off. No -- every day just became Sedan bridgehead day for attacking air forces.

Also rather typically, Curtis tried to defend this mayhem. His arguments, of course, were fallacious, but he kept tirelessly presenting them.

All the above is an outrageous lie. I had absolutely nothing to do with the increase in AAA lethality in the release of TOAW III. In fact, I lead the way in finding how far off it was and getting it changed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Then we get back to how -- in reality -- could the 1939-1941 Luftwaffe be so effective but the 1944-1945 Allied tactical airforces fail to sweep all before them?

If you have evidence that the early luftwaffe bombers caused vastly more damage than they do when modeled in TOAW, then please provide it.

I will remind you that I modeled a number of known bomber missions as detailed in the AAA thread. And the results were not unhistorical.

quote:

Flak impacts aircraft effectiveness -- and it does not do it primarily by shooting down planes. This impact is not somehow 'built in' -- else why the flak guns? Once this is acknowledged, it follows that it would be desirable to simulate this effect.

Why do you insist on denying this?

Why are you being so willfully dense? I am not saying that the flak is built in. I'm saying that the bomber tactics to avoid flak effects are built in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Another outrageous lie. You know perfectly well that the "Time Stamp" (Item 7.20) suggestion is mine. I'm all in favor of fixing this. It's not a trivial issue, though.