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  33 34 [35] 36 37   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/5/2010 5:51:56 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Panama



It would be nice to treat all transport alike. You have X number of train, ship, aircraft transport. Why not give other transport points? One horse team can carry X amount of weight. It doesn't matter how abstract you make horse teams. It can still only carry so much weight. If you don't have enough horse teams the unit's movement is reduced accordingly. And don't start carrying on about ammo and supplies and mail and all the other things a unit might have. A train carries the same things when it's carrying a unit so I don't see a problem with it.

Well, I suppose now I'm going to have to go and mess with bioed and see if making a tank a transport item will increase a divisions movement by a lot.


You'll cap at the full motorized movement rate once you have one item of mechanized transport for every two weapons that aren't motorized themselves.

As to making tanks transporters, for the Russians, that's not all that strange. They notoriously used the T-34 as an all-purpose mechanized device.

You're taking a part of the system that is admittedly heavily abstracted (and in my view, rightfully so -- I don't want to muck about with whether the Studebaker 12 could or could not tow 152 mm howitzers), and insisting something is 'broke.'

No it's not. You add transport assets until you get the desired movement rate. If your hypothetical division speeds up too much with a truck, make it a porter squad. If you find the thought of a 'porter squad' moving a 152 mm howitzer aesthetically offensive, rename it an 'improvised transportation asset.'


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/5/2010 6:03:29 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1021
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/5/2010 6:12:44 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Why have transport part of the unit mix at all? It would seem to me all they do is soak up casualties. If they are going to be abstracted in one aspect, what they can carry, then why in world make them a one off casualty? There is no logic in that. Either abstact the bloody things or don't.

Bottom line, I want my Soviet divisions to suffer mobility penalties early in the campaign since historically they did have a problem with mobility. I can give them a one or a nine. Nothing else. The only way to do it differently is to bastardize the TO&E. This is ahistorical and goes against what I feel is a historical and correct TO&E. But, since you think this is ok then there is not need for you to go on replying.

I would like to have added to the Wish List the ability to assign units a movement allowance independant of what equipment the unit has since the transport abstract is extremely limited in it's flexibility, that's all.

< Message edited by Panama -- 6/5/2010 6:59:38 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1022
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/7/2010 7:00:13 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Panama


Bottom line, I want my Soviet divisions to suffer mobility penalties early in the campaign since historically they did have a problem with mobility. I can give them a one or a nine. Nothing else. The only way to do it differently is to bastardize the TO&E...


I'd be curious to see what's in these divisions of yours. To have a choice only between one and nine suggests there's only one weapon that requires transport. Else you should be able to scale the transport up or down to obtain whatever rate of movement you want.

Otherwise, I share your reluctance to 'bastardize' the TO&E -- but it's not holy writ. Transport hauls all kinds of things that aren't represented in TOAW -- I can't see how good results could ever be obtained by putting in every truck, wagon, and tractor that the unit had. TOAW understates or overstates the effectiveness of all kinds of weapons -- you have to either modify them yourself or adjust their numbers. For example, the program way overstates the effectiveness of flak and allows it to be used in ground combat by all armies at all times -- just blindly sticking it in as per the TO&E is virtually guaranteed to produce ahistorical results.

Then there are machine guns assigned to field artillery units that aren't normally going to play a role in combat, weapons that were prone to breakdown or for which there was a severe ammunition shortage, weapons that were so misused as to vitiate their effectiveness, etc, etc.

You say you don't want to 'bastardize' the TO&E. However, just blindly duplicating it is highly unlikely to produce satisfactory results. It doesn't mean much if your panzer battalion has the prescribed numbers of each mark of tank, three engineer squads, two motorcycle squads, 94 trucks, etc -- and doesn't behave as it should in combat. What's the point of that?

Finally, and especially in the case of the Russians, units were so far from the prescribed TO&E, often armed with equipment missing key parts or so worn as to be unable to make it a kilometer without breaking down, so often short of trained operators, so often without ammunition, etc that I don't see how one could treat the TO&E as more than a kind of starting point for beginning modifications anyway.

Right now I'm working on Operation Orient -- a semi-hypothetical 'what were the possibilities in the Eastern Med and Near East' scenario. The Germans, British, and Vichy French I can more or less use the advertised TO&E's -- some judicious modifications, but they're still pretty much 'stock,' so to speak. The Russians and the Turks -- well, no TO&E at all for the Turks, and for the Russians it's a starting point but that's about it. The Italians -- very, very confused. The Iraqis? The Iranians? It's almost irrelevant what the Iranians had -- I need things that will go 'poof' if attacked.

After all, what matters are units that behave as historically as possible on the battlefield. If you can get there with an authentic-looking TO&E, great -- but don't confuse the means with the end. It would not be accurate to create an 'Iranian infantry regiment' with all its assigned equipment if that regiment was able to hold a British infantry battalion off for an entire half-week turn.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/7/2010 7:01:37 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1023
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/9/2010 4:37:57 PM   
Panama


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

ORIGINAL: Panama
Bottom line, I want my Soviet divisions to suffer mobility penalties early in the campaign since historically they did have a problem with mobility. I can give them a one or a nine. Nothing else. The only way to do it differently is to bastardize the TO&E...


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'd be curious to see what's in these divisions of yours. To have a choice only between one and nine suggests there's only one weapon that requires transport. Else you should be able to scale the transport up or down to obtain whatever rate of movement you want.


Typical Soviet TO&E. Had to pick one Shtat and stick with it since they had so many and the game is restricted in the number of units available.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Transport hauls all kinds of things that aren't represented in TOAW


Dear Lord, if I hear that one more time I'm going to scream. Try NOT stating the obvious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
-- I can't see how good results could ever be obtained by putting in every truck, wagon, and tractor that the unit had. TOAW understates or overstates the effectiveness of all kinds of weapons -- you have to either modify them yourself or adjust their numbers. For example, the program way overstates the effectiveness of flak and allows it to be used in ground combat by all armies at all times -- just blindly sticking it in as per the TO&E is virtually guaranteed to produce ahistorical results.


It's gotten to the point where I don't care if I can put in the number of trucks or little red wagons the unit actually had. I'd just be happy to be able to get a number between one or nine without throwing in equipment that didn't even exist. That's why this whole truck/transportation thing got started. One or nine. Kind of stupid that's all you can get.

RE: Flak. Used in every way conceivable by all armies. Okay, maybe not as a way to dig holes or pound in tent stakes. Another thing about the 'over' effectiveness of flak. A player gets back the number of aircraft 'shot down' equal to the unit's proficiency rating. So the number of aircraft shot down are not really shot down. Some are damaged and under repair. They go to the restock shelf. "In the case of Air and Naval equipment, the fraction of damaged equipment going to the Replacement Pool is proportional to the owning unit’s Proficiency." If an air unit has a proficiency of 80, 20% is actually lost while 80% returns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Then there are machine guns assigned to field artillery units that aren't normally going to play a role in combat, weapons that were prone to breakdown or for which there was a severe ammunition shortage, weapons that were so misused as to vitiate their effectiveness, etc, etc.


Breakdown is covered by movement although it's not precise enough since some equipment was more prone to breakdown than others. Ammo is covered by supply, once again not well enough.

Also, I'd like to point out that 'normal' and 'combat' are mutually exclusive. If an artillery unit had machine guns it wasn't so they would like nice on parade day. Experience was the more likely reason and would most probably play a part in defence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
You say you don't want to 'bastardize' the TO&E. However, just blindly duplicating it is highly unlikely to produce satisfactory results. It doesn't mean much if your panzer battalion has the prescribed numbers of each mark of tank, three engineer squads, two motorcycle squads, 94 trucks, etc -- and doesn't behave as it should in combat. What's the point of that?


Followed TO&Es. Never had that problem. Things seem to work fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Finally, and especially in the case of the Russians, units were so far from the prescribed TO&E, often armed with equipment missing key parts or so worn as to be unable to make it a kilometer without breaking down, so often short of trained operators, so often without ammunition, etc that I don't see how one could treat the TO&E as more than a kind of starting point for beginning modifications anyway.


Ah, yes. Short of equipment. Short of, go on, you can say it. I know you can.

Transport.

I knew you could say it.

Lack of or a shortage of this item tends to reduce a units mobility. One or nine. That's all you get, one or nine. Well, maybe ten sometimes. Isn't abstraction wonderful?



_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1024
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/13/2010 6:04:23 PM   
desert


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

RE: Flak. Used in every way conceivable by all armies. Okay, maybe not as a way to dig holes or pound in tent stakes. Another thing about the 'over' effectiveness of flak. A player gets back the number of aircraft 'shot down' equal to the unit's proficiency rating. So the number of aircraft shot down are not really shot down. Some are damaged and under repair. They go to the restock shelf. "In the case of Air and Naval equipment, the fraction of damaged equipment going to the Replacement Pool is proportional to the owning unit’s Proficiency." If an air unit has a proficiency of 80, 20% is actually lost while 80% returns.


Well, it says the fraction is proportional to the proficiency, not that it is the proficiency. Otherwise, 100% proficiency planes would be invincible.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1025
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/13/2010 6:49:57 PM   
Panama


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: desert

quote:

RE: Flak. Used in every way conceivable by all armies. Okay, maybe not as a way to dig holes or pound in tent stakes. Another thing about the 'over' effectiveness of flak. A player gets back the number of aircraft 'shot down' equal to the unit's proficiency rating. So the number of aircraft shot down are not really shot down. Some are damaged and under repair. They go to the restock shelf. "In the case of Air and Naval equipment, the fraction of damaged equipment going to the Replacement Pool is proportional to the owning unit’s Proficiency." If an air unit has a proficiency of 80, 20% is actually lost while 80% returns.


Well, it says the fraction is proportional to the proficiency, not that it is the proficiency. Otherwise, 100% proficiency planes would be invincible.


Aye, missed that part.

_____________________________


(in reply to desert)
Post #: 1026
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/15/2010 12:39:17 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: desert

quote:

RE: Flak. Used in every way conceivable by all armies. Okay, maybe not as a way to dig holes or pound in tent stakes. Another thing about the 'over' effectiveness of flak. A player gets back the number of aircraft 'shot down' equal to the unit's proficiency rating. So the number of aircraft shot down are not really shot down. Some are damaged and under repair. They go to the restock shelf. "In the case of Air and Naval equipment, the fraction of damaged equipment going to the Replacement Pool is proportional to the owning unit’s Proficiency." If an air unit has a proficiency of 80, 20% is actually lost while 80% returns.


Well, it says the fraction is proportional to the proficiency, not that it is the proficiency. Otherwise, 100% proficiency planes would be invincible.


It seems like a strange mechanism. I'm sure Japanese fighter aircraft units for the first year of the war should have very high proficiency. Why they should therefore recover more of their losses escapes me.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 1027
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/15/2010 12:49:24 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


RE: Flak. Used in every way conceivable by all armies. Okay, maybe not as a way to dig holes or pound in tent stakes.


Missed this. It's a factually untrue statement. The Germans cheerfully used their flak in all kinds of ways; it was rare for the British to employ their flak in this way prior to 1944. Russian flak generally doesn't figure prominently in accounts of small-unit actions.

Equally importantly, OPART fails to reflect something: although a weapon will always fight when a unit fights, it's damned hard for an artillery piece to be both employed in a fashion that will permit effective fire support and allow it to be used as an AT gun. Similarly with AA. You want to keep those supplies moving up protected, you can't deploy your AA guns in the front lines.

Except in TOAW. An AA gun can simultaneously protect a road junction seven km in the rear and provide fire support for that attack going in on Hill 106. No problem.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1028
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/15/2010 8:46:37 AM   
Karri

 

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


Except in TOAW. An AA gun can simultaneously protect a road junction seven km in the rear and provide fire support for that attack going in on Hill 106. No problem.



TOAW is not RTS...

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1029
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/15/2010 1:59:06 PM   
Panama


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


Missed this. It's a factually untrue statement. The Germans cheerfully used their flak in all kinds of ways; it was rare for the British to employ their flak in this way prior to 1944. Russian flak generally doesn't figure prominently in accounts of small-unit actions.

Equally importantly, OPART fails to reflect something: although a weapon will always fight when a unit fights, it's damned hard for an artillery piece to be both employed in a fashion that will permit effective fire support and allow it to be used as an AT gun. Similarly with AA. You want to keep those supplies moving up protected, you can't deploy your AA guns in the front lines.

Except in TOAW. An AA gun can simultaneously protect a road junction seven km in the rear and provide fire support for that attack going in on Hill 106. No problem.



Soviets used divisional artillery in direct fire roles until later in 1944. This means against whatever was attacking them or whatever they were attacking. Divisional AA guns were not at the road junctions. They were with combat units of the division.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


TOAW is not RTS...


Really?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

I don't understand why it is unrealistic or unreasonable to have the soviet player withdraw his planes anyway, why not let them fight the war however they please?



Looking at something like this I wonder if people think it is a RTS game. If any Soviet air marshall were to refuse to fly his air divisions he would not live out the day. "Fight the war however they please?" That is RTS thinking so might just as well make it one. Let's throw history out the door and do whatever we please. Historicallly the Soviets had to put up as many sorties as was humanly possible but hey, it's not a simulation it's a game so screw that.

Now where did they put that WIN button?

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1030
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/15/2010 2:27:00 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
Really. If a turn represents a week, an AA gun CAN be giving fire support as well as do anything else.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1031
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/15/2010 10:42:17 PM   
desert


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

Looking at something like this I wonder if people think it is a RTS game. If any Soviet air marshall were to refuse to fly his air divisions he would not live out the day. "Fight the war however they please?" That is RTS thinking so might just as well make it one. Let's throw history out the door and do whatever we please. Historicallly the Soviets had to put up as many sorties as was humanly possible but hey, it's not a simulation it's a game so screw that.


Pretend you're Stalin then.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 1032
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/15/2010 11:59:41 PM   
Panama


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: desert

quote:

Looking at something like this I wonder if people think it is a RTS game. If any Soviet air marshall were to refuse to fly his air divisions he would not live out the day. "Fight the war however they please?" That is RTS thinking so might just as well make it one. Let's throw history out the door and do whatever we please. Historicallly the Soviets had to put up as many sorties as was humanly possible but hey, it's not a simulation it's a game so screw that.


Pretend you're Stalin then.


And pretend everyone has to agree or else?

_____________________________


(in reply to desert)
Post #: 1033
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/16/2010 4:24:17 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Karri

Really. If a turn represents a week, an AA gun CAN be giving fire support as well as do anything else.


At the time an engagement occurs, an AA gun (or any other piece of equipment) can only be doing one thing at a time. If it's providing direct fire support, it's not securing the route the reinforcements are moving up on.

Now, sure it can go back and guard that road after the attack's over. But that's not really going to help much.

The same problem arises with artillery -- although TOAW jumps the other way with that. Artillery pieces actually often make perfectly serviceable AT guns. However, artillery deployed to provide massed, coordinated indirect fire support isn't really in a position to function as direct fire AT weapons.

So in TOAW, artillery has no AT value. Else it would be able to routinely do both jobs at once. With flak, the system does the opposite. Flak can indeed do both jobs at once -- in TOAW.

Equally to the point, and notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, most armies most places did not routinely use their AA guns as direct fire weapons.

Both these points can be supported with a well-documented historical example. Look up all the AA guns in and around Tobruk in June 1942. Now look up an account of Tobruk's fall. See how much of a role they played in the fighting.

Not much. Maybe a couple of batteries fired at the triumphantly advancing panzers after the issue had already been decided. First, it just wasn't British Army doctrine to employ AA guns in this role. Secondly, the AA guns were deployed to keep the Luftwaffe from blowing hell out of the port itself. They couldn't and didn't simultaneously help to fend off the Afrika Korps.



_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 1034
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/16/2010 4:31:42 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Panama



Soviets used divisional artillery in direct fire roles until later in 1944. This means against whatever was attacking them or whatever they were attacking. Divisional AA guns were not at the road junctions. They were with combat units of the division.




I don't think these are mutually exclusive. If we're talking -- say -- divisions at 10 km/hex, then the AA can perfectly well be 'with the combat unit' and three km back from the front doing what they can to keep that river crossing open.

When they're there, they can't do much about that attack that just came in against Hill 206. If they're dug in on Hill 206, they can't do much to keep the river crossing open.

...except in TOAW, of course.

And this leads me to what I think is the essential point. Barring some major developments in the system, weapons and personnel have to be assumed to be performing their primary function. Signallers are normally signalling -- not helping to hold Hill 206. They may have occasionally, but normally, they signal. Hence one does not represent them as light rifle squads, but indirectly, in the unit and formation proficiency.

Similarly with artillery, and similarly with AA guns. If the AA guns' primary mission was to provide AA cover, that's what they should do. It's probably what most of them were doing most of the time. Now, the way AA is handled in TOAW is a joke, but that's another subject...

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/16/2010 4:38:30 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1035
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/16/2010 9:23:03 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
You're right of course. But given the scale and limitations of the game I don't know how you would sort it out.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1036
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/17/2010 5:36:03 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Really. If a turn represents a week, an AA gun CAN be giving fire support as well as do anything else.


At the time an engagement occurs, an AA gun (or any other piece of equipment) can only be doing one thing at a time. If it's providing direct fire support, it's not securing the route the reinforcements are moving up on.

Now, sure it can go back and guard that road after the attack's over. But that's not really going to help much.


I'm like Karri. I don't see the issue. Amost every piece of equipment in the game has an AA value and an AP value. Not just flak. They're employed in different phases of the combat round. What prevents anything from firing at the ground units at one point, and firing at the bombers the next?

quote:

So in TOAW, artillery has no AT value.


Not true in defense. Directly attacked artillery applies 1/4 of its AP value to AT. And what could be the issue with that? If it's being directly attacked, it's obviously not bombarding anything.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1037
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/17/2010 5:45:31 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

And this leads me to what I think is the essential point. Barring some major developments in the system, weapons and personnel have to be assumed to be performing their primary function. Signallers are normally signalling -- not helping to hold Hill 206. They may have occasionally, but normally, they signal. Hence one does not represent them as light rifle squads, but indirectly, in the unit and formation proficiency.


As you know, I think this is too simplistic a solution. For most situations, the rear-area stuff needs to be physically modeled in some way. That's because, in the real world, there's a big difference between decimating the frontline combat elements of a division, and destroying the entire division.

It would be nice, though, if TOAW assisted the designers in this. I'm not sure just how, but perhaps if you could designate equipment as "rear-area", and this designation came with a suite of effects, and frontline equipment performance depended upon the existance of said rear-area stuff, etc. ... A can of worms, I'm sure, but that's what I'm thinking about.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1038
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/19/2010 5:22:32 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



I'm like Karri. I don't see the issue. Amost every piece of equipment in the game has an AA value and an AP value. Not just flak. They're employed in different phases of the combat round. What prevents anything from firing at the ground units at one point, and firing at the bombers the next?


Because where the bombers are, and where the ground units are, aren't necessarily the same place -- nor would the ideal deployment for engaging ground targets necessarily be the ideal deployment for engaging bombers.

I already cited the fall of Tobruk in 1942, where there was plenty of Allied Flak -- just not where the ground combat was.

Let's look at Sedan. On May 14, the French were mounting various attacks from what would be the next hex at most scales, while the Germans were attacking out of that hex to expand their bridgehead. At the same time, an immense concentration of German flak was protecting the bridges themselves against furious Allied air attacks, allowing reinforcements to move into 'the hex' and win the ground battle.

Those flak guns didn't engage the counterattacking French units. They guarded the bridge. Had they been used to engage the counterattacking French units, they couldn't have protected the bridge.

I think you'll find that over and over, a weapon can only do one thing at a time. Since attackers have a nasty habit of doing several things all at the same time, more often than not, the weapon can only be utilized against one of the incoming forms of attack.

Now, in an ideal world, one could have a designer-modified value that would allow a weapon to be used in a secondary role -- artillery as AT, AA as ground support -- if the force in question in fact usually displayed such flexibility and if the weapon system wasn't performing its primary role. Your 25 Pounder Regiment can be used as AT -- if it's not providing indirect fire support that turn.

However, TOAW isn't even close to that level of sophistication. So pending that, weapons -- and men -- should be assumed to be performing their primary role.

As a general rule, of course. What should NOT be a general rule -- but is, in TOAW -- is that the flak is always there to help out the ground assault as well as fend off attacking aircraft. That just isn't what happened. It was always doing one or the other -- but only one.

In Seelowe, the British have various 40 mm AA batteries. Given British doctrine at the time, and given German air superiority, the reasonable assumption is that those AA guns would have spent most of their time trying to fend off the Luftwaffe. It would have been rare for them to help support an attack, and it also would have been unusual for them to be pressed into service as AT guns.

So given OPART's limitations, I felt -- and still feel -- the most appropriate way to handle them was to give them zero AP and AT strength.

They can only be used as AA guns. That's what they mostly would have done. That may not be a perfect reflection of what would have happened, but it's a damned sight closer than letting them routinely do precisely what they rarely did in 1940 -- support ground attacks and beat back panzers. To treat them otherwise is to give the British a weapon they would not in fact have had.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/19/2010 5:23:12 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1039
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/19/2010 10:50:04 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
I guess if you broke a scenario down to one hour turns or less you could do that. Would make all scenarios extrememly long. Or you could throw out Opart and make Tacart.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1040
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/19/2010 5:10:29 PM   
rhinobones

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Tobruk in 1942 . . . Sedan . . . Seelowe . . . 1940 . . . panzers


Agree that in the 1940's AA weapons were generally deployed to defend behind the forward line, however, this discussion is hung up on WWII and neglects the following 70 years of conflict. Nam, Afghanistan, Sinai, Iran/Iraq . . . I can think of plenty of scenarios where deploying dual use AAA in the forward echelon would be typical. Don't think that a global fix is the answer, rather the TOAW engine needs to have a selector available so that different eras can be modeled. This would help with the AA/AT conundrum and a host of other problems.

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 #: 1041
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/19/2010 5:46:05 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Because where the bombers are, and where the ground units are, aren't necessarily the same place -- nor would the ideal deployment for engaging ground targets necessarily be the ideal deployment for engaging bombers.


It certainly is if the target of the bombers are the friendly ground units! That's by far the most common case. If the friendly forces are either attacking or defending, enemy bomber support is going to be directed at those friendly forces. They will then defend themselves with their AAA assets, including, but not limited to, Flak equipment.

quote:

I already cited the fall of Tobruk in 1942, where there was plenty of Allied Flak -- just not where the ground combat was.


For doctrinal reasons. That's a different issue.

quote:

Let's look at Sedan. On May 14, the French were mounting various attacks from what would be the next hex at most scales, while the Germans were attacking out of that hex to expand their bridgehead. At the same time, an immense concentration of German flak was protecting the bridges themselves against furious Allied air attacks, allowing reinforcements to move into 'the hex' and win the ground battle.

Those flak guns didn't engage the counterattacking French units. They guarded the bridge. Had they been used to engage the counterattacking French units, they couldn't have protected the bridge.


Let's see if I've got this straight: The French player sets up a ground attack against German forces in a bridge hex. He then assigns all his air assets to ... bomb the bridge!

Yeah, that happens a lot.

In reality, what happens is that the bombers support the ground attack when that takes place, and attack the bridge in a separate round. Or, and this might be the most common situation, the bridge is in another hex further in the rear - which solves all issues.

Regardless, Flak doesn't have to be located directly on the bridge to be effective. The bombers have to fly to the target. They can get flakked on the way to or back. If the hex is under ground attack, then, by definition, it is the front boundary - that would have to be crossed by the bombers at some point. City defenses usually put the Flak in a ring around the city, rather than in it, for good reason.

So the flak can be at the front line (which may be anywhere in the hex) and still fire at the bombers attacking the bridge (which also may be anywhere in the hex) in most cases. Those rare cases where the frontlines and the bridge are too far apart within the hex to do so are addressed by the random chance of the combat resolution.

quote:

I think you'll find that over and over, a weapon can only do one thing at a time. Since attackers have a nasty habit of doing several things all at the same time, more often than not, the weapon can only be utilized against one of the incoming forms of attack.


But it's not happening "at one time" at the operational scale. As Karri said, you're thinking of a first-person-shooter. A ground assault in TOAW may represent hours of combat, while an air attack passes over in seconds. The bombers can be fired at for that interval without material diminishment of the ground attack/defense. In fact, enemy ground activity would usually halt while their bombers were in action lest they risk friendly-fire losses.

I don't think it's dual use that you are really objecting to. It's certain uses in particular.

quote:

In Seelowe, the British have various 40 mm AA batteries. Given British doctrine at the time, and given German air superiority, the reasonable assumption is that those AA guns would have spent most of their time trying to fend off the Luftwaffe. It would have been rare for them to help support an attack, and it also would have been unusual for them to be pressed into service as AT guns.

So given OPART's limitations, I felt -- and still feel -- the most appropriate way to handle them was to give them zero AP and AT strength.

They can only be used as AA guns. That's what they mostly would have done. That may not be a perfect reflection of what would have happened, but it's a damned sight closer than letting them routinely do precisely what they rarely did in 1940 -- support ground attacks and beat back panzers. To treat them otherwise is to give the British a weapon they would not in fact have had.


This, I think, is your real objection, and I don't have any problem with this. In fact, I'd like more help from TOAW with this. I continue to believe that rear-area stuff needs to be modeled in some fashion for most situations. Modeling just the frontline stuff impacts the choices players make in unrealistic ways.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1042
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/19/2010 10:06:03 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Does early British military doctrine really serve as a good example. Lack of flexibility was their undoing.

George: "Robert, there's one of those pesky PkwII coming up the road"
Robert: "Bah, I can't find my ammo for the AT rifle George"
George: "I thought I saw it right on the other side of the Howitzer"
Robert, after rummaging around the 25lbr Howitzer ammo: "No, I can't find it. Just shoot at it with the Enfield"

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1043
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/20/2010 8:41:06 AM   
fogger

 

Posts: 1446
Joined: 9/17/2006
Status: offline
How to defend a bridge 101.

For this exercise the AA troop has 4 AA guns and each gun has a range of 2,000 meters. Place Gun 1 - 1,000 meters north of bridge. Gun 2 - 1,000 meters east of bridge Gun 3 - 1,000 meters west of bridge & Gun 4 - 1,000 metres south of bridge. Enemy plane attacks from north. Gun 1 open fires at max range 2,000 meters (which is 3,000 meters from bridge). At approx 1,500 metres from bridge Guns 2&3 open fire. At 1,000 metres from bridge plane flies over gun 1 and Gun 4 open fires. Over bridge all 4 guns are firing at the plane. If more than one enemy plane then guns 1, 2 & 3 changes target. Gun4 will continue to engage plane until it flies over it and then will change to engage second plane.

The enemy plane is under fire 3,000 meters from the bridge and flying into more AAA as it approaches the bridge. Remember that as long as the bombs miss the bridge you have achieved your task in defending the bridge. Bring down an enemy plane is a bonus.

Also as the AA guns are spread over the area it is possible to take part in the area defence plan in an AT role. How ever if the enemy is getting that close to the bridge I would be thinking of making sure the demo charges are in working order and be packing up my gear.

Anyway that is how I used to plan my defence when I was an army officer.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1044
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/20/2010 5:35:42 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Does early British military doctrine really serve as a good example. Lack of flexibility was their undoing.

George: "Robert, there's one of those pesky PkwII coming up the road"
Robert: "Bah, I can't find my ammo for the AT rifle George"
George: "I thought I saw it right on the other side of the Howitzer"
Robert, after rummaging around the 25lbr Howitzer ammo: "No, I can't find it. Just shoot at it with the Enfield"


It's a little more complicated than that. Flak guns really don't make ideal AT weapons due to their high profile. The Germans were able to get away with it in the desert due to Commonwealth attacks being so ill-coordinated. The tanks would usually go in before the artillery bombardment.

Later in the war, the Germans had to devise a proper 88mm AT gun, because the Allies had wised up a bit.

So, it's debatable which was more damning - lack of Commonwealth use of AAA in an AT role, or that they let the Germans get away with it for so long.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1045
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/20/2010 5:59:43 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
If there is going to be a line up for adversaries that 'let' the Axis use the 88 Flak as an AT weapon then the UK will have lots of company. Many nations used whatever resources were at hand to accomplish a task. The Germans just happened to be more at ease with doing so than other nations. They were masters of improvisation. (i think i just sprained my brain)

In any event, I don't see how TOAW can make decisions about what a weapon is being used for at a particular point in time. Each combat round would have to be divided up into hours and each units actions during any particular hour or minute or whatever would have to be decided. It would take a super computer to get it all done in a reasonable amount of time. Is that AA machine gun on that tank being used for anti personel right now in this hour or minute or is it shooting at that airplane flying off to the side 100 meters away? I think if that much detail is desired then go play a tactical game.

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1046
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/20/2010 8:20:06 PM   
golden delicious


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It's a little more complicated than that. Flak guns really don't make ideal AT weapons due to their high profile. The Germans were able to get away with it in the desert due to Commonwealth attacks being so ill-coordinated. The tanks would usually go in before the artillery bombardment.

Later in the war, the Germans had to devise a proper 88mm AT gun, because the Allies had wised up a bit.

So, it's debatable which was more damning - lack of Commonwealth use of AAA in an AT role, or that they let the Germans get away with it for so long.


S'an interesting point- however 88mm FlaK guns continued to be effective in more close environments. After 1942, we weren't fighting in the Western desert.

Anyway, I recall discussing why the 3.7" AA gun didn't see the same range of uses as the 88: the calibres are about the same and on the face of it they're similar weapons. Turns out that the 3.7" gun weighs about twice as much as the 88. In design, it was considered largely as a static weapon, so the priority would have been stability over mobility.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1047
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/20/2010 8:23:12 PM   
golden delicious


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

If there is going to be a line up for adversaries that 'let' the Axis use the 88 Flak as an AT weapon then the UK will have lots of company.


Mmm. The British often get a bad rap, but no-one who went up against the Germans 1939-42 came out of it looking very good. In fact we're the only ones who managed to avoid losing entire armies at a stroke.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1048
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/21/2010 4:49:57 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

S'an interesting point- however 88mm FlaK guns continued to be effective in more close environments. After 1942, we weren't fighting in the Western desert.


Nevertheless, the Germans were compelled to create a true 88mm AT gun. Why do that if you don't have to? The AT gun can't be used in a Flak role. That's unlike the DP gun, which can do both.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 6/21/2010 5:03:24 PM >

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 1049
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/21/2010 4:56:00 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: fogger

How to defend a bridge 101.

For this exercise the AA troop has 4 AA guns and each gun has a range of 2,000 meters. Place Gun 1 - 1,000 meters north of bridge. Gun 2 - 1,000 meters east of bridge Gun 3 - 1,000 meters west of bridge & Gun 4 - 1,000 metres south of bridge. Enemy plane attacks from north. Gun 1 open fires at max range 2,000 meters (which is 3,000 meters from bridge). At approx 1,500 metres from bridge Guns 2&3 open fire. At 1,000 metres from bridge plane flies over gun 1 and Gun 4 open fires. Over bridge all 4 guns are firing at the plane. If more than one enemy plane then guns 1, 2 & 3 changes target. Gun4 will continue to engage plane until it flies over it and then will change to engage second plane.

The enemy plane is under fire 3,000 meters from the bridge and flying into more AAA as it approaches the bridge. Remember that as long as the bombs miss the bridge you have achieved your task in defending the bridge. Bring down an enemy plane is a bonus.

Also as the AA guns are spread over the area it is possible to take part in the area defence plan in an AT role. How ever if the enemy is getting that close to the bridge I would be thinking of making sure the demo charges are in working order and be packing up my gear.

Anyway that is how I used to plan my defence when I was an army officer.


I'm going to take a wild guess here and say you're talking about low-altitude AAA - machineguns and such. Here are the figures on the 88mm Flak-41:

Ceiling: 49,200 feet = 14.9Km.
Horizontal Range: 21,580 yards = 19.6 Km.

No plane entering a 10km hex will be out of range of that gun, regardless of where in the hex it may be.

(in reply to fogger)
Post #: 1050
Page:   <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   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  33 34 [35] 36 37   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.375