RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

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 37 38 [39] 40 41 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/13/2010 12:11:59 AM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

Well prior to the war there was quite a debate about the proper caliber for light divisional artillery, with the US army and Wehrmacht going for the 105mm, UK for 87mm and Red Army for 7.62mm guns (which were to be replaced by 107mm artillery, starting in 1941). And the Germans had the long range 105mm as well, so clearly they felt there was a niche for a longer range light artillery piece. Mainly useful for counter battery fire I suppose. �

I'm sure that since the Germans had lots of 88's anyway, it made sense to use them as divisional artillery. However, I doubt if it was an especially efficient use of the piece. All those optics, all that velocity, all that ability to rapidly deploy, the training of the crews as AA gunners and in a ground combat role -- all obviously wasted.

It's like when I had my moving company. Well, when the car was out of commission, we used the moving van to go to movies in. That doesn't mean it was the best tool for the job. It does show the Mack could serve in more than one role.

It made an outstanding camper, as well...in fact, I would have kept it for that purpose if the peculiarities of insurance and registration fees hadn't made such a course of action prohibitively expensive.

But I digress...

The 88 was an outstandingly versatile piece of equipment that played a decisive role in several important engagements -- most famously, as an extremely long-ranged AT gun. Sterile debates about who said what when and attempts to demonstrate the truth of logically improbable propositions don't contribute much of anything to anything.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to madner)

Post #: 1141

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/13/2010 2:07:11 AM

Panama

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

*Panama checks the horses pulse*

Nope, no sense beating this horse any more, it's dead.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1142

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/13/2010 5:24:39 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

Now if that would be true, why would the above mentioned report complain about the usage versus ground forces? It only makes sense if they were deliberately used (like latter in Wacht am Rhein) to support ground forces.

A small fraction were used in emergencies. When they did so, their performance was abysmal. Most were kept in the rear for air defense of the frontline forces.

I don't see how anyone could read that article and not understand that the 88's had lost their effectiveness as AT by 1944. Or that they were now primarily used by ground forces for air defense because of that.

quote:

Not comparable as in the desert the flak units represented a significant percentage of German units capable of destroying tanks. If you posses one third of the anti tank assets you should at least destroy as many tanks.

Based on my CFNA scenarios, I have a grand total of about 2000 AFVs, 500 AT guns, and 138 88mm DP guns for the Axis in the Desert War. That's about 5% of the AT assets. I could be off by a little, but not that much. There weren't that many of them. Big contrast to Normandy.

The important point is that a retreating force is subject to tank losses for operational reasons (cut off, breakdown, out of fuel, etc.), and tactical losses will mostly be inflicted by mobile equipment.

quote:

The Red army artillery coordination was always poor, that said they 7.62 was by design meant to be both field and AT gun, and engage targets mostly by direct fire.

They did get better as the war progressed. And, didn't their tanks have HE?

And, I will repeat for one more time: The Germans were compelled, late in the war to create a dedicated 88mm AT gun, and abandoned the comparable Flak-41. That only has one rational explaination: The 88mm Flak was no longer effective in the AT role.

Regardless, the point remains that the 88's were only effective in the AT role against incompetent enemies. If the Soviets were still incompentent, they may still have been effective against them. But only for that reason.

quote:

But I digress, wasn't it you that claimed that the 8.8 was able to be dismounted fast enough to engage strafing aircraft without prior warning?

No. I've said that:

1. In many cases they would have prior warning because the planes start out at altitude where they can be spotted at great distance,
2. Even if they don't, they can deploy in time to engage them before they fly back out of range,
3. Multiple passes by strafing aircraft can be engaged,
4. At certain locations (see post #1111) they would already be automatically unlimbered.

Let's review the quote in that post one more time. Note that it contains the following three words:

heavy Flak is required

So, if the moving unit is ever going to cross a bridge, defile, or intersection, or ever halt, it requires heavy Flak. By policy.

Hard for me to understand how anyone could read that statement and still claim that heavy Flak was "useless" for air defense of moving units.

quote:

Certainly after destroying targets it would be possible to shift the firing positions?

The article clearly shows that repositioning is a major weakness of the Flak gun.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 7/13/2010 5:25:51 PM >

(in reply to madner)

Post #: 1143

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/13/2010 5:49:23 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

88's, employed as AA guns, would tend to be in the rear with the gear, protecting fixed and vulnerable points, which yes, were plentiful, even in the desert. As such, they would usually not be in a position to support assaults and provide AT protection. When they were deployed in such roles, they were usually not in a position to fulfill the AA mission they were best at. The 88's can be protecting Tank Repair Workshop 8, or they can be smashing up Matildas. They can't be doing both. Not at once.

This has all been completely disproved by the article.

1. By 1944 88's were organically included in the TO&E of panzer divisions and even corps-sized allotments of them were being rushed to the front for even more support of the ground forces. The worse the Air War got, the more 88's were needed at the front.

2. Their primary purpose was air defense of those forces. They were too close to the front to be defending Tank Repair Workshops, airfields, ports, etc. They were close enough to provide artillery support, which was close enough to protect the frontlines.

3. AT wasn't even their secondary role by that time. And when used in that role, they were abysmal at it.

4. Nevertheless, they did do both at the same time - operationally. Exactly the way it's represented in TOAW.

Let's just post the link to the article again:

http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/gerob/othghq/3flak.html

It's such a fantastic read. No fair reading of that article (that omits certain people on this thread) can escape the total agreement it provides to my position:

1. The 88mm Flak was only effective in the AT role due to enemy incompetence.
2. The British in the Desert War were one of those incompetents.
2. It was always effective in the Air Defense of ground forces role, and remained especially so to the end.
3. Later in the war, enemy competence improved, and the gun was no longer effective in the AT role.

That's what I've been saying all along, and the article totally vindicates that.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1144

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/13/2010 7:34:39 PM

golden delicious

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

1. By 1944 88's were organically included in the TO&E of panzer divisions and even corps-sized allotments of them were being rushed to the front for even more support of the ground forces. The worse the Air War got, the more 88's were needed at the front.

2. Their primary purpose was air defense of those forces. They were too close to the front to be defending Tank Repair Workshops, airfields, ports, etc.

Really? You mean Panzer divisions don't have rear area assets? Bridges along their supply routes?

One feature of Normandy was the Allied habit of preceeding major offensives by plastering the combat zone with heavy bombers. That's why the Heer started deploying it's own 88s in the divisions rather than relying on the corps guns provided by the Luftwaffe.

quote:

4. Nevertheless, they did do both at the same time - operationally. Exactly the way it's represented in TOAW.

Either the gun is on the line waiting for armour to show up, or it's back at the bridge pointed at the sky. It can't be both.

In fact your source proves this point. III Flak was designed by the Luftwaffe to protect rear areas- and so it did that. Only occasionally did it even encounter Allied tanks. The exception would be the small sub-units specifically organised for anti-tank roles, but the article points out that these had received little training and in any case had only a few guns.

Note that at most TOAW scales, an 88 can be guarding lines of communication from air attack and still be in the first two hex rows.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 7/13/2010 7:39:23 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1145

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/13/2010 7:40:04 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

*Panama checks the horses pulse*

Nope, no sense beating this horse any more, it's dead.

It would seem you were mistaken.

For one thing, that ain't a horse.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1146

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/13/2010 10:09:18 PM

Panama

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

I certainly hope those are not your britches on the horn.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1147

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/13/2010 11:33:42 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I certainly hope those are not your britches on the horn.

I imagine opinions would differ about that.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1148

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/14/2010 3:18:10 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Really? You mean Panzer divisions don't have rear area assets? Bridges along their supply routes?

Yes. And troops in the front lines.

quote:

One feature of Normandy was the Allied habit of preceeding major offensives by plastering the combat zone with heavy bombers.

Specifically targeting the combat units themselves. Regardless, it was only done a few times, and only effectively a couple of times. That's hardly the reason that 88's were added to the TO&E of panzer divisions and etc. They were already in the TO&E before those few strategic bomber diversions.

quote:

Either the gun is on the line waiting for armour to show up, or it's back at the bridge pointed at the sky. It can't be both.

This really stumps me. What is it that prevents a Flak gun in an AT position from firing at a plane that flys over? And what is it that prevents a Flak gun in an air defense position from firing at a tank that penetrates the lines?

Nevermind that, operationally, the unit was clearly doing both at the same time. 462 planes shot down. 92 Tanks destroyed. (And doing artillery support at the same time as well - a "TP" gun). That isn't some theory. It's an observed fact.

quote:

In fact your source proves this point. III Flak was designed by the Luftwaffe to protect rear areas- and so it did that. Only occasionally did it even encounter Allied tanks. The exception would be the small sub-units specifically organised for anti-tank roles, but the article points out that these had received little training and in any case had only a few guns.

It litterally states that the guns were at least close enough to provide artillery support. That's close enough to provide air defense as well. Note the horizontal range of the 88's that I listed earlier. They can easily fire at planes 10km away from their location. There's no question that they could provide air defense to the front lines if they were only a couple of kms behind it.

Regardless, the principle fact is that the gun was provided to the frontline units for the purpose of air defense. That's all that I require for my claims. It was a true DP weapon. Claims that it was only useful to frontline units for AT purposes have been proven false.

That, of course, was also proven by the simple fact that no dedicated 88mm AT gun was produced till very late in the war. That could only be justified by the gun's dual purpose. And, the fact that such an AT gun was finally required, proves that it's AT purpose was no longer effective late in the war. And, we've clearly seen that the reason it was effective earlier was enemy incompetence. And enemy competence was the reason its effectiveness waned late in the war.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 7/14/2010 3:21:15 PM >

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 1149

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/14/2010 6:11:41 PM

madner

Posts: 48
Joined: 6/21/2010
Status: offline

This is becoming frustrating. Your logic is fallacious, where you are reading far to much into what Zetterling wrote to support a thesis that is devoid of any support in facts.

I don't think it even deserves a detailed answer, but a quick point.

1. The Flak units attached to divisions on the Eastern front were attached to the units preparing for the offensive in the summer of 1942, at a time when the Luftwaffe was still capable of establishing air superiority. They main purpose was to deal with the heavy tanks of the Red Army. It wasn't done to combat air power, not 1942!

2. How do you arrive at the conclusion of abysmal performance? Clearly the numbers are quite favorable.

3. The Flak-Sturm units were specifically built to provide mobile support.

< Message edited by madner -- 7/14/2010 6:25:35 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1150

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/15/2010 8:45:42 PM

golden delicious

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Nevermind that, operationally, the unit was clearly doing both at the same time. 462 planes shot down. 92 Tanks destroyed.

In two months. They must've been really frantically running back and forth.

quote:

It litterally states that the guns were at least close enough to provide artillery support. That's close enough to provide air defense as well.

Not close enough for AT fire though.

quote:

Regardless, the principle fact is that the gun was provided to the frontline units for the purpose of air defense. That's all that I require for my claims.

This is hardly controversial in itself- it is an AA gun. Once the divisions started to be at risk of attack from high altitude bombers, it became necessary to provide them with high altitude AA guns.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1151

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/15/2010 8:56:31 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

This is becoming frustrating. Your logic is fallacious, where you are reading far to much into what Zetterling wrote to support a thesis that is devoid of any support in facts.

I'm not frustrated at all, since my position is iron-clad.

quote:

1. The Flak units attached to divisions on the Eastern front were attached to the units preparing for the offensive in the summer of 1942, at a time when the Luftwaffe was still capable of establishing air superiority. They main purpose was to deal with the heavy tanks of the Red Army. It wasn't done to combat air power, not 1942!

Then why didn't they create a dedicated 88mm AT gun for them by then? And you're actually claiming that German units in Russia in 1942 didn't need Flak protection? What about all those Sturmoviks? Were German units in Russia provided with Flak or not?

quote:

2. How do you arrive at the conclusion of abysmal performance? Clearly the numbers are quite favorable.

"The Flakkampfgruppen were not very successful in combat. The results were not in proportion to the casualties.11 They lost about 35 8,8 cm guns and 70 light Flak guns, while the number of tanks they knocked out were assessed to be twenty.12"

Losing 35 heavy and 70 light guns in exchange for 20 tanks is abysmal.

"The fact that the 8,8 cm Flak was not suitable for anti-tank misisons was also clearly recognized by the commanders and men serving in the III. Flak-Korps. Both in the post-war manuscript produced by the corps commander, Wolfgang Pickert5, and in a report, dated 20 September 1944, discussing the experiences from the actions of the corps during the battles in Normandy6, this is clear."

Not just my opinion, but the opinion of the commanders and men of the III Flak Corps. They ought to be in a position to know.

quote:

3. The Flak-Sturm units were specifically built to provide mobile support.

Not even a hint of that in the article. But, it's not really necessary to my position. The Flak units were provided to front line units for air defense purposes. It was a dual purpose weapon. That's all I need.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 7/15/2010 9:13:54 PM >

(in reply to madner)

Post #: 1152

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/15/2010 9:06:48 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Nevermind that, operationally, the unit was clearly doing both at the same time. 462 planes shot down. 92 Tanks destroyed.

In two months. They must've been really frantically running back and forth.

The key term was "operationally". As has been said before, this isn't a first-person-shooter.

quote:

quote:

It litterally states that the guns were at least close enough to provide artillery support. That's close enough to provide air defense as well.

Not close enough for AT fire though.

Only if they broke through. But, if the gun had still been effective in the AT role, they could have rushed them to the front in emergency situations. That fits with half-week turns just fine.

Regardless, the point was that they were there for air defense of the frontlines. They would actually be well positioned a couple of kms away from the targets. If the planes are flying parallel to the gun it reduces the transom adjustments and shrapnel timing adjustments needed. Kind of like firing at level bombers.

quote:

quote:

Regardless, the principle fact is that the gun was provided to the frontline units for the purpose of air defense. That's all that I require for my claims.

This is hardly controversial in itself- it is an AA gun.

Seems to be to Colin.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 1153

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/16/2010 2:48:30 AM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Nevermind that, operationally, the unit was clearly doing both at the same time. 462 planes shot down. 92 Tanks destroyed.

In two months. They must've been really frantically running back and forth.

The key term was "operationally". As has been said before, this isn't a first-person-shooter.

Indeed. Suppose, though, purely hypothetically, the attacker assaults a position and bombs its communications at the same time.

It's entirely possible the attacker might bomb that bridge -- and not wait for the defender to drag those 88's back up to the front. It's even possible they won't furnish the information the defender needs to schedule the successive deployment of the guns. Unsporting, you say? But such things have been known to happen.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1154

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/16/2010 3:02:09 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Indeed. Suppose, though, purely hypothetically, the attacker assaults a position and bombs its communications at the same time.

A key term here is "purely hypothetically". Not only is such synchronization very difficult to achieve, it's actually willfully avoided - the attacker's don't want to get killed by their own planes.

Regardless, it only takes seconds to re-aim the gun from the sky to the horizon. Air attacks last a few minutes at 200mph, ground attacks, at about 3mph take a lot longer. And this applies to all equipment, not just Flak. Almost everything in TOAW has AT, AA, and AP ratings.

quote:

It's entirely possible the attacker might bomb that bridge -- and not wait for the defender to drag those 88's back up to the front. It's even possible they won't furnish the information the defender needs to schedule the successive deployment of the guns. Unsporting, you say? But such things have been known to happen.

If they are in the attacked hex, then the attack may come to them. Attacks do penetrate the front, you know.

Regardless, the more common situation is for the attack to take long enough for reserves to be deployed against it. After all, that's what reserve movement represents in TOAW - a unit not even in the hex joins the fray.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 7/16/2010 3:15:08 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1155

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/16/2010 3:05:49 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

A couple of points to consider from this long-winded discussion:

1. Heavy Flak guns should be more vulnerable to directed artillery fire than normal if deployed forward. (Perhaps force dependent, depending upon the circumstances). I'm not sure about the mechanics, though - how to indicate that they are deployed forward.

2. Maybe AT guns should be less vulnerable to directed artillery fire than normal.

3. It should be possible to add artillery ranges to Flak guns without screwing up their assigned AT levels. (I don't know just how that works right now).

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 7/16/2010 3:22:23 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1156

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/16/2010 3:08:57 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

...

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 7/16/2010 3:09:26 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1157

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/16/2010 6:05:29 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Indeed. Suppose, though, purely hypothetically, the attacker assaults a position and bombs its communications at the same time.

A key term here is "purely hypothetically". Not only is such synchronization very difficult to achieve, it's actually willfully avoided - the attacker's don't want to get killed by their own planes.

Regardless, it only takes seconds to re-aim the gun from the sky to the horizon. Air attacks last a few minutes at 200mph, ground attacks, at about 3mph take a lot longer. And this applies to all equipment, not just Flak. Almost everything in TOAW has AT, AA, and AP ratings.

quote:

It's entirely possible the attacker might bomb that bridge -- and not wait for the defender to drag those 88's back up to the front. It's even possible they won't furnish the information the defender needs to schedule the successive deployment of the guns. Unsporting, you say? But such things have been known to happen.

If they are in the attacked hex, then the attack may come to them. Attacks do penetrate the front, you know.

Regardless, the more common situation is for the attack to take long enough for reserves to be deployed against it. After all, that's what reserve movement represents in TOAW - a unit not even in the hex joins the fray.

You're incorrigible.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1158

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/16/2010 6:06:38 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

A couple of points to consider from this long-winded discussion:

1. Heavy Flak guns should be more vulnerable to directed artillery fire than normal if deployed forward. (Perhaps force dependent, depending upon the circumstances). I'm not sure about the mechanics, though - how to indicate that they are deployed forward.

2. Maybe AT guns should be less vulnerable to directed artillery fire than normal.

3. It should be possible to add artillery ranges to Flak guns without screwing up their assigned AT levels. (I don't know just how that works right now).

Any way of deposing you? Having you locked away? One can accept the idea that there won't be any further development of TOAW -- but that there would be someone actively working to make the system worse is a bit hard to take.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 7/16/2010 6:09:43 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1159

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/16/2010 9:32:15 PM

Panama

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

3. It should be possible to add artillery ranges to Flak guns without screwing up their assigned AT levels. (I don't know just how that works right now).

Well, lets do this. We can make AAA a multi purpose swiss knife weapon. We can give it an artillery value so it can support ground combat at range. We can give it an AT value so it can help out in that respect. And we can give it an anit air value so it can help out with suppressing air units. And while we're at it let's give it anti ship values too since there's nothing stopping AAA from shooting at a ship. Did I leave anything out? Maybe something about elves and dwarves?

Personally I'd rather they work on giving scenario designers more tools. Make things like movement bias, communications and replacements dynamic so we can change values during a scenario. Things that would be really useful.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1160

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/16/2010 10:18:10 PM

Telumar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Well, lets do this. We can make AAA a multi purpose swiss knife weapon. We can give it an artillery value so it can support ground combat at range. We can give it an AT value so it can help out in that respect. And we can give it an anit air value so it can help out with suppressing air units. And while we're at it let's give it anti ship values too since there's nothing stopping AAA from shooting at a ship. Did I leave anything out? Maybe something about elves and dwarves?

Personally I'd rather they work on giving scenario designers more tools. Make things like movement bias, communications and replacements dynamic so we can change values during a scenario. Things that would be really useful.

Seconded.

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1161

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/17/2010 8:56:41 AM

ColinWright

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

Under the circumstances, one begins to feel a certain sense of futility in suggesting improvements -- but one can always hope.

I was looking at a photo of the German advance through the Ardennes in 1940: it was captioned 'the biggest traffic jam in history.'

At the moment, we have two different kinds of roads: improved and unimproved. As it stands, the difference between them are really rather insignificant. If the weather's inclement, unimproved roads can be worse than improved, but generally, the difference is primarily cosmetic. I can run improved or unimproved roads across the Ardennes: the German advance will progress about the same.

Also at the moment, there is a traffic factor that can make it hard to pile up units along a road without suffering penalties -- but again, this generally doesn't come into play, although there are scenarios where it works well.

So, I was thinking...

What if unimproved roads were made more susceptible to traffic effects than improved roads? Wouldn't this more effectively model the distinction? After all, the difficulty the Germans had in the Ardennes wasn't in running one vehicle across them; it was in running ten thousand vehicles across them all at once -- or trying to.

It would also help if the concern was to model the importance of securing the best road, as opposed to merely a road. After all, most places there's some meandering track that a regiment can straggle along without undue delay -- but if you want a ram a corps through, a really good road -- or network of roads -- is going to help. Such a distinction would also help to model the distinction between a road net capable of permitting a really large flow of traffic and one that is going to significantly delay the movement of large bodies of troops -- why the Ardennes were considered 'impassible.' They were a barrier -- the Germans just managed to overcome it.

If there was such a system, designers' considerations and players behavior would be more like in real life. Your choice of axis of advance would be dictated not just by other considerations, but by considerations of just how many troops could be shoved along a given road without excessive delay.

Finally, if we had a volume-based supply system in the first place, the volume of supplies that could flow up an unimproved road could be meaningfully distinguished between the volume that could be moved along a major thoroughfare. That would be nice as well. After all, if I think about California, if I want to drive my car across the Sierras, there are perhaps half-a-dozen motorable routes. However, if I want to pass the Colinite Hordes across and supply them in the wastes of Nevada, it would behoove me to secure I-80 over Donner summit in particular. Highway 4 et al are perfectly passable by individual vehicles, but one breakdown would instantly block all hope of two-way traffic.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 1162

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/17/2010 2:05:35 PM

Panama

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

Yes, roads and railroads suffer the same fate. I can move just as many divisions down a one track side branch as I can down a two track main line. Not only that but I can use a rail line without worry of congestion and any rail line will supply any number of units. With rail you can limit the total number of units moved but it's far too abstract since they can all be moved down the same mountain pass narrow gauge logging line.

I imagine to take care of these things it would require a major rewrite. Probably something that would be done along with the supply system you want. Volume based traffic along with volume based supply. And while we are at it how about letting people over ride the game's automatic movement allowance distribution.

Oh, and a few more counters wouldn't hurt.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1163

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/19/2010 2:46:09 AM

rhinobones

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

Is this what you are all arguing about . . . ? Hardly worth the effort.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rhinobones -- 7/19/2010 2:52:36 AM >

_____________________________

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 Panama)

Post #: 1164

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/20/2010 2:51:31 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Any way of deposing you? Having you locked away?

That's just how the Clippers feel about the Lakers.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1165

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/20/2010 2:58:06 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

3. It should be possible to add artillery ranges to Flak guns without screwing up their assigned AT levels. (I don't know just how that works right now).

Well, lets do this. We can make AAA a multi purpose swiss knife weapon. We can give it an artillery value so it can support ground combat at range. We can give it an AT value so it can help out in that respect. And we can give it an anit air value so it can help out with suppressing air units.

Anyone can already do all those things via the BioEd. There's nothing you or Colin can do to stop it. (Why you would want to is beyond me).

My point was that I don't know what happens to the AT value if you give the gun a range. There is a mechanism that applies 1/4 of a ranged gun's AP value as AT. But these guns would have assigned AT values. Which would take priority? Clearly, the assigned value should take priority if it is non-zero. That's all I was saying.

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1166

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/20/2010 3:08:23 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

At the moment, we have two different kinds of roads: improved and unimproved. As it stands, the difference between them are really rather insignificant. If the weather's inclement, unimproved roads can be worse than improved, but generally, the difference is primarily cosmetic. I can run improved or unimproved roads across the Ardennes: the German advance will progress about the same.

Also at the moment, there is a traffic factor that can make it hard to pile up units along a road without suffering penalties -- but again, this generally doesn't come into play, although there are scenarios where it works well.

So, I was thinking...

What if unimproved roads were made more susceptible to traffic effects than improved roads? Wouldn't this more effectively model the distinction? After all, the difficulty the Germans had in the Ardennes wasn't in running one vehicle across them; it was in running ten thousand vehicles across them all at once -- or trying to.

It would also help if the concern was to model the importance of securing the best road, as opposed to merely a road. After all, most places there's some meandering track that a regiment can straggle along without undue delay -- but if you want a ram a corps through, a really good road -- or network of roads -- is going to help. Such a distinction would also help to model the distinction between a road net capable of permitting a really large flow of traffic and one that is going to significantly delay the movement of large bodies of troops -- why the Ardennes were considered 'impassible.' They were a barrier -- the Germans just managed to overcome it.

If there was such a system, designers' considerations and players behavior would be more like in real life. Your choice of axis of advance would be dictated not just by other considerations, but by considerations of just how many troops could be shoved along a given road without excessive delay.

The new supply distribution method in 3.4 will start to address this. Supply ranges are in MPs not hexes. So, the mud and density penalties will accumulate supply reductions.

As to the difference between dirt and paved roads: It's not the width, it's the speed. One of my favorite "wishes" is for Motorized (or perhaps just Fast Motorized) units to pay only half a MP for each improved road traveled. This would not only affect troop movements, but supply ranges would double down improved roads. Their value over unimproved roads would be obvious.

quote:

After all, if I think about California, if I want to drive my car across the Sierras, there are perhaps half-a-dozen motorable routes. However, if I want to pass the Colinite Hordes across and supply them in the wastes of Nevada, it would behoove me to secure I-80 over Donner summit in particular. Highway 4 et al are perfectly passable by individual vehicles, but one breakdown would instantly block all hope of two-way traffic.

There are already "wishes" for both Trails and Super Highways. Not too many interstates have come under combat yet, though.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1167

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/20/2010 3:41:30 PM

Panama

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Not too many interstates have come under combat yet, though.

Then I take it you don't drive them in a metro area during morning rush.

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1168

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/21/2010 10:28:50 PM

damezzi

Posts: 299
Joined: 7/18/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Personally I'd rather they work on giving scenario designers more tools. Make things like movement bias, communications and replacements dynamic so we can change values during a scenario. Things that would be really useful.

I completely agree. Not in the contest of the debate, since I'm not following it, but as a lonely statement.

I also think that a scenario design manual would be more worth than a new players manual. Toaw is as good as its scenarios and some nice scenarios ideas were thrown away because of design flaws which could be avoided by a better (not much better) understanding of the game engine and access to the experience of those designers who are long dealing with scenario design problems. Dozens of times I have seen experienced designers making important and simple to follow statements here, which would help in the way of collecting better designed scenarios by the average designer, but which remain lost in the great pile of information of this (and other) forums.

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1169

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/23/2010 7:18:56 PM

Panama

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

How about making a wish list specifically focused on scenario design, separate from the current endlessly long wishlist? Probably not, eh?

_____________________________

(in reply to damezzi)

Post #: 1170

Page: << < prev 37 38 [39] 40 41 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist