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  43 44 [45] 46 47   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/9/2010 3:30:02 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact


Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.


That's debatable. At least in the old wargames, your turn or phase was over. One could argue the attack had been delayed until the encirclement had been completed.


No. The old turn sequence was:

Movement Phase
Combat Phase
Mechanized Movement Phase

So, your armor got to move on after the combat.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1321
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/9/2010 3:40:54 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: Panama

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.)


If there are still going to be units blocking why bother to move any units back anyplace? Letting units that are forced to retreat attack a blocking unit doesn't sound like a realistic event anyway. Besides, it will just complicate an already complicated programming exercise.


The original objective was to prevent defenders from being blocked by ants. But remember that we've now implemented 7.19: RBC escape. So, That passage is now:

7.20.3 After all such blocking enemy units are forced to move out of the way, any remaining blocking units are then subject to item 7.19 above.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1322
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/9/2010 3:50:46 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Hex ownership has some effect -- and the effect is often legitimate -- on supply and reconaissance. For that reason, it should perhaps be retained. However, at a minimum, designers should have the ability to dispense with its effects on movement.



But they have in 3.4.

XII.3 Enemy-Hex Conversion-Costs. Default is 100, where each enemy hex converted costs the moving
friendly unit the original 10% of its movement allowance (reducible by high recon levels, though). A value
of 50 would mean each hex costs 5% of the unit’s movement allowance (same effect of recon as above),
and a value of 200 would mean that each hex converted would cost 20% of the unit’s movement allowance.
A value of 0 would mean that there wouldn’t be any cost of hex conversion, no matter what the unit’s
movement allowance or recon level was. Actual cost to the unit is still rounded down. And there is still a
minimum cost of one, with the single exception for the setting of 0.


I've put this and other new parameters to use in my Leipzig 1813 scenario. Hex conversion is free. Also, there is no supply cost of movement. Units can't dig in at all.

And in CFNA, conversion now only costs 2.9% - works out to 1 MP for just about everybody. Supply cost of movement is 0.11 per MP. Readiness cost of movement is 0.29 per hex. Mobility is finally historical.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 1323
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/9/2010 3:56:51 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It would seem, though, that the terrain and defending status modifications to the odds of an RBC means that it is always possible an ant might stand. Is that correct?


That applies to RFCs, not RBCs (assuming you're talking about IV. 10).

The ant's chance of resisting an RBC should be in proportion to the overrun odds.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1324
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/9/2010 5:29:06 PM   
Panama


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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It would seem, though, that the terrain and defending status modifications to the odds of an RBC means that it is always possible an ant might stand. Is that correct?


That applies to RFCs, not RBCs (assuming you're talking about IV. 10).

The ant's chance of resisting an RBC should be in proportion to the overrun odds.


Ya know, it sure would be nice to get to try out all of this new stuff some day.

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1325
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/9/2010 5:30:49 PM   
Panama


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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact


Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.


That's debatable. At least in the old wargames, your turn or phase was over. One could argue the attack had been delayed until the encirclement had been completed.


No. The old turn sequence was:

Movement Phase
Combat Phase
Mechanized Movement Phase

So, your armor got to move on after the combat.


The thing is, in the Mech phase no one was blocking retreat because other than over runs combat was over. That was the point. And over run was considered movement not combat anyway.

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1326
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/9/2010 8:34:12 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact


Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.


That's debatable. At least in the old wargames, your turn or phase was over. One could argue the attack had been delayed until the encirclement had been completed.


No. The old turn sequence was:

Movement Phase
Combat Phase
Mechanized Movement Phase

So, your armor got to move on after the combat.


That was one variation. Not all wargames were SPI wargames.

In any case, all units did all their movement for the phase before combat was resolved in the system you're referring to. Same point. In TOAW, a unit can expend no movement, allow others to expend all their movement to close the pocket, then attack, annihilate the 'surrounded' unit, and still have up to 90% of its movement left.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/9/2010 8:36:47 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1327
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/9/2010 8:46:54 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Panama



We need to incorporate more scenario designer tools to eradicate the generic nature of TOAW.


That's my opinion. One view of TOAW is that it's a finished system that you can take and apply to simulate any battle from Gargamela to Desert Storm. The other -- and the one I think is more viable -- is that it should be a tool box providing the designer with as many adjustable values as possible so that he can create what amounts to a system tailored to the peculiarities of what he is trying to simulate.

The two don't necessarily conflict. So long as everything comes with a default value, people can tinker or not tinker as they see fit. Like, that new optional supply system. Well, it won't particularly suit my needs in Orient. So I'll stick with the old system. I've never really played with the effects of the attrition divider, so I just leave that value at default.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1328
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/9/2010 9:06:25 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		Regarding the 'time-stamp' idea, if my impression is correct, it would involve units being present in a given hex, yet not present in a sense -- which would obviously be somewhat visually confusing.

How about if we go for a simpler system? The minimum number of rounds is automatically determined by the movement left to all non-retreated adjacent units? You don't want a unit to delay an attack, don't move it adjacent to the hex to be attacked.

Or perhaps the timing could be determined by the greatest movement left to any one unit in each hex/left to any unit actually participating in the attack. That way you can pile units that will be traveling that way into the road hex in front of the unit to be attacked without fearing for the effect on the attack.

This last even creates the interesting phenomenon that blocking the retreat is that motorcycle company that got there with 70% of its turn left -- plus the Panzergrenadier you shoved in that has only 20% of its turn left. The attack goes off -- and the program looks at that hex and sees it happening after 30% of the turn is gone.

But come the retreat, it sees both the motorcycle coy and the PzGr bn. That could be seen as bad -- or it could be seen as the motorcycle coy. managing to hold on until the Pzgr. bn gets there. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Practically speaking, we'd probably want some way of retracting the last hex a unit moved. Else there will be lots of 'oh ****' moments. This will excite the cheat busters, but it wouldn't disturb me. Perhaps make that a design or play option as well. In an ideal world (for those who fret about cheating in the first place) the opponent could download a list of such 'take-backs' that were made.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1329
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/9/2010 11:20:49 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		The time stamp suggestion, for the game to 'remember' where a unit came from, seems to involve a lot of overhead. Each and every unit would have to have it's beginning turn location and every location it entered written to memory as well as how many movement points it had at each point. In a game where there are potentially four thousand pieces it seems rather cumbersome. Has anyone sat down and thought about how much memory would have to be set aside for this task?

The real problem is how people move their units. I know if I'm going to attack a hex. I know that if I move units to surround an opponent's unit and then don't use them in the attack, that I've done that. It doesn't take a an Einstein to understand that in real time the blocking units couldn't be there to block a retreat. I don't understand why a programmer and the people who decide what goes into the game need to go through contortions to keep people from doing this. I would much rather see the time spent on something of real value to the game. If people are going to do things that make no logical sense make them pay for it. If someone insists on blocking a unit's retreat with units that couldn't possibly be there in time to do so, make all the surrounding units take part. If they insist on doing illogical things then make it eat up their turn. I'll wager they will stop.

Of course the problem with that is that some people will stop playing because they might have to think more so give them a switch. Real world mode. Science fiction mode. Okay, maybe different names. Grognard mode. Casual mode.



_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1330
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/10/2010 12:45:47 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Panama

...Grognard mode. Casual mode.




Yeah. On the other hand, it would be possible to get carried away. One does want to keep these sort of elaborations 'under the hood' in the sense of not involving elaborate bookkeeping for the player, and also fairly intuitively obvious in that one wants the unit that appears to be there to actually be there when one resolves the attack.



< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/10/2010 8:19:05 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1331
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/10/2010 7:16:55 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: Panama

The time stamp suggestion, for the game to 'remember' where a unit came from, seems to involve a lot of overhead. Each and every unit would have to have it's beginning turn location and every location it entered written to memory as well as how many movement points it had at each point. In a game where there are potentially four thousand pieces it seems rather cumbersome. Has anyone sat down and thought about how much memory would have to be set aside for this task?


Something like that is already being saved for the PBEM playback. And I don't think every hex entered would have to be saved. Just the last one. Regardless, computers have lots of memory.

quote:

The real problem is how people move their units. I know if I'm going to attack a hex. I know that if I move units to surround an opponent's unit and then don't use them in the attack, that I've done that. It doesn't take a an Einstein to understand that in real time the blocking units couldn't be there to block a retreat.


Not true, since you don't know how long the attack will take to complete. The blockers don't have to be there at the start of the combat. Just at the end of it.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1332
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/10/2010 7:40:11 PM   
Panama


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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

The time stamp suggestion, for the game to 'remember' where a unit came from, seems to involve a lot of overhead. Each and every unit would have to have it's beginning turn location and every location it entered written to memory as well as how many movement points it had at each point. In a game where there are potentially four thousand pieces it seems rather cumbersome. Has anyone sat down and thought about how much memory would have to be set aside for this task?


Something like that is already being saved for the PBEM playback. And I don't think every hex entered would have to be saved. Just the last one. Regardless, computers have lots of memory.


First, does the playback have every hex moved and is it the same thing as saving that information during the game? If I were you I'd ask Ralph about that before making that statement unless you've already seen the code and know that as fact.

Second, how on Earth would the game know which hex was going to be the last hex? It would have to save every hex as you moved because it couldn't possibly know which was going to be the last unless computers can now read minds. I don't think they can because mine would have locked up as soon as it got to page one of mine.

III, who's computer has lots of memory? Your's? Does that mean that, since your's has lots of memory, everyone's does? How many people do you want to risk locking out of the ability to run the game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

The real problem is how people move their units. I know if I'm going to attack a hex. I know that if I move units to surround an opponent's unit and then don't use them in the attack, that I've done that. It doesn't take a an Einstein to understand that in real time the blocking units couldn't be there to block a retreat.


Not true, since you don't know how long the attack will take to complete. The blockers don't have to be there at the start of the combat. Just at the end of it.


Somewhat true, not entirely. I know if I have a combat start on round one and I've moved a unit around to the opponents back hexes and all or most mp are used in doing so I stand an excellent chance of violating time.

I'm just trying to get people to think about other ways to get around this. There are people who play the game with computers that are not state of the art.

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1333
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/10/2010 8:05:52 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

The time stamp suggestion, for the game to 'remember' where a unit came from, seems to involve a lot of overhead. Each and every unit would have to have it's beginning turn location and every location it entered written to memory as well as how many movement points it had at each point. In a game where there are potentially four thousand pieces it seems rather cumbersome. Has anyone sat down and thought about how much memory would have to be set aside for this task?


Something like that is already being saved for the PBEM playback. And I don't think every hex entered would have to be saved. Just the last one. Regardless, computers have lots of memory.


First, does the playback have every hex moved and is it the same thing as saving that information during the game? If I were you I'd ask Ralph about that before making that statement unless you've already seen the code and know that as fact.

Second, how on Earth would the game know which hex was going to be the last hex? It would have to save every hex as you moved because it couldn't possibly know which was going to be the last unless computers can now read minds. I don't think they can because mine would have locked up as soon as it got to page one of mine.

III, who's computer has lots of memory? Your's? Does that mean that, since your's has lots of memory, everyone's does? How many people do you want to risk locking out of the ability to run the game?


I think Curtis has you here. TOAW is an ancient program -- and not particularly graphics intensive. Barring a user with a thing for cyber-antiques, or incredibly wasteful programming, I don't see how there could be a problem. Indeed, given the existence of the playback, it would seem the program already is keeping the data.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/10/2010 8:21:00 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1334
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/10/2010 8:11:34 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Not true, since you don't know how long the attack will take to complete. The blockers don't have to be there at the start of the combat. Just at the end of it.


Leaving aside the mechanics of how to get what we want, this does create an interesting potential question: what if the mechanism we make creates the possibility that the surrounding unit may or may not have gotten into place by the time the defender breaks and retreats?

One could wind up with rather ahistorical incentives to weaken the attack -- lest victory come too soon. Something to bear in mind as we move towards a solution to this problem.

Part of the final package might require a means for the attacker to choose to delay his attack to a specified round. Like, you decide (quite realistically, by the way) that you don't want this attack to happen until round three, as only then can you be sure the encircler will be in place on time. But in TOAW, you have very little assurance that your round one attacks won't wind up eating 70% of the turn. You shouldn't have to choose between a weak attack on round one, hoping for the desired delay, and waiting unnecessarily because some battle 500 miles away went into overtime.

However, all this may get too complex -- both for the designer to program and for the player to keep track of what is going on. Perhaps needless to say, I'm fonder of the relatively simple solution I outlined above. In cases where the defender is surrounded, the round the attack happens on is determined by the time the last hex was occupied.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/10/2010 8:17:57 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1335
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/10/2010 9:20:42 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		I sometimes wonder if all this is even worth the effort. Because of a dearth of resources things get changed at glacial speed.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1336
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/11/2010 4:12:57 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Panama

I sometimes wonder if all this is even worth the effort. Because of a dearth of resources things get changed at glacial speed.


Yeah. I've even thought about investing whatever time would be necessary to acquire the necessary skills, crack the damned thing myself, and have at it.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1337
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/11/2010 3:06:19 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: Panama

First, does the playback have every hex moved...


Yes.

quote:

... and is it the same thing as saving that information during the game?



Except for the MP info. That would have to be added. Even in the worst case imaginable the total would be like 6,000 sub-divided units x maybe 100 hexes x 3 values = 1.8MB. Even ancient systems had 256MB of ram, and then there's virtual memory that uses the hard drive.

quote:

Second, how on Earth would the game know which hex was going to be the last hex?


It could just keep a running save of the last hex moved from. So, when the combat occurred, that hex would be the one in memory. Note that that would reduce the RAM need to 18KB. A truely trivial amount.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1338
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/11/2010 3:14:36 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Part of the final package might require a means for the attacker to choose to delay his attack to a specified round.


That's not a bad idea. Of course, there's usually a suite of late units available to serve that purpose anyway. But, perhaps in some cases there wouldn't be just the right one around.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1339
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/11/2010 4:52:44 PM   
Panama


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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

First, does the playback have every hex moved...


Yes.

quote:

... and is it the same thing as saving that information during the game?



Except for the MP info. That would have to be added. Even in the worst case imaginable the total would be like 6,000 sub-divided units x maybe 100 hexes x 3 values = 1.8MB. Even ancient systems had 256MB of ram, and then there's virtual memory that uses the hard drive.

quote:

Second, how on Earth would the game know which hex was going to be the last hex?


It could just keep a running save of the last hex moved from. So, when the combat occurred, that hex would be the one in memory. Note that that would reduce the RAM need to 18KB. A truely trivial amount.


Cool.

I'm 61. Will I live to see it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1340
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/11/2010 6:59:57 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Part of the final package might require a means for the attacker to choose to delay his attack to a specified round.


That's not a bad idea. Of course, there's usually a suite of late units available to serve that purpose anyway. But, perhaps in some cases there wouldn't be just the right one around.


It wouldn't exactly add to the aura of authenticity if one found oneself calculating what unit to add to the stack to get the desired round. Particularly in situations left over from a previous turn, it'd come up, too.

You start the turn adjacent to an enemy unit that had been surrounded on four sides in the previous turn. You manage to move two units into position to complete the encirclement -- but neither one is something you'd care to add to the attack. Now you gotta go hunt for an MP battalion or something to shove into one of the actual attacking stacks that'll delay kickoff just the right amount.

Real authentic. It wouldn't be a game breaker -- but the situation is best avoided.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1341
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/11/2010 8:46:05 PM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline 		Since 3.4 allows the surrounded unit to make a final attempt at an overrun, a simpler way might be to have the defending units strength modified based on how late the unit is.

In other words, if it's round 3 and the unit is due to arrive on turn 6 then the defender would defend at roughly half-strength for the purposes of the overrun (or 3/4 or some other amount). It would take a bit of tweaking, but it may be simpler than what I've heard proposed. Something like 1/2 strength minimum + strength dependent on how late it is with in position being an extra 1/2 and 10 rounds late being 1/20 extra. That's probably the wrong curve, but that's the idea. I can calculate how late it is by how much of it's MP have been used. That's alread used in several places in combat.

Ralph


_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1342
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/11/2010 9:19:39 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		Would it be difficult to have it retreat through the hex if there is an opposing unit there? For that matter, until it gets to a clear hex subtracting movement points for the hexes move into/through?

_____________________________


(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 1343
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/11/2010 10:48:33 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Since 3.4 allows the surrounded unit to make a final attempt at an overrun, a simpler way might be to have the defending units strength modified based on how late the unit is.

In other words, if it's round 3 and the unit is due to arrive on turn 6 then the defender would defend at roughly half-strength for the purposes of the overrun (or 3/4 or some other amount). It would take a bit of tweaking, but it may be simpler than what I've heard proposed. Something like 1/2 strength minimum + strength dependent on how late it is with in position being an extra 1/2 and 10 rounds late being 1/20 extra. That's probably the wrong curve, but that's the idea. I can calculate how late it is by how much of it's MP have been used. That's alread used in several places in combat.

Ralph



This may have the virtue of being practical to implement, and I'm not saying it would cause me to rise in rebellion if it was implemented, but it does have one rather obvious drawback.

One likes to be able to see intuitively about what the situation is. That's an engineer battalion there? Might not hold... A fresh infantry regiment, that's cool. On to the next sector...

Come combat resolution, when it turns out the infantry regiment's strength is being divided by five, it'd be a nasty shock.

Plus, a unit is either there or it isn't there. Fifty Tigers that are still ten miles down the road don't slow a retreating column at all. They don't slow it with 10% of their strength -- they don't slow it at all.

One second thought, maybe I will rise in rebellion...for now, I'd certainly tend to argue for a different solution.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 1344
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/11/2010 10:55:50 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Panama

Would it be difficult to have it retreat through the hex if there is an opposing unit there? For that matter, until it gets to a clear hex subtracting movement points for the hexes move into/through?


To my mind, this has the drawback I pointed out with regards to Ralph's solution -- but in spades.

Now we've got units that appear to be there but aren't actually there at all when it comes time to resolve the attack. It seems to me better if players just hold back on entering the hex if they don't want the attack delayed accordingly. As I say, with a 'take back' feature, this should work fairly well. You can retract the move of a unit to its last hex when you get to the attack planning dialogue and you see that this PzJg battalion is going to make your attack eat up 70% of the turn.

Again, not to dismiss your solution out of hand -- but I'd hope to do better.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/11/2010 10:56:59 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1345
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/11/2010 11:17:20 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		I don't really like my solution but the one that would be most simple to do doesn't seem to sit too well. Once again, someone's lack of planning should not become the other player's problem, nor the programmer's. If you can't think as far ahead as you would in a game of checkers then you deserve what you get.

Once again, if a unit cannot physically be in a position to block a unit, the unit should be allowed to retreat. Physically meaning a time and space physically.

If a unit uses all of it's movement to get into a blocking position and the retreating unit it's blocking retreats on round three or five or eight that unit could not have been there could it? Or could it? It used all of it's movement allowance. And it couldn't have moved into the blocking hex untill it had spent it's last movement points. But if it had 24 movement points and it cost 12 to get into the hex when did it arrive in the hex? MP 13 or mp 14 or mp 24?


_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1346
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/12/2010 3:15:39 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Since 3.4 allows the surrounded unit to make a final attempt at an overrun, a simpler way might be to have the defending units strength modified based on how late the unit is.

In other words, if it's round 3 and the unit is due to arrive on turn 6 then the defender would defend at roughly half-strength for the purposes of the overrun (or 3/4 or some other amount). It would take a bit of tweaking, but it may be simpler than what I've heard proposed. Something like 1/2 strength minimum + strength dependent on how late it is with in position being an extra 1/2 and 10 rounds late being 1/20 extra. That's probably the wrong curve, but that's the idea. I can calculate how late it is by how much of it's MP have been used. That's alread used in several places in combat.

Ralph



This may have the virtue of being practical to implement, and I'm not saying it would cause me to rise in rebellion if it was implemented, but it does have one rather obvious drawback.

One likes to be able to see intuitively about what the situation is. That's an engineer battalion there? Might not hold... A fresh infantry regiment, that's cool. On to the next sector...

Come combat resolution, when it turns out the infantry regiment's strength is being divided by five, it'd be a nasty shock.

Plus, a unit is either there or it isn't there. Fifty Tigers that are still ten miles down the road don't slow a retreating column at all. They don't slow it with 10% of their strength -- they don't slow it at all.

One second thought, maybe I will rise in rebellion...for now, I'd certainly tend to argue for a different solution.


Even worse is that if its strength is reduced and that causes it to RBC, that act might result in a disengagement attack or even an evaporation.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1347
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/12/2010 5:28:40 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Panama

...If you can't think as far ahead as you would in a game of checkers then you deserve what you get...


Mm. Well, I think ahead further than most people I play. In fact, I dare say I spend far more time contemplating exactly what I intend to do before touching a counter than most people do.

...and I can see it being a pain in the ass if one is stuck with the consequences of moving another unit adjacent to a unit that, as the turn develops, turns out to be surrounded. Indeed, I have a scenario where one has to watch out for something similar -- and it is a pain in the ass.

On the other hand, a system where a unit is 'there' and yet not there would be less than ideal. If we can't trust the graphic display to even be telling us where our units are, what can we trust? I don't want to get into figuring out just which units that seem to be there are truly there.

So I think (if that's what we're talking about) that a system where the round on which the attack occurs is determined by when the last surrounding hex was occupied coupled with a 'take back' option is the best solution.

Very occasionally, the 'take back' would be blocked by too many units in the hex it came from. But assuming the scenario isn't suffering from bad design in the first place, that should be rare -- and rare enough so that it can be filed under 'live with it.'

For reference, the solution I'm peddling is outlined more fully in post #1328.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/12/2010 5:41:24 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1348
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/12/2010 8:58:04 PM   
golden delicious


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

In fact, I dare say I spend far more time contemplating exactly what I intend to do before touching a counter than most people do.


That's putting it mildly. I send you a turn, you acknowledge that you've received it and that you're opening it. STILL takes you six hours or whatever.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1349
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/13/2010 12:02:08 PM   
samba_liten


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Currently in Kiev
Status: offline 		Don't know if this is in the wish list already, but here goes.

Terrain. I'd like to see a one hex lake tile, as well as differentiated low capacity and high capacity railroads. Possibly another road tile as well, to represent smaller country roads.

The railroads could have different movement costs to illustrate the waiting required when using lower capacity railroads for heavy traffic.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 1350
Page:   <<   < prev  43 44 [45] 46 47   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  43 44 [45] 46 47   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875