Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Many of the other proposed naval changes sound good, but those under the 'revolutionary' section don't.

"9.16.1 Ships would be subject to damage. This would cause reduction in capability as appropriate. It would require repair. Sinking would be caused by 100% damage only. Naval units would not “evaporate” as land units do. They would only be eliminated if all ships in them were “sunk”. Damaged ships would not be returned to the pools – they would have to get back to port under their own power, debilitated by whatever damage they had incurred."

This seems to me to be entirely misconceived. In the scale and time frame OPART deals in, it's practically the opposite of reality. Take Crete: only a quarter or so of the Mediterranean Fleet was literally sunk -- but another two quarters was so damaged as to be unserviceable for various lengths of time.

Destroyers leaking from near misses can't put to sea again with reduced efficiency -- they have to dock and be repaired, or they'll sink. They're out, or they're in. Rarely are they coming back out of port but with only half of their original fighting strength.

The current system actually handles this about right. In OPART terms, all three-quarters of the Mediterranean fleet would be 'sunk' off Crete. Then the replacement engine will reluctantly dispense about half of the losses back over time.

And that's about what happened. A quarter were sunk for good, another quarter were so badly damaged as to be out of service for the duration of any reasonable TOAW scenario, and the third quarter were indeed repairable over the next few weeks or so.

In general, the whole thing seems to suffer from attempting to take a tactical approach to what is, after all, an operational level game ('Ships can have a secondary armament – with different range and shell weight from main armament...9.16.2 Modeling of catastrophic hits that detonate magazines.').

Sorry, but it's my guess that all this should be junked. If not junked, at least make it optional. It'll make matters worse rather than better. Get a stand-alone tactical naval game if that's what you want. This is like trying to make OPART do your taxes. It's not the right engine for the application.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Many of the other proposed naval changes sound good, but those under the 'revolutionary' section don't.

"9.16.1 Ships would be subject to damage. This would cause reduction in capability as appropriate. It would require repair. Sinking would be caused by 100% damage only. Naval units would not “evaporate” as land units do. They would only be eliminated if all ships in them were “sunk”. Damaged ships would not be returned to the pools – they would have to get back to port under their own power, debilitated by whatever damage they had incurred."

This seems to me to be entirely misconceived. In the scale and time frame OPART deals in, it's practically the opposite of reality. Take Crete: only a quarter or so of the Mediterranean Fleet was literally sunk -- but another two quarters was so damaged as to be unserviceable for various lengths of time.

Destroyers leaking from near misses can't put to sea again with reduced efficiency -- they have to dock and be repaired, or they'll sink. They're out, or they're in. Rarely are they coming back out of port but with only half of their original fighting strength.

The current system actually handles this about right. In OPART terms, all three-quarters of the Mediterranean fleet would be 'sunk' off Crete. Then the replacement engine will reluctantly dispense about half of the losses back over time.

And that's about what happened. A quarter were sunk for good, another quarter were so badly damaged as to be out of service for the duration of any reasonable TOAW scenario, and the third quarter were indeed repairable over the next few weeks or so.

In general, the whole thing seems to suffer from attempting to take a tactical approach to what is, after all, an operational level game ('Ships can have a secondary armament – with different range and shell weight from main armament...9.16.2 Modeling of catastrophic hits that detonate magazines.').

Sorry, but it's my guess that all this should be junked. If not junked, at least make it optional. It'll make matters worse rather than better. Get a stand-alone tactical naval game if that's what you want. This is like trying to make OPART do your taxes. It's not the right engine for the application.

Right. Like such "tactical" games as WitP and PacWar.

quote:

... Crete: only a quarter or so of the Mediterranean Fleet was literally sunk -- but another two quarters was so damaged as to be unserviceable for various lengths of time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You may or may not have a point -- how things work in WitP and PacWar, how valid they are as simulations, and how these mechanisms fit into the general structure of the game I couldn't say. I will observe that I don't have your apparently unwavering faith in the validity of these simulations -- and I doubt if closer inspection would change that. I've never seen any simulation that was completely valid. They all almost necessarily fall short. What varies is by how much they fall short.

quote:

However, the gist of what I posted is that the changes you propose, in TOAW, would seem to produce effects just the opposite of what happened in reality.

quote:

A lot of it revolves around realizing that ships lost in TOAW aren't necessarily sunk -- they're just removed from play, some of them permanently, some of them temporarily. That is, in fact, what tended to happen -- at least off both Crete and Norway. How many ships are rendered hors de combat for a while and how many are actually sunk are two very different things. The battle report says you lost four destroyers. It doesn't say they're sunk. In reality, of course, the destroyers Kimberly and Kashmir have indeed gone to the bottom, the Khyber is going to be out for a while on account of its bow having been blown off, and the Kwaanza merely has some loosened rivets and buckled bulkheads and will be back in a few weeks. The game engine allows for that. Half your losses will go into the pool, and depending on what replacement priority you set for the unit, will trickle back in sooner or later. It's one of the few aspects of the current naval model that actually works passably well.

quote:

If I'm going to win any argument here, it'd be the one over making terrain effects cumulative for movement and combat. That would pose some vexing problems -- and it would seem to violate your own stricture against making any changes that would damage those scenarios that are already in existence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If I'm going to win any argument here, it'd be the one over making terrain effects cumulative for movement and combat. That would pose some vexing problems...

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

... Crete: only a quarter or so of the Mediterranean Fleet was literally sunk -- but another two quarters was so damaged as to be unserviceable for various lengths of time.

I think if I understand 9.16.1 correctly, then under these new 'damage' rules, then 1/4 of your Med. Fleet would suffer 100% damage and be sunk, while 2/4's would suffer such a large % of damage that they should return to port for repairs or risk being easily sunk.

I guess 9.16.1 wouldn't accurately cover all cases. Bismark only suffered slight damage initially, but that slight damage made its ruder inoperable, effectly putting it out of commission (although it could still fire).

I think it was one of the US ships that was shelling Cherbourg that got hit by a large caliber German shell which didn't explode but imbedded itself in the hull. The ship was not really damaged at all, but returned to port immediately (for obvious reasons).

I think as long as 9.16.1 doesn't create a lot of extra work for the player, then it might be ok, especially if you are into playing naval scenarios.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If I'm going to win any argument here, it'd be the one over making terrain effects cumulative for movement and combat. That would pose some vexing problems...

This is one of my favorites. Terrain effects on defensive strengths of infantry when there is a forest in a clear hex is x2. When there is a hill it's x2. When there is and hill AND a forest x2. So why is it x2 when there's a forest on clear terrain and still only x2 when that forest is on a hill? Where's the logic?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You may or may not have a point -- how things work in WitP and PacWar, how valid they are as simulations, and how these mechanisms fit into the general structure of the game I couldn't say. I will observe that I don't have your apparently unwavering faith in the validity of these simulations -- and I doubt if closer inspection would change that. I've never seen any simulation that was completely valid. They all almost necessarily fall short. What varies is by how much they fall short.

The fact remains that they are operational naval wargames and they clearly felt a need to model ship damage. Can you do naval warfare treating ships as monolithic blocks? Sure - just as you could do land combat treating ground combat units as monolithic blocks - as they did back in the 1970s. But thank God that's no longer necessary. Unfortunately, naval combat in TOAW doesn't even rise to that level of legitimacy. It's a joke for any purpose other than using them as floating artillery. So, we would have had to overhaul it in some fashion no matter what. Might as well do it right.

quote:

However, the gist of what I posted is that the changes you propose, in TOAW, would seem to produce effects just the opposite of what happened in reality.

I don't see any downside to increased realism. Did real ships suffer damage in combat? Or did they either emerge unscathed or go "poof". It's that simple. How can damage levels result in "effects just the opposite of ... reality"? It is reality!

quote:

quote:

A lot of it revolves around realizing that ships lost in TOAW aren't necessarily sunk -- they're just removed from play, some of them permanently, some of them temporarily. That is, in fact, what tended to happen -- at least off both Crete and Norway. How many ships are rendered hors de combat for a while and how many are actually sunk are two very different things. The battle report says you lost four destroyers. It doesn't say they're sunk. In reality, of course, the destroyers Kimberly and Kashmir have indeed gone to the bottom, the Khyber is going to be out for a while on account of its bow having been blown off, and the Kwaanza merely has some loosened rivets and buckled bulkheads and will be back in a few weeks. The game engine allows for that. Half your losses will go into the pool, and depending on what replacement priority you set for the unit, will trickle back in sooner or later. It's one of the few aspects of the current naval model that actually works passably well.

As currently devised, naval combat doesn't use the ship's Defense Strength. That means that it is as easy to sink a BB as a DD - that's been confirmed via rigorous tests. Furthermore, whether ships are sunk or returned to the pools is perversely based upon the ship's unit-proficiency. And those damaged ships don't have to limp their way back to a port for repair - a port that could even be under attack while it was there. Instead they magically escape what may have been certain death, to an absolutely safe location (the pools). Rebuild times are, at most, four weeks for a destroyed unit, regardless of ship size or level of damage - and that's only if the unit was destroyed. Contrary to the above, ships in the pool can return immediately to a fleet unit that remained on the map - and that could be as short as 6-hours. For floating artillery, that's fine. For naval combat of any kind, it's a joke.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

There you are. The ships aren't going 'poof' except in your head. In fact, half of them are merely being forced to immediately return to port, there to undergo repairs of uncertain duration. Of the remaining half, half aren't necessarily sunk -- those vessels so badly damaged that they will not be repaired before the end of the scenario also fall into this category. For example, Formidable or whatever that carrier was that the Germans hammered in early 1941 would be 'sunk' in OPART terms. She didn't go 'poof' -- she's just no longer militarily useful, and hence permanently lost for the purposes of the scenario.

This part of the existing engine actually isn't bad. I wish that you'd devote your energies to fixing the parts that are bad.

quote:

You note various flaws -- I heartily agree the patient is sick.

quote:

I just don't think your prescription is going to cure the disease.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

First -- and most inarguably -- all previous scenarios were designed on the basis that terrain was not cumulative. So this change would distort them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Second, more terrain doesn't necessarily benefit the defense. It's going to be a lot easier to advance up a tree-covered hill than it's going to be to advance up one where you have no cover from fire from the crest. If the meadow leading up to Cemetery Ridge had been tree-covered, Pickett's job would have been easier, not harder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If people are set on it, it at least needs to be a designer choice that can be adopted or rejected without having to simultaneously forgo other changes one might want to take advantage of. In other words, having to take it or leave it as part of a 'package' would be almost as bad as having no choice in the matter at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

There you are. The ships aren't going 'poof' except in your head. In fact, half of them are merely being forced to immediately return to port, there to undergo repairs of uncertain duration. Of the remaining half, half aren't necessarily sunk -- those vessels so badly damaged that they will not be repaired before the end of the scenario also fall into this category. For example, Formidable or whatever that carrier was that the Germans hammered in early 1941 would be 'sunk' in OPART terms. She didn't go 'poof' -- she's just no longer militarily useful, and hence permanently lost for the purposes of the scenario.

This part of the existing engine actually isn't bad. I wish that you'd devote your energies to fixing the parts that are bad.

Total falsehoods - even after I spelled it out for you...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

First -- and most inarguably -- all previous scenarios were designed on the basis that terrain was not cumulative. So this change would distort them.

That is a moot point. 3.4 does that already. That's why there's a switch for new rules/old rules.
Under the Play menu - Default Options

"Which game rules do you wish to play with?
Updated Defaults
Classic Defaults
Cancel

There's also options to play with the new or old turn order and new or old supply rules. Under the Play menu - Game Options

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Second, more terrain doesn't necessarily benefit the defense. It's going to be a lot easier to advance up a tree-covered hill than it's going to be to advance up one where you have no cover from fire from the crest. If the meadow leading up to Cemetery Ridge had been tree-covered, Pickett's job would have been easier, not harder.

Which also means more terrain can benefit the defense.

quote:



Or not. It's unpredictable. Terrain aren't necessarily cumulative in reality.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If people are set on it, it at least needs to be a designer choice that can be adopted or rejected without having to simultaneously forgo other changes one might want to take advantage of. In other words, having to take it or leave it as part of a 'package' would be almost as bad as having no choice in the matter at all.

And this is spot on. It would be a far better game engine if scenario designers could toy with almost every aspect. I'd like to see a scenario designer have the ability to assign movement points to terrain instead of using the games default and a plethora of other things. Global values, unit values, formation values, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Under the Play menu - Default Options

"Which game rules do you wish to play with?
Updated Defaults
Classic Defaults
Cancel

There's also options to play with the new or old turn order and new or old supply rules. Under the Play menu - Game Options

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Which also means more terrain can benefit the defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas
Have you been playing a lot lately? I guess not. If you had you'd agree with me that more benefits for defense and TOAW is over for good...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

That suggests something. A designer-set limit on how much units can entrench and/or the benefit derived would do a lot to make the game able to simulate pre-World War One conflicts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

That suggests something. A designer-set limit on how much units can entrench and/or the benefit derived would do a lot to make the game able to simulate pre-World War One conflicts.

There's already something very similar introduced by 3.4:

"4. Entrenchment Rates. Default is 100, under which units dig in at the same rate as now. A value of 50 halves the rate, and a value of 200 doubles the rate, etc. A value of 0 prevents any digging in at all, and (under that special case) digging in attempts don’t zero remaining MPs."

And it works just fine.

quote:

I like the "color code" rule but there is no way to hard code this into the game, right? You have to rely on voluntary enforcement by two human players?

quote:

... but the bigger problem is that the German just don't hold up under sustained attacks.

quote:

... the Allies can attack with much more intensity that their actual supply situation permitted

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brett Turner

Yes, I have played around with the attrition divider. 20 seems to be the sweet spot for some reason, the Germans do worse if it is either higher or lower.

Re the British, if it was just British vs. Germans you could make the British very loss intolerant (lots of German VPs for British losses) and that might force caution. But we can't have different loss tolerances for different *parts* of a force---another thing I wish we had.