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: A new idea to model partisan warfare.

 
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: A new idea to model partisan warfare. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 9:01:14 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

quote:

Huh? Didn't you read my other posts?

No dude, they don't read your posts; all they do is swarm like piranahs to tell you everything that is wrong with your idea, because they are nerdy dorks who think they sound cool if they contradict other people. You have a great idea but these people really aren't open to new ideas.


Courtesy doesn't really inhibit me from responding to this as I would prefer, but the automatic censor in the board's program does. However, I'm hardly the first target you've picked out. You're amazing. You label people 'nerdy dorks,' call them 'immature,' immediately attack anyone who responds to any idea you have with anything other than uncritical praise, and then accuse others of trolling.

The worst of it is that you are transparently ignorant about the system under discussion, appear to have nil knowledge of the subject it attempts to simulate, and yet feel entitled to simultaneously shoot your mouth off on the need for improvements and attack anyone whose improvements wouldn't be the same as those you propose. It's like watching an arrogant lawyer walk into a construction project, pull the contractor off the job, and start ordering changes in the plumbing and wiring.

Gee, guess what? I'm one of the guys 'working' on this 'construction project,' so to speak. The Mexican drywall dude, or something. We don't think you have any idea what you're doing, we don't like you, we think your ideas are awful, and we don't feel like following your instructions. Trip over a ladder and fall into the empty elevator shaft or something. You're an *******.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/16/2007 9:03:59 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)
Post #: 31
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 11:59:37 AM   
golden delicious


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The 'partisans' would fly off to another land carrier or conventional air base. The land carrier itself would behave in combat like a normal unit.


This could actually work rather well. You could destroy the partisans- IF you took out all of their bases at once (they would have nowhere to fly to and would evaporate). This of course is rather challenging.

Anyway, because it uses existing code, it sounds relatively easy to implement. The problem I have with it is that the partisans will be able to quite literally fly over anything. Deep water, fortified lines, impenetrable swamps. This might need to be addressed.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 11/16/2007 12:00:48 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 32
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 12:01:36 PM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2366
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

"It's a good idea -- assuming a detailed model of partisan warfare was needed. "
It is not a detailed model, it is simply an exact parallel model of the air system, except with partisans instead of air planes.


"The truth tends to be unromantic: most times and most places partisans have been such a low-grade nuisance"

Well that is exactly my intention, partisans can make a few interdiction strikes on passing units, and not a whole lot else. The controlling player puts his partisans along the enemy supply line and that is all he has to do. The other player put military police down his supply line and that is all he has to do. No chasing units around the map.

Right now I am playing a game where in about 4 months partisans have destroyed every major bridge and every kilometer of rail line in Northern Italy, as well as invading Austria and capturing Innsbruck. Under my system everything you suggest partisan warfare should look like will be the case, while all the unrealistic damage they can do will be impossible.



Yeah. My point is that the guerilla effect really models things pretty accurately. Your rail lines will get breaks in them if you don't garrison them, roads will become slower to move along unless they're similarly garrisoned. The only problem other than the lack of romance is that the effect is global.



..not that global, great in countryside with or without rail, less likely to appear on roads, and virtually never on urban, and a lot of the bombers actions are in urban..


_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 33
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 12:03:36 PM   
golden delicious


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The bases would be destroyed. The 'guerillas' -- being air units -- would relocate to the nearest friendly airbase.


The move will put them in reorganisation. Also, if the base unit itself is strong enough to force a proper assault, the guerrillas will suffer losses in the process. You'd also be able to get good results by leaving the base where it is and just hammering it with artillery and airpower. This is less realistic.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 34
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 7:19:51 PM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline

You - "My own vote would be to stick to the guerrilla effect and make it definable by hex radius from a given location"

Me -"When you see an air unit on the battle field, the air base isn't really its exact location, at any given time, the air unit may be located at any given point within its radius.

Applying the same idea to partisans, you get the effect of the partisans patrolling out in a radius from their base and making random attacks against targets of opportunity."

Now I am confused, I suggest that we change partisans from a physical unit to an area effect within a fixed radius, the center placed by the scenario designer. You so no, it would be better if they were an area effect within a radius set by the scenario designer.

Then you say-

"Ah. Well then you're talking about doing something that can't be done with the current system. In that case, why don't we get rid of the flying partisan idea entirely? After all, they don't fly. They can and were effectively cordoned off and kept away from sensitive areas. "

Does that contradict your idea? If you have a guerrilla effect within x hexes from point A, well then if point A is sensitive to the German player there is nothing he can do to cordon it off, because it is a hex effect.

On the other hand under my idea, one player has partisans, but the other player has military police, if partisans are attack one area, just put military police there and it is protected. Just like if they enemy is making interdiction strikes with bombers, you put fighters there to provide cover.


"Such a radius can already be assigned to the refugee effect, so evidently the necessary programming mechanisms are more or less in place."

Right now there are some lines of code saying something like this:

Terrain type airbase
unit flag "air operations"
units with air operations flag:
-are capable of these missions: air superiority, interdiction, combat support, direct strikes, bridge strikes
-Have a range of 210 hexes (or whatever)
-Can only be located at terrain type airbase

now you copy and past all that and change a little bit:

Terrain type partisan base
unit flag "partisan operations"
units with partisan operations flag:
-are capable of these missions: Anti Partisan duty(air superiority), interdiction, combat support, direct strikes, bridge strikes
-Have a range of 10 hexes (or whatever)
-Can only be located at terrain type partisan base

There is only 3 changes you need, air planes can't use partisan bases and vice versa, airplanes don't intercept partisans, and partisans don't have  a range of 210, otherwise you are just copying and pasting the existing system.












(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 35
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 7:45:09 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/16/2007 7:47:41 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 36
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 7:47:24 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu


You - "My own vote would be to stick to the guerrilla effect and make it definable by hex radius from a given location"

Me -"When you see an air unit on the battle field, the air base isn't really its exact location, at any given time, the air unit may be located at any given point within its radius.

Applying the same idea to partisans, you get the effect of the partisans patrolling out in a radius from their base and making random attacks against targets of opportunity."

Now I am confused, I suggest that we change partisans from a physical unit to an area effect within a fixed radius, the center placed by the scenario designer. You so no, it would be better if they were an area effect within a radius set by the scenario designer.

Then you say-

"Ah. Well then you're talking about doing something that can't be done with the current system. In that case, why don't we get rid of the flying partisan idea entirely? After all, they don't fly. They can and were effectively cordoned off and kept away from sensitive areas. "

Does that contradict your idea? If you have a guerrilla effect within x hexes from point A, well then if point A is sensitive to the German player there is nothing he can do to cordon it off, because it is a hex effect.

On the other hand under my idea, one player has partisans, but the other player has military police, if partisans are attack one area, just put military police there and it is protected. Just like if they enemy is making interdiction strikes with bombers, you put fighters there to provide cover.


Why military police? They aren't normally used to fight partisans.
quote:




"Such a radius can already be assigned to the refugee effect, so evidently the necessary programming mechanisms are more or less in place."

Right now there are some lines of code saying something like this:

Terrain type airbase
unit flag "air operations"
units with air operations flag:
-are capable of these missions: air superiority, interdiction, combat support, direct strikes, bridge strikes
-Have a range of 210 hexes (or whatever)
-Can only be located at terrain type airbase

now you copy and past all that and change a little bit:

Terrain type partisan base
unit flag "partisan operations"
units with partisan operations flag:
-are capable of these missions: Anti Partisan duty(air superiority), interdiction, combat support, direct strikes, bridge strikes
-Have a range of 10 hexes (or whatever)
-Can only be located at terrain type partisan base

There is only 3 changes you need, air planes can't use partisan bases and vice versa, airplanes don't intercept partisans, and partisans don't have a range of 210, otherwise you are just copying and pasting the existing system.
















Stop me if I'm wrong, but in the first section quoted, you are defining your idea as being one where the partisans aren't represented with an actual unit, but in the second section you are discussing changes so that the partisans are represented with an actual unit.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/16/2007 7:48:53 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 37
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 7:52:09 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

"It's a good idea -- assuming a detailed model of partisan warfare was needed. "
It is not a detailed model, it is simply an exact parallel model of the air system, except with partisans instead of air planes.


"The truth tends to be unromantic: most times and most places partisans have been such a low-grade nuisance"

Well that is exactly my intention, partisans can make a few interdiction strikes on passing units, and not a whole lot else. The controlling player puts his partisans along the enemy supply line and that is all he has to do. The other player put military police down his supply line and that is all he has to do. No chasing units around the map.

Right now I am playing a game where in about 4 months partisans have destroyed every major bridge and every kilometer of rail line in Northern Italy, as well as invading Austria and capturing Innsbruck. Under my system everything you suggest partisan warfare should look like will be the case, while all the unrealistic damage they can do will be impossible.



Yeah. My point is that the guerilla effect really models things pretty accurately. Your rail lines will get breaks in them if you don't garrison them, roads will become slower to move along unless they're similarly garrisoned. The only problem other than the lack of romance is that the effect is global.



..not that global, great in countryside with or without rail, less likely to appear on roads, and virtually never on urban, and a lot of the bombers actions are in urban..



Nae doot. The problem, though, is that partisans are global in the sense that a partisan uprising in Serbia also causes one in Austria.

The effect can't be limited to a specific area. Since refugee effects can be, I suspect that it wouldn't be all that hard to limit the guerrilla effect as well.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to a white rabbit)
Post #: 38
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/17/2007 12:01:10 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
I'm inclined to give this the thumbs down. This would be an increase in abstraction (a reduction in realism). Guerrillas don't actually function like aircraft so it's bound to have all sorts of unrealistic effects. Normally the better way to model something is to effect as much realism as possible (at least that's my instinct). See item 7.20 in the wishlist - Hidden units.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 39
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.904