Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

One of the more annoying effects of "Negative Shock" (Shock value set to under 100) is that entire formations go into "reorganization" making all of their constituent units unavailable for orders (other than dig in, tactical, or local reserve). A better approach I think would be to apply this random "reorganization" effect at the individual unit rather than at the entire formation-level...should be fairly straightforward to implement. Thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Applying it across units rather than formations would certainly make life a lot more interesting for scenarios like FITE where there aer a lot of units that can be affected!!

I must confess to getting irritated by having whole soviet armies frozen...sometimes for 2-3 turns (I only play the Sov's so far because of time limitations)....it would be much better to be able to run away with at least some of them rather than have the whole lot surrounded and KO'ed!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah -- but whatever the effect that's being simulated, a lot of times the reorganization is formation-wide. Stalin won't give permission for the army to withdraw, or General Dither-Delay wants to discuss these orders he's received, or whatever. If sometimes it's unreasonable that all eight units are pinned in place, at other times it would be equally unreasonable that three could move but four couldn't.

Take the UK non-counterattack to recover Maleme airfield in Crete. It wasn't like two battalions reacted promptly and quickly but a third did nothing. They were all in the same brigade, and they all sat on their hands.

I suppose that as usual the ideal would be for the designer to have the choice, but failing that, you can usually reduce the size of your formations if you don't like the numbers that are all being affected at the same time. It would be considerably harder to arrange matters so that whole formations went down if that's what you wanted and the re-org check had been redesigned so that it was carried out on a unit-by-unit basis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah -- but whatever the effect that's being simulated, a lot of times the reorganization is formation-wide. Stalin won't give permission for the army to withdraw, or General Dither-Delay wants to discuss these orders he's received, or whatever. If sometimes it's unreasonable that all eight units are pinned in place, at other times it would be equally unreasonable that three could move but four couldn't.

Take the UK non-counterattack to recover Maleme airfield in Crete. It wasn't like two battalions reacted promptly and quickly but a third did nothing. They were all in the same brigade, and they all sat on their hands.

I suppose that as usual the ideal would be for the designer to have the choice, but failing that, you can usually reduce the size of your formations if you don't like the numbers that are all being affected at the same time. It would be considerably harder to arrange matters so that whole formations went down if that's what you wanted and the re-org check had been redesigned so that it was carried out on a unit-by-unit basis.

I agree with Colin here. It models breakdowns in command-and-control. You can't move the units because their commander isn't responding to your orders.

However, there might be cases where it would be desireable to separate the two factors. In other words, you might want only the drop in combat strength/supply without the C&C effects; or you might want only the C&C effects without the CS/S effects. Splitting it up might be a useful editor enhancement.

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah -- but whatever the effect that's being simulated, a lot of times the reorganization is formation-wide. Stalin won't give permission for the army to withdraw, or General Dither-Delay wants to discuss these orders he's received, or whatever. If sometimes it's unreasonable that all eight units are pinned in place, at other times it would be equally unreasonable that three could move but four couldn't.

Take the UK non-counterattack to recover Maleme airfield in Crete. It wasn't like two battalions reacted promptly and quickly but a third did nothing. They were all in the same brigade, and they all sat on their hands.

I suppose that as usual the ideal would be for the designer to have the choice, but failing that, you can usually reduce the size of your formations if you don't like the numbers that are all being affected at the same time. It would be considerably harder to arrange matters so that whole formations went down if that's what you wanted and the re-org check had been redesigned so that it was carried out on a unit-by-unit basis.

I agree with Colin here. It models breakdowns in command-and-control. You can't move the units because their commander isn't responding to your orders.

However, there might be cases where it would be desireable to separate the two factors. In other words, you might want only the drop in combat strength/supply without the C&C effects; or you might want only the C&C effects without the CS/S effects. Splitting it up might be a useful editor enhancement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Perhaps you  still get a formation-wide "hit" if the HQ was frozen?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah -- but whatever the effect that's being simulated, a lot of times the reorganization is formation-wide. Stalin won't give permission for the army to withdraw, or General Dither-Delay wants to discuss these orders he's received, or whatever. If sometimes it's unreasonable that all eight units are pinned in place, at other times it would be equally unreasonable that three could move but four couldn't.

Take the UK non-counterattack to recover Maleme airfield in Crete. It wasn't like two battalions reacted promptly and quickly but a third did nothing. They were all in the same brigade, and they all sat on their hands.

I suppose that as usual the ideal would be for the designer to have the choice, but failing that, you can usually reduce the size of your formations if you don't like the numbers that are all being affected at the same time. It would be considerably harder to arrange matters so that whole formations went down if that's what you wanted and the re-org check had been redesigned so that it was carried out on a unit-by-unit basis.

I agree with Colin here. It models breakdowns in command-and-control. You can't move the units because their commander isn't responding to your orders.

However, there might be cases where it would be desireable to separate the two factors. In other words, you might want only the drop in combat strength/supply without the C&C effects; or you might want only the C&C effects without the CS/S effects. Splitting it up might be a useful editor enhancement.

Separating the C&C and CS/S Negative (and Positive) Shock effects would definitely be an improvement over the current situation.

There's still an argument to be made in favor of an individual unit- as opposed to a formation-level reorganization effect. If this effect indeed models the loss of command & control by higher headquarters (represented by the player), who's to say it neatly applies only to whole formations? Why not to individual units within formations? What's the old saying: "there's always some poor bastard who doesn't get the word..." Anyhow, the current implementation just feels artificial to me.

Lemay's insight that the reorganization effect simulates a breakdown in C&C is also an argument in favor of my other two enhancements.

During the morning of 8 Oct 1973 two Israeli armored battalions launched separate, uncoordinated and unsupported attacks on dug-in Egyptian infantry armed to the teeth with state-of-the-art Soviet made anti-tank weapons. The results were predictable - both Israeli attacks were smashed with very heavy losses. Based on my research (from a number of sources) these Israeli armored battalions launched their attacks with little or no knowledge of the "attack plan" as conceptualized and disseminated by the IDF Southern Command. It's pretty clear the two Israeli armored battalion commanders independently took the initiative, on their own volition, to launch their attacks without positive control, even from their respective brigade-levels, much less from any higher command echelons. The 1973 war is a conflict I've studied intensively, but I'm sure there are numerous examples from other periods.

Finally, we've all read accounts (or have actual experience) of units moving in directions unanticipated by their higher commands, or just getting lost. This, of course, never happens in TOAW.

Bottom line: the Negative Shock reorganization effect is very one-dimensional. The only consequence of loss of C&C by higher headquarters is that entire formations just sit there. They never make foolish and ill-advised attacks with sometimes disastrous consequences. Nor do they ever careen off in nonsensical directions, or simply get lost during the course of movement.

quote:

One of the more annoying effects of "Negative Shock" (Shock value set to under 100) is that entire formations go into "reorganization" making all of their constituent units unavailable for orders (other than dig in, tactical, or local reserve). A better approach I think would be to apply this random "reorganization" effect at the individual unit rather than at the entire formation-level. Another "Negative Shock" effect I'd like to see implemented is a very small, but finite non-zero probability that an individual unit will attack an adjacent enemy unit without the player ordering it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06
...
Another "Negative Shock" effect I'd like to see implemented is a very small, but finite non-zero probability that an individual unit will attack an adjacent enemy unit without the player ordering it.
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06
They never make foolish and ill-advised attacks with sometimes disastrous consequences. Nor do they ever careen off in nonsensical directions, or simply get lost during the course of movement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Applying it across units rather than formations would certainly make life a lot more interesting for scenarios like FITE where there aer a lot of units that can be affected!!

I must confess to getting irritated by having whole soviet armies frozen...sometimes for 2-3 turns (I only play the Sov's so far because of time limitations)....it would be much better to be able to run away with at least some of them rather than have the whole lot surrounded and KO'ed!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I don't know about the veracity of that claim. Judging from what I've seen in few thousand pbem turns, I'd say it happens quite frequently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

...
(b) The designer could always have more, smaller formations. It would be much harder to reverse this and obtain formation-wide effects if the engine was checking for the effect unit-by-unit.
...

quote:

Perhaps you still get a formation-wide "hit" if the HQ was frozen?

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

...
In the real world, impetuous and insubordinate junior officers affect good and bad commanders alike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06



I like the compromise proposed by SMK-at-work in a post above:

quote:

Perhaps you still get a formation-wide "hit" if the HQ was frozen?

Reorganization check would be at an individual unit-level, but formation-wide reorganization could still occur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'd say the probability that a formation (or unit, if SStevens has his way) is susceptible to reorg should be heavily dependent on whether it's moved in the previous turn. That really is a major factor in the equation in real life. Everyone knows what to do on D-day. It's on D+3 that things are going all to hell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Frankly, I think the whole re-org thing works well enough. I'd rather see something done about the mechanism used for supply, or air/naval warfare, or one of the other major problems the system actually has.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Frankly, I think the whole re-org thing works well enough. I'd rather see something done about the mechanism used for supply, or air/naval warfare, or one of the other major problems the system actually has.

Ditto. Of course the problem with each of these is that they're huge undertakings when it comes to coding them, and there's no agreement on exactly what should be done and how.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Frankly, I think the whole re-org thing works well enough. I'd rather see something done about the mechanism used for supply, or air/naval warfare, or one of the other major problems the system actually has.

Ditto. Of course the problem with each of these is that they're huge undertakings when it comes to coding them, and there's no agreement on exactly what should be done and how.

Yeah -- but this cuts both ways. If we don't push for the hard bits, we'll probably keep getting the easy bits. How many versions of TOAW should we buy before its fundamental flaws are addressed?