Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
It doesn't need to be any faster.

If the area is not disputed... then yes, one would reasonably expect an advance to be faster.

BTW... I bring these things up not to gain advantage for one side or another. Don't really care actually. I bring them up to try to help bring more realism, at least theoretically, to the game.

Perhaps attrition, fatigue and morale could be scaled more robustly based on the distance (i.e., danger) each side is from the other. As the danger increases, so should the friction, just as when the danger decreases, so too the effects of friction should decrease.

Cheers,

Ray (alias Lava)

You'd need to also account for FOW at all times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

I understand the concept of enemy owned hexes this way:

Imagine if the game played the game in Real Time.  The Soviet units would be retreating while the Axis units would be tailing them right up to the new line the Soviets formed at the end of the turn.  It is appropiate the the Axis must use more MPs to advance to the new Soviet line than if all that land was already occupied by the Axis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

I understand the concept of enemy owned hexes this way:

Imagine if the game played the game in Real Time.  The Soviet units would be retreating while the Axis units would be tailing them right up to the new line the Soviets formed at the end of the turn.  It is appropiate the the Axis must use more MPs to advance to the new Soviet line than if all that land was already occupied by the Axis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

I understand the concept of enemy owned hexes this way:

Imagine if the game played the game in Real Time.  The Soviet units would be retreating while the Axis units would be tailing them right up to the new line the Soviets formed at the end of the turn.  It is appropiate the the Axis must use more MPs to advance to the new Soviet line than if all that land was already occupied by the Axis.

There is a concept in Soviet military operations of the stability of the defence. That is, it took time for a unit organised for a retrograde movement to deploy and occupy defensive positions, and it was important for a pursuing force to attack that position before it stabilised. As an example of the implementation of this idea in the West, the MG battalion of the late-WWI and early-WWII British infantry division was given the assets it needed to organise brigade and division stop lines--prepared heavy MG positions that retreating infantry could retreat to and organise a defence around.

The game lacks a concept of formation, so the delay to go from a column formation organised for movement to a linear formation organised for combat or vice versa is missing. The shift in formation, by the way, once had a specialised terminology: a unit deployed from column to line, and ployed from line into column. In NATO Division Commander--particularly after the errata were released--this was modelled, with a number of possible formations, and the OCS system uses a somewhat simplified version of the same system.

Beck's inter-war delaying defence envisioned the use of motorised machine gun Abteilungen, which could--due to their professional skill and motorisation--ploy and deploy much more rapidly than the French Army. With heavy firepower, they were expected to delay a French advance almost indefinitely. (Some of these Abteilungen were used to organise the 5th Light Division.)

This tempo superiority was the reason mobile forces in the German Army in the East were able to defend sectors for extended periods. As Red Army infantry forces approached in column, they deployed and forced the Red Army to deploy and organise an attack. Meanwhile they were ploying and falling back to the next position. That meant that the Red Army infantry was reduced to pursuing about 3-5 miles a day.

This local tactical dance is also the reason forces in contact were limited in how fast they could retreat. They couldn't simply form up in column and move out--they had to leave a screen in contact, and the screen was vulnerable to penetration by the mobile forces that even infantry divisions possessed. They could also conduct a tactical retreat and stay in formation to receive an attack--although once out of the organised position they were much weaker and more vulnerable. The Red Army lacked the training to conduct a successful retrograde, so once forced to retreat, things got messy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

I understand the concept of enemy owned hexes this way:

Imagine if the game played the game in Real Time.  The Soviet units would be retreating while the Axis units would be tailing them right up to the new line the Soviets formed at the end of the turn.  It is appropiate the the Axis must use more MPs to advance to the new Soviet line than if all that land was already occupied by the Axis.

There is a concept in Soviet military operations of the stability of the defence. That is, it took time for a unit organised for a retrograde movement to deploy and occupy defensive positions, and it was important for a pursuing force to attack that position before it stabilised. As an example of the implementation of this idea in the West, the MG battalion of the late-WWI and early-WWII British infantry division was given the assets it needed to organise brigade and division stop lines--prepared heavy MG positions that retreating infantry could retreat to and organise a defence around.

The game lacks a concept of formation, so the delay to go from a column formation organised for movement to a linear formation organised for combat or vice versa is missing. The shift in formation, by the way, once had a specialised terminology: a unit deployed from column to line, and ployed from line into column. In NATO Division Commander--particularly after the errata were released--this was modelled, with a number of possible formations, and the OCS system uses a somewhat simplified version of the same system.

Beck's inter-war delaying defence envisioned the use of motorised machine gun Abteilungen, which could--due to their professional skill and motorisation--ploy and deploy much more rapidly than the French Army. With heavy firepower, they were expected to delay a French advance almost indefinitely. (Some of these Abteilungen were used to organise the 5th Light Division.)

This tempo superiority was the reason mobile forces in the German Army in the East were able to defend sectors for extended periods. As Red Army infantry forces approached in column, they deployed and forced the Red Army to deploy and organise an attack. Meanwhile they were ploying and falling back to the next position. That meant that the Red Army infantry was reduced to pursuing about 3-5 miles a day.

This local tactical dance is also the reason forces in contact were limited in how fast they could retreat. They couldn't simply form up in column and move out--they had to leave a screen in contact, and the screen was vulnerable to penetration by the mobile forces that even infantry divisions possessed. They could also conduct a tactical retreat and stay in formation to receive an attack--although once out of the organised position they were much weaker and more vulnerable. The Red Army lacked the training to conduct a successful retrograde, so once forced to retreat, things got messy.

All well and good and accurate to real-world warfare. But almost meaningless to game design in the sense that you're only looking at 1 part of the picture: The Soviets.

A German panzer division did not advance in wedge formation covering 20-ish miles wide (for the ZOC abstraction) and 280 miles deep.

If you want ploying/deploying modes, what are you willing to give up for it?

Would you like to lose the terrain that you now "own" when there are open hexes without ZOC coverage by your side? Do you want to give up ZOC conversion of adjacent hexes? Do you want to give up Axis panzer movement points to go from moving to attacking (as many games with move mode/deployed mode do)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Constructive criticism is one thing, but all mr. erwin can ever do is claim that this result is wrong! this model is wrong! All is wrong!

Game development needs people who do, not people who just talk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Constructive criticism is one thing, but all mr. erwin can ever do is claim that this result is wrong! this model is wrong! All is wrong!

Game development needs people who do, not people who just talk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The largest problem with the OCS model of supply is that Trace Supply is free. There is no accounting for food/boots/medals/hats/whatever. It all magically shows up to the troops, free of transport. UNLESS you cut those troops off, in which case you get to magically turn all the bullets/grenades/ammo/fuel into food.. mmm yumm. And if you happen to not have the combat supply to eat, then 'poof' you magically disappear off the map. Don't even need to 'surround'.

As well...that one point of supply can be used to fuel up your trucks, or if you need to fire artillery, used for that instead. I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person could claim this be the be-all end-all of logistical supply for any game. At a bare minimum you can subdivide 'logistics' into sustenance/support for the troops (food, clothing, spare parts), Ammo (bullets, grenades, shells, armaments) , and fuel (hay, gas, diesel, lubricants).

OCS just gives you one type of supply. You get to turn it into what you want when you want it. Quite the abstraction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: christenberryd

For board games I've always thought it would be interesting to have non-motorized units halved if they have just moved into non-prepared positions.

I hope that in WITE a level 1 fort is the basic prepared defensive position for infantry.

With 1 week turns, combat vs. move formations are hard to model? Perhaps it could be argued that zoc mp costs somewhat model this. As you get close to an enemy unit and try to move, you spend time going into combat formation. Furthermore, the high moral units go through zoc with much less movement penalty, directly attesting to German mobile or Soviet Guards unit "operational tempo" superiority.

So if one side "suddenly" vacates several hexes, and in a real time situation we expect that the retreating units are being pursued with perhaps low level combat happening, what's wrong with the current situation of having to pay extra MP to advance into enemy territory? Especially when one considers the small bands of men left behind that can interfere with follow on supply columns?

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

You can think of it that way, but administrative movement is what you use when you're in your own rear area, and it's even faster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

(snip)

... it took time for a unit organised for a retrograde movement to deploy and occupy defensive positions, and it was important for a pursuing force to attack that position before it stabilised. As an example of the implementation of this idea in the West, the MG battalion of the late-WWI and early-WWII British infantry division was given the assets it needed to organise brigade and division stop lines--prepared heavy MG positions that retreating infantry could retreat to and organise a defence around.

The game lacks a concept of formation, so the delay to go from a column formation organised for movement to a linear formation organised for combat or vice versa is missing. The shift in formation, by the way, once had a specialised terminology: a unit deployed from column to line, and ployed from line into column... (snip)

... This tempo superiority was the reason mobile forces in the German Army in the East were able to defend sectors for extended periods... (snip)

quote:

I'd just recently heard of Viktor Suvorov & had been reading his 1990 "Icebreaker" while playing through my most recent GGWitE 1P CG (Axis).

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzKw43

quote:

I'd just recently heard of Viktor Suvorov & had been reading his 1990 "Icebreaker" while playing through my most recent GGWitE 1P CG (Axis).

He has written a new book Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II, published by the Naval Institute Press. It has some interesting facts in it.