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: OOB Information

 
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 >> RE: OOB Information Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: OOB Information - 1/24/2015 4:42:14 PM   
ogar

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 9/6/2009
Status: offline 		I wish this thread could be re-named and stickied, as it has developed in a useful discussion of HQs and formations and their limits -- thanks to Marquo for starting this. (I'll bet he did not expect it to drift off in all this theory vs his specific question !)

I agree with Curtis that all this asking for flexible attachment/detachment of units to a defined formation hierarchy _sounds_ good, but to have it work would mean a lot more detailed work by the gamer. I'm not sure most would approve of the extra work. (For the record, I'm one of the crowd lamenting the present, one-level, flat structure "formation" structure -- I still fire up the old Atomic Games once in a while to split off and re-attach units.) A defined command hierarchy would call for attachment/detachment rules (for subordinates and base units); it would also need command_specific supply sources (for example, VIII Corps pulls supply from location X) and rules to allow switching of supply sources (like changing formation objectives). As has been mentioned, there would also need to be span of control rules based on hierarchy, (and likely other things, proficiency, command experience...). These would help limit the end-result Curtis describes...
quote:


where you can scatter your units all over the place without much consequence.

And that would be a lot of work -- for the gamer as well as designer.


Back to Marquo's question,
other reasons that designers sometimes have only a few units per formation is the need to set differing objectives, and the need for differing qualities like Formation Supply or Proficiency, and then there's Formation Orders.
Example :So, while OOBs may list the dozen or so tank regiments and brigades attached to 48th Army as directly reporting to 48th Army, I put them in their own formation, and put the array of artillery regiments in their own formation, and the handful of direct report rifle divisions in a 3rd formation. Each formation has differing tasks and objectives, and this is one way to make a scenario resemble the history.
Of course, a different designer with a different view of the battles and the scope and duration he wants to cover may do it differently to get better effects - from his view -- from the formations.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 31
RE: OOB Information - 1/24/2015 4:43:53 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

This is what bugs me about the lust for a command hierarchy.


Immersion. And not only that. Distribution of Supply and Replacements could be handled through a hierarchical OOB (along the line of sending 80% of Replacements to Army Group South). Okay, supply is a different matter as long as it's not volume based. I think Elmer could benefit from a hierarchical OOB too, i outlined this once to Ralph.

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 32
RE: OOB Information - 1/24/2015 5:06:14 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

I still fire up the old Atomic Games once in a while to split off and re-attach units.)


Amen to that !

(in reply to ogar)
Post #: 33
RE: OOB Information - 1/25/2015 11:15:43 PM   
mmarquo


Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
quote:

As the designer of Ardennes 1944, let me jump in with a couple of comments. First, thank you for your interest, and your constructive criticisms. Indeed TOAW has an issue with hierarchy of command, but that has bothered me less as time has gone by. Indeed in an ideal TOAW with a complete hierarchy, it would be difficult to model because many times subordinate units are switched to different major commands, new major commands are added, etc.


Why is the 82nd Airborne a complete formation whereas the 101st units all seem to be independent?

(in reply to r6kunz)
Post #: 34
RE: OOB Information - 1/26/2015 12:07:27 AM   
r6kunz


Posts: 1103
Joined: 7/4/2002
From: near Philadelphia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Why is the 82nd Airborne a complete formation whereas the 101st units all seem to be independent?

The Screaming Eagles were deployed as independent regiments in the perimeter around Bastogne. When I tried to deploy the 101st as a division, Elmer was not able mount a perimeter defense - I found the only way to create the siege of Bastogne was as individual regimental strong points. The 82nd went in as a more cohesive division.

Thanks again for your constructive criticism.

_____________________________

Avatar image was taken in hex 87,159 Vol 11 of
Vietnam Combat Operations by Stéphane MOUTIN LUYAT aka Boonierat.

(in reply to mmarquo)
Post #: 35
RE: OOB Information - 1/26/2015 12:23:38 AM   
r6kunz


Posts: 1103
Joined: 7/4/2002
From: near Philadelphia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

For example, there is an 8th corps HQ, I think an AA unit is the only unit which it seemingly commands...but how do I know which divisions? An which Army it reports to? Even if chrome for the game's sake, it should be demonstrable.

quote:

For example, there is an 8th corps HQ, I think an AA unit is the only unit which it seemingly commands...but how do I know which divisions? An which Army it reports to? Even if chrome for the game's sake, it should be demonstrable.


To answer the question that originally started this thread, the US VIII Corps was originally the only unit garrisoning Bastogne at the onset, with a couple of attached AA and corps arty units. As the Germans approached Bastogne, the HQ displaced to Neufchateau, along with its attached units. (in the game, the Corps HQ is withdrawn from Bastogne and reappears in Neufchateau). So it primarily served as a defensive roll, and historically these small unit defensive actions of engineers, trains, artillery and HQ was what ultimately slowed the German panzers down.

One could argue doing away with HQ units, but I prefer the historic designations. As I mentioned, if one scrolls down the Order of Battle tab, the units appear in a more-or-less hierarchical fashion.



< Message edited by HPT KUNZ -- 1/26/2015 1:28:16 AM >

_____________________________

Avatar image was taken in hex 87,159 Vol 11 of
Vietnam Combat Operations by Stéphane MOUTIN LUYAT aka Boonierat.

(in reply to mmarquo)
Post #: 36
Headquarters Units - 1/26/2015 12:29:26 AM   
r6kunz


Posts: 1103
Joined: 7/4/2002
From: near Philadelphia
Status: offline 		Would it be appropriate to start a new thread to discuss HQ units?

_____________________________

Avatar image was taken in hex 87,159 Vol 11 of
Vietnam Combat Operations by Stéphane MOUTIN LUYAT aka Boonierat.

(in reply to r6kunz)
Post #: 37
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: OOB Information 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

7.703