Timed Steps vs Normal Steps?

[flashatf]

Hi,

I have been a big fan of TAO2 and was just wondering if anyone could explain the difference between timed steps and normal steps in KP. I have noticed in some of the screenshots that some units have step losses with the step loss in red and a small number beside it while other units have the "normal" white step loss. What is this new feature in KP? It also seems to be included in the replacement pool...really looking forward to the release

Thanks

[Duncan Maggs]

Timed steps are steps that will be replaced automatically by the unit after the stated number of turns elapses. A unit may replace the lost step with a normal replacement if available before the timed step is automatically replaced.

In this event the timed step will be returned to the unit's own internal pool and in the event of a future step loss this may be a timed one. A unit will only receive a finite number of replacement timed steps and after they have been used up no more will be received.

I am a KP beta-tester and this is my understanding of timed steps. If any other beta-tester or spokesman for Matrix/SSG has anything to add or correct in my explanation above please do so.

[BrubakerII]

Hi flashatf

Duncan is certainly right. Some units have a finite amount of 'timed' replacements in which step losses are replaced automatically after a predetermined set number of turns until their limit of timed replacements is exhausted.

This picture shows a part of the unit display where the units have all taken losses which are being replaced at differing lenghts of time. They all still have 2 timed replacements still available in their respective pools and this is shown by the small number in a yellow circle ie. 2. The white number overlaying the step loss in white is the exact number of turns until that step is replaced.

The whole concept is that some units at the beginning on major campaigns are in a position to make good their own losses independantly of HQ for a short period, hence many units in the game begin with a timed replacement capability.



As far as colours go, this next composite pic show you the range.

White skull on black is an old/previous loss.

Red skull on black is a current turn (from you or enemy) loss, while the numbered red loss on a red background is a timed loss.



Hope this helps.

Brubaker

[Capitaine]

The whole concept is that some units at the beginning on major campaigns are in a position to make good their own losses independantly of HQ for a short period, hence many units in the game begin with a timed replacement capability.

That's fine, but what are the actual logistics of this? Where are these replacements actually coming from? Do these units have certain subunits that are not factored into the combat factor of the unit?

Sounds like an interesting concept, but one about which I'd like to know a little bit more about.

[Duncan Maggs]

I think that the timed replacements represent to some extent the ability of a formation to heal itself through reorganisation. A disorganised and fatigued unit is less effective than one that is rested and in good order and so capable of obeying and carrying out its orders.

For example men considered missing or lost who rejoin their unit or tired men who have been able to recover their combat effectiveness through sleep. This enables a unit to restore its fighting ability without recourse to replacements drafted in from outside the formation.

It would be interesting though to know how the game decides through the combat system to award a timed loss as opposed to a normal loss.

[BrubakerII]

Thanks Duncan.

Yeah I think you are right. I think the whole concept of replacements is not simply attaching another battalion of men per se, but more the ability of a side to repair and reorganise a unit including adding additional men/equipemnt as required.

The Timed aspect is therefore the ability of units to conduct this operation themselves over a period of time as opposed to relying to higher HQ's to do it for them.

As to which units have timed replacements and which don't - this is pre-set by the scenario designer. Generally speaking though I have noticed that the higher quality more 'prepared' units have more allotted whereas units that are lower quality and have been on the line for some time tend to have few or none.

Hope this helps.

Brubaker

[Capitaine]

Thanks for more clarification, men.

Question: If a unit suffers a "timed loss", and subsequently suffers additional losses sufficient to destroy the unit (with the timed loss included), is the unit destroyed or not? IOW, does the timed loss count as a "real loss" until it actually completes its "time", or does it somehow give the unit more "steps" or longer life?

Thanks.

[Duncan Maggs]

A loss is a loss. A unit in KP that has been destroyed i.e. has no steps remaining cannot be rebuilt whether the losses were timed or normal losses.

I would like to see the option of rebuilding units from the dead pile that had suffered timed losses but had not been given the time by the enemy forces to gain the automatic replacement before being destroyed. This would be a logical continuation of the idea that the timed loss represented disorganisation and fatigue rather than the destruction of weaponry and reduction in manpower of a conventional step loss.

If a unit still had a timed losses pool to rebuild from i.e. hadn't already exhausted it in replacing previous timed losses while it still had a least one remaining step, it should be able to use one of them to reappear as a one step unit behind the lines in the nearest village or town which was in supply.

[Capitaine]

Duncan,

Rebuilding from the "dead pile" is an interesting notion but, as a veteran player of "The Ardennes Offensive", a unit that loses ALL of its steps is really considered obliterated beyond the scope of the current operation.

I would also think that if you were permitted to "rebuild" units from the dead pile, it would have to permit that option to ALL destroyed units inasmuch as virtually every unit that does not surrender en masse would have a cadre of the original left.

In TAO, destroying units was the only way to achieve a decisive German victory. The Allies early on had to watch very carefully to avoid large pockets getting cut off and losing too many units they'd need later on. If the Allies could rebuild from the dead pile within the scope of the game, they would have all those units coming back despite the fact that effectively, for that operation, they were hors de combat.

Rebuilding from the dead pile should really take a LONG time. And that, as noted, may well be beyond the scope of a single operation (more of a strategic option).

[Duncan Maggs]

Capitaine,

In the context of TAO I agree with you. The German player can have a hard time of it and allowing the US the advantage (with their flow of replacements) of rebuilding its dead units would probably make the chance of German success nil in that game.

However the idea was realised in one Ardennes boardgame - Danny Parker's The Ardennes Quad in which the US player was allowed to rebuild units provided they had not died out of supply.


Besides we are not necessarily talking about rebuilding units from annihilation but from extreme disorganisation and fatigue (which is what timed steps could represent). In this case the stragglers could be reformed by officers and after some rest and a hot meal have a sembalance of organisation again.

I agree that the longer the time which elapses the better the reorganisation and improvement in fighting strength and it would depend what had been destroyed. For example an armoured unit without tanks would not be able to reform itself! However when we use abstract steps some elements of reality may have to be sacrificed.

[Capitaine]

...we are not necessarily talking about rebuilding units from annihilation but from extreme disorganisation and fatigue...

Oh, I agree about what a destroyed unit actually represents, Duncan. However, I think that when a unit in this combat sim., with this time frame, suffers "elimination", it means that the disorganisation, fatigue, and simple combat effectiveness has been so thorough that mere replacements are insufficient to "revive" it within the span of the operation. The keeping "alive" of a noneliminated unit represents the opportunity to revive it before the serious disorganization, etc., sets in. IOW, units with one step left should be considered as virtually in "the dead pile". Get them out of the line and get them replacements!

And of course, as you note, units destroyed in a pocket w/o supply actually do lose "everything", and their reconstitution is clearly beyond the scope of a single operation. Right?

[BrubakerII]

Duncan I agree with Capitaine here. Although the concept of reviving dead units is a good one, in the time frame of this game may not necessarily be accurate.

On the other hand, one of the 'problems' of TAO2 in my opinion was that as German you could actually 'kill' American units and achieve victory that way. I think in real life had US unit been destroyed in that manner all heaven and earth would have been moved to bring other units/replacements to the line - moreso than did already.

In Korsun Pocket a similar situation can develop. If a side 'kills' too many units (say against a weak opponent) they can unbalance the game, where in real life again every single thing possible would be done to shift other armies if necessary forward to close gaps.

So I think the concept of reviving is a good one but perhaps needs to be done so carefully. Units 'killed' could reappear with one step say 5 turns later at the nearest valid supply depot and this could represent the cadre making it back to friendly lines.

I am not even oppsed to ALL units have a timed replacement facility but perhaps with more drastic timings involved. This way players have the option of pulling units back and 'sitting' on them until they rebuild to sufficent capability on their own, say over 5-10 turns, or speed this up by adding the valuable normal replacements.

To summarise it would be just an extension of the existing sytem.

Brubaker

[e_barkmann]

From a game enjoyment point of view, I would be considerably vexed to see an enemy unit I had worked hard to destroy (or render combat-ineffective, which I think is SSG's take on the outcome) re-appear at a later stage of the same battle.

Many German units that had made it to safety out of the Korsun pocket were ordered back into the line, but refused to do so and kept marching to safer rear-line areas.

I suppose there are examples of the opposite as well, but it appears that individual heroism rather than organised attacks/defense was the norm during the breakout.

I'm not sure we need to further refine steps and replacements - I mean, we already have an improved replacement system which allows the player to manage the unit's survivability over time and it's up to the player to make sure that he doesn't allow the unit to come to major grief in the first place (sometimes unavoidable as it is!)

Still, I am sure that SSG are quite keen on useful feedback so it's a good discussion point indeed!

Cheers, Chris

[Rob Gjessing]

I really like the idea of timed replacements.. it adds more depth to the game.. as opposed to TAO2.. you now have to decide if you want to keep 'that' unit out of the line for 2 more turns until it gets its replacement back.. and run the risk of having a a hole in your line.. or do u take the chance and put him in the line and hope he isnt picked on...

I looke at the timed replacements as the need to 'rest' my units.