Comprehensive Wishlist

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Legun

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'll note that composite units would actually let units use their trucks precisely as I tend to object to seeing them used. The infantry become panzergrenadiers. Infantry almost universally could ride in trucks -- but ordinarily didn't use them for tactical movement. The 2/5 Borsets may well have arrived to join the Amiens attack of 25 August 1918 on trucks -- I'm quite certain they didn't use them to exploit their success.

This shouldn't be as big problem as you mention...

It's not really a problem at all. It's just that one perfectly good idea -- composite units -- is not really the most satisfactory realization of another perfectly good idea -- separate transport units.

It's like I'm trying to sell you my moving van as a motor home for your family vacation. Well, you keep wanting a Winnebago. It's not that there's anything wrong with my moving van -- it's a fine moving van. It's just that it's not really what you want.

[ColinWright]

Here's another idea which may already be in the wish list: captured equipment.

It wouldn't really be a vital change, but forces do often put captured equipment to use -- and quite quickly.

I'm working on Operation Exporter -- the Commonwealth invasion of French Syria -- at the moment. The Australians first came into contact with Vichy armor in serious quantity on 11 June. By 20 June, the first of their 'Cavalry' squadrons already had four R-35's in it, and at least two other of the six squadrons total had followed suit by the time the campaign ended on 11 July.

There are other, larger scale examples: the British had equipped a whole armored brigade with recently captured Italian M11/41's by March 1941, and of course the Germans made prompt and heavy use of captured French and Soviet artillery.

One could simply have the usual portions of any 'lost' equipment dumped in the pool for both sides. Designers could then create an ability to acquire such equipment simply by creating slots for it. For example, in Exporter, the Australian cavalry Squadrons all have '0/3 35R' in their equipment list -- although naturally I have to resort to more cumbersome devices than the one I am suggesting to get them their R-35's.

As a note, obviously infantry, MG's, etc should be excluded from this treatment. The simplest way I can see would be to exclude all equipment that isn't tagged as belonging to a particular nationality. The tagged equipment is pretty much the artillery and armor that we're talking about -- and of course designers could keep B-17's out of the Luftwaffe simply by refraining from giving Luftwaffe units slots for B-17's.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Here's another idea which may already be in the wish list: captured equipment. ...

Item 3.15

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
One could simply have the usual portions of any 'lost' equipment dumped in the pool for both sides.

Would suggest that lost equipment and disabled equipment only be captured if at the end of the turn the hex is owned by the side doing the capturing. Otherwise the equipment should go to the originator's equipment pool.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Levelworm]

Could I suggest seperate 'News Summary' for two sides?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Levelworm

Could I suggest seperate 'News Summary' for two sides?

Yeah. If that's not already in the list it should be.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Levelworm

Could I suggest seperate 'News Summary' for two sides?

Yeah. If that's not already in the list it should be.

Item 11.5

[Sker]

I would like to see something to make some of my unit have a priority when the replacement are assigned. For example if one of my infantry division in a key point of my offensive is about to running out of men or equipment I would like to send them a larger part of the avaible replacements than another unit who is not in a such important place.
Maybe just add a menu with three levels of priority: something like high, normal and low.

[Sker]

I would like to see something to make some of my unit have a priority when the replacement are assigned. For example if one of my infantry division in a key point of my offensive is about to running out of men or equipment I would like to send them a larger part of the avaible replacements than another unit who is not in a such important place.
Maybe just add a menu with three levels of priority: something like high, normal and low.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Sker

I would like to see something to make some of my unit have a priority when the replacement are assigned. For example if one of my infantry division in a key point of my offensive is about to running out of men or equipment I would like to send them a larger part of the avaible replacements than another unit who is not in a such important place.
Maybe just add a menu with three levels of priority: something like high, normal and low.

I second that. Maybe together with a hierarchical OOB a player could channel the flow of replacements al gusto. On the other this could turn into excessive micromanagement in bigger scenarios like Dno, EA, FitE, so it better should be kept simple.

In the scenario editor a designer already has the possibility to set replacement prorities for each individual unit, but once set it can't be changed anymore during play. I'd like to see replacement priorities that can be changed by events.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Sker

I would like to see something to make some of my unit have a priority when the replacement are assigned. For example if one of my infantry division in a key point of my offensive is about to running out of men or equipment I would like to send them a larger part of the avaible replacements than another unit who is not in a such important place.
Maybe just add a menu with three levels of priority: something like high, normal and low.

I second that. Maybe together with a hierarchical OOB a player could channel the flow of replacements al gusto. On the other this could turn into excessive micromanagement in bigger scenarios like Dno, EA, FitE, so it better should be kept simple.

In the scenario editor a designer already has the possibility to set replacement prorities for each individual unit, but once set it can't be changed anymore during play. I'd like to see replacement priorities that can be changed by events.

Note that the ability to do this in reality is limited; or to be more precise, the results can be less than happy.

In Operation Mars, Zhukov started out by throwing his assault divisions against Model's defenses -- made life pretty hairy for the Germans for a while, but didn't get that decisive breakthrough.

Then he did just what is advocated here: filled up his decimated formations with fresh recruits and had another go.

The results were disastrous. The divisions simply fell apart under fire. To recover properly, a unit that has suffered heavy losses needs some time -- more or less what the current system insists on.

I could see some limited ability to adjust priorities -- but a system that lets you just take that division that is currently at 50% strength and force-feed it back up to a 100% within a couple of turns...that's often precisely what can't be done.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



Note that the ability to do this in reality is limited; or to be more precise, the results can be less than happy.

In Operation Mars, Zhukov started out by throwing his assault divisions against Model's defenses -- made life pretty hairy for the Germans for a while, but didn't get that decisive breakthrough.

Then he did just what is advocated here: filled up his decimated formations with fresh recruits and had another go.

First of all, the thing that is advocated here is: "a player could channel the flow of replacements al gusto" What one does with this feature and what the system should allow is another thing.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The results were disastrous. The divisions simply fell apart under fire. To recover properly, a unit that has suffered heavy losses needs some time -- more or less what the current system insists on.

I could see some limited ability to adjust priorities -- but a system that lets you just take that division that is currently at 50% strength and force-feed it back up to a 100% within a couple of turns...that's often precisely what can't be done.

I never said anything about force-feeding a unit - that's your interpretation about what i might have had in mind. But this is not what i had in mind. The proposed feature could be used for things like "let's have this sPzAbt receive the next 10 rounds' production of the Tiger II" or a player could decide that 50% of infantry type replacements go to Heeresgruppe Süd while Heeresgruppen Nord and Mitte only receive 25% each. Somehing along these lines.

Btw, with the current system veteran units lose their veteran status if they receive a lot of fresh replacements.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



Note that the ability to do this in reality is limited; or to be more precise, the results can be less than happy.

In Operation Mars, Zhukov started out by throwing his assault divisions against Model's defenses -- made life pretty hairy for the Germans for a while, but didn't get that decisive breakthrough.

Then he did just what is advocated here: filled up his decimated formations with fresh recruits and had another go.

First of all, the thing that is advocated here is: "a player could channel the flow of replacements al gusto" What one does with this feature and what the system should allow is another thing.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The results were disastrous. The divisions simply fell apart under fire. To recover properly, a unit that has suffered heavy losses needs some time -- more or less what the current system insists on.

I could see some limited ability to adjust priorities -- but a system that lets you just take that division that is currently at 50% strength and force-feed it back up to a 100% within a couple of turns...that's often precisely what can't be done.

I never said anything about force-feeding a unit - that's your interpretation about what i might have had in mind. But this is not what i had in mind. The proposed feature could be used for things like "let's have this sPzAbt receive the next 10 rounds' production of the Tiger II" or a player could decide that 50% of infantry type replacements go to Heeresgruppe Süd while Heeresgruppen Nord and Mitte only receive 25% each. Somehing along these lines.

Btw, with the current system veteran units lose their veteran status if they receive a lot of fresh replacements.

All right then.

My primary concerns would be that players not acquire the ability to instantly refill units -- or that if they do, the possible consequences for the unit's proficiency and readiness should be severe. I'd also (as always) prefer that any such ability be an editable value.

OPART actually has a history of changes that sounded good but proved to have unintended (and undesirable) consequences. There was the 'jeeps versus Tigers' thing that led to unkillable tanks, then there was 'fixing the AA bug' which produced killer Bofors, instant death to any attacking aircraft, and then there was 'keeping low MP units from causing early turn-ending' which produced the effective death of early turn-ending in at least the scenario I'm working on.

So generally, if I foresee some change producing possibly unpleasant side-effects, I'll point the possible side-effects out -- and I think it's a good idea if I do. Not that the change shouldn't be carried out anyway -- but at least we should try to anticipate the possible pitfalls.

[Legun]

The changable replacement priorities should be connected with two points already on the list:
- "replacement proficiency" defined by designer (for CESSION purposes there should be option "equal to receiving unit's proficiency", set as default setting), as loosing veteran status isn't important handicap;
- a "training" deployment, increasing an unit's proficiency (there could be next limit - "max prof available by training" - probably).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Sker

I would like to see something to make some of my unit have a priority when the replacement are assigned. For example if one of my infantry division in a key point of my offensive is about to running out of men or equipment I would like to send them a larger part of the avaible replacements than another unit who is not in a such important place.
Maybe just add a menu with three levels of priority: something like high, normal and low.

Item 3.6

[ColinWright]

Another one...

As some of us may recall, one of Norm's original intentions was that the game could model equipment transitions: you could have a battalion with 56/56 Pz IV's and 0/56 Panthers and it would evolve over time to become a battalion of 0/56 Mk IV's and 56/56 Panthers.

Of course, the obvious problem -- and one that designers encountered -- is that the unit had a nasty ability to evolve into an uber-battalion with 56/56 Mk IV's and 56/56 Panthers.

What if it was possible to assign an absolute cap to the number of pieces of equipment a unit could receive? This doesn't seem too hard -- and it would make it possible to realize the original idea fairly well -- whatever equipment type began to become more plentiful in the pool would tend to fill out the unit as it suffered losses and received replacements over time.

Aside from the obvious use of modeling equipment transitions, this would make it very easy to model declining morale in forces such as the 1918 German army or improving tactical skill in forces such as the Red Army of 1941-43. One would just need to create various rifle squads, such as ones that didn't have the active defender box checked, or did have it checked, or whatever, and allow history to take its course. Units that experienced losses and received replacements could radically change their combat characteristics -- far more than the current changes in proficiency permit.

For example.

A German 'stosstruppen' battalion of early 1918 might look like this:

36/36 'assault recon' squads.

0/36 'replacement light rifle squads.' These would be 'light rifle squads' with 'active defender' left unchecked.

9/9 5 cm mortars.

A 'total equipment cap' of 45.


I'm just winging it here as to organization, and I only picked a unit as small as a battalion to simplify the illustration, so don't bug me about that. Point is that no 'assault recon' squads would appear in the pool. Plenty of 'replacement light rifle' squads' would, though. So after one heavy assault and a bit of exploitation followed by some rest, it might look like this:

19/36 'assault recon' squads.

17/36 'replacement light rifle squads.'

9/9 5 cm mortars.

45 total pieces of equipment


Then after mounting another offensive or staving off an Allied offensive, it might look more like this:

5/36 'assault recon' squads.

32/36 'replacement light rifle squads.'

8/9 5 cm mortars.

45 total pieces of equipment


As the unit engaged in combat, its proficiency would naturally rise slightly. But -- particularly if it sustained heavy losses -- its combat ability would decline. It would fairly early on become noticeably less effective in the attack, and given enough time and enough bleeding, would finally become very prone to retreat even if firmly poked. This would nicely simulate, for example, what happened to the German Army over the Summer and Fall of 1918, or -- if the process was reversed -- what happened to the American army in Korea over the Summer and Fall of 1950.

[Karri]

That is a good idea but there's one VERY big problem. That is once the unit loses 'rare/expensive' pieces of equipment they will be replaced with the cheaper/more numerous equipment.

In your example I suspect there would be a lot of cases where the unit would have no mortars. But the problem really would be in bigger units with lot's of different equipment. Or rather with mixed equipment. This would create a case where tanks, artillery etc are replaced by rifle squads.

[Legun]

3.9. True unit equipment upgrades.
3.9.1. Clicking on an equipment item in unit’s menu allows player to change the equipment for other (assigned is 0, old equipment goes to pool). New equipment takes the slot of the old equipment in the unit’s TO&E, with the same authorized quantity. Unit must be supplied, unmoved, & not in enemy ZOC. Unit gets a penalty - proficiency, readiness or supply reduction.
3.9.2.The possibility is set by designer in a special window “equipment transition sequences” – each type of used equipment can have selected one type of upgraded equipment. Advanced: It’s defined for each of units separately.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Karri

That is a good idea but there's one VERY big problem. That is once the unit loses 'rare/expensive' pieces of equipment they will be replaced with the cheaper/more numerous equipment.

In your example I suspect there would be a lot of cases where the unit would have no mortars. But the problem really would be in bigger units with lot's of different equipment. Or rather with mixed equipment. This would create a case where tanks, artillery etc are replaced by rifle squads.

? Just have a lot of mortars in the pool. Having all their units up to snuff on mortars all the time won't save the Germans.

As to 'cases where tanks, artillery, etc are replaced by rifle squads' -- have you ever looked at a late-war German 'Panzer Army'? Or checked out the artillery-units-fighting-as-infantry on Crete?

I'll grant the solution isn't perfect. I even would be the last one to argue that its universally useful. However, it does elevate a good idea of Norm's that up until now has been a largely useless noble intention to something that would be susceptible to practical use.

To take the cases I mentioned -- well, I just wouldn't attempt to apply the idea to Panzer divisions. Let things go on as they have until now. But if I was dealing with Panzer regiments -- and wanted them to be able to re-equip from Mk II's and short-barrel Mk III's to long-barrel Mk III's -- well, it should work rather nicely.

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



? Just have a lot of mortars in the pool. Having all their units up to snuff on mortars all the time won't save the Germans.

ah, but that is not the problem. The problem is that there wouldn't be a lot of mortar in the pool, but rather lot's of other equipment. This would eventually create an unit that is pretty much everything the historical unit wasn't. The more quipment the more likely this is to happen. And the thing is, it wouldn't solve the main problem.

As to 'cases where tanks, artillery, etc are replaced by rifle squads' -- have you ever looked at a late-war German 'Panzer Army'? Or checked out the artillery-units-fighting-as-infantry on Crete?

I don't think you wholly undrestand the problem.

Say we have the following unit
20/20 rifle squads
0/20 light rifle squads
5/5 tank
max 25 equipment

Then you have replacements of
20 rifle squads a turn
40 light rifle squads a turn
and 1 tank a turn.

What happens is that the tanks will be replaced by infantry. Even if there are tanks available in the inventory, this is simply caused by there being far more infantry available as reinforcements. It has to do with the game system of allocating replacement equipment. So you lose a tank and the 'opening' is more likely to be filled with a light rifle squad than a tank.

I'll grant the solution isn't perfect. I even would be the last one to argue that its universally useful. However, it does elevate a good idea of Norm's that up until now has been a largely useless noble intention to something that would be susceptible to practical use.

To take the cases I mentioned -- well, I just wouldn't attempt to apply the idea to Panzer divisions. Let things go on as they have until now. But if I was dealing with Panzer regiments -- and wanted them to be able to re-equip from Mk II's and short-barrel Mk III's to long-barrel Mk III's -- well, it should work rather nicely.

I agree it's a good idea. Although Legun's idea would be even better....well actually I'd combine the two. But changes of this magnitude I suspect are a thing for TOAW IV.