AE Land and AI Issues [OUTDATED]

[Andy Mac]

The way the TOE change works is Day 1 it has one TOE day 2 it has a new TOE
 
If a device type is in both TOE chains then it migrates to the new TOE in whatever slot up to the max in the new TOE - any excess are retrurned to the pool for future redeployment - so in CW TOE's when they lighten up losing AT AA and Arty weapons the excess over the new TOE goes to the pool.
 
If the new TOE requires more of a give squad type they need to be added over time via the normal replacement module.
 
e.g. in 1943 Indian Divs acquired a 10th Inf Bn which was a line Bn but dedicated to HQ security but rotated into and out of Bdes.
 
So Indian Divs go from a 324 Indian Rifle Section TOE to a 360 Indian Rifle Section TOE. (at the same time a number of independent Bns are withdrawn from duty and their squads sent to the pool - this replicates the dying down of tension in India post famine post 42 high point so less need for rear area security more fighting strength concentrated in the field Divs)
 
p.s. I am greatly simplifying this because there are at least 6 differnet Indian Div TOE's with different mixes of British and Indian Bns and depending on whether they are ex ME like 5th Div or special conversions like 17th Div or Jungle training like 39th Div or British Bn heavy like 36th.
 
Often Div TOE's are only changing to accomodate the ever changing mix of Indian and British Bns
 
Of the others most forces get a 41 TOE and a c 43 TOE e.g. Australian Divs convert to the lighter more fit for purpose Jungle TOE in late 42

[Dili]

Thanks

[tigercub]

I would like to see a supply level on the units say out of supply...low...good... or maybe coloured light say red, yellow and green for levels.anyone can slap me now! 

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: tigercub

I would like to see a supply level on the units say out of supply...low...good... or maybe coloured light say red, yellow and green for levels.anyone can slap me now!

That is already in the game-

Out of Supply you would see Supply = 0, When the unit has less than required Supply the value is red...

[Woos]

ORIGINAL: tigercub
I would like to see a supply level on the units say out of supply...low...good... or maybe coloured light say red, yellow and green for levels.anyone can slap me now! 

If you talk about showing it on the map, WitpDecoder shows this already for Stock: Map Overview tab->Supply

[rhohltjr]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Hey guys,

been reading a lot about AE. Have you posted a long 'features' list somewhere summarizing all these questions/answers?

For instance: I know the land units / combat routines are getting major redo effort.
And amid all the great questions about stacking and supply usage....will the actual land combat be [font="Trebuchet MS"]displayed [/font] differently? Are you reworking the land combat 'show' screen? Care to divulge any details that you can divulge ???? If you can divulge. Please do. How will the average AE player tell the difference between land combat in AE and Witp?? The logistics part seems like it will be rather transparent to the player, other than the 20 divisions you have stationed on Baker Island are gonna eat a lot of supplies up.....

[:)]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Hey guys,

been reading a lot about AE. Have you posted a long 'features' list somewhere summarizing all these questions/answers?

For instance: I know the land units / combat routines are getting major redo effort.
And amid all the great questions about stacking and supply usage....will the actual land combat be [font="Trebuchet MS"]displayed [/font] differently? Are you reworking the land combat 'show' screen? Care to divulge any details that you can divulge ???? If you can divulge. Please do. How will the average AE player tell the difference between land combat in AE and Witp?? The logistics part seems like it will be rather transparent to the player, other than the 20 divisions you have stationed on Baker Island are gonna eat a lot of supplies up.....

[:)]

Whoever said land combat was being redone?

Various aspects of the land game have been retooled/changed which will greatly impact how battles are fought...but I am not sure anyone said the actual combat routines were changed.

Items which have been changed/added include:
- The introduction of hexside ZOC as opposed to hex based ZOC and the ZOC are not permanent.
- The ability to increase the supply draw of a particular base.
- The introduction of unit modes which affect how they perform in combat, how fast they move, how vulnerable they are to air attack, how fast they can recover and how they are transported.
- A change in how fast forts can be constructed

[Anthropoid]

Wow. Read up to p. 7 of this thread, and just amazed at how much work you guys have been doing

IMHO, the weakest part of WiTP was the land combat, and it sounds like you guys are doing a lot to improve it.

My question: no stacking limits on non-island hexes? That doesn't seem consistent.

ADDIT: This is just based on my naive knowledge of military operations based on playing TOAW III, old board games etc., so maybe stacking limits are not realistic?

In WWII, a Western corps or Japanese army attacked on a 10-km (6-mile) front, defended 20-30 km (12-20 miles), and screened perhaps 60 km (40 miles). Russian shock armies went in on a 10-12 km front. Western armies and Japanese area armies attacked on a 20-30 km front and defended 60-90 km. So more than a Western army defending a hex should be overkill; likewise more than a Western army group attacking a hex violates economy of force.

So Harry, you're saying that: an entire Corps (3 or 4 divisions?) or Army (a few Corps else 5 or 6 Divisions?) could easily operate efficiently in the area represented by a 40-mile hex, right?

If I understand the implications of this correctly, a relatively open non-island 40 mile hex could therefore--realistically--have what? up to 7 or 8 divisions operating in it without starting to bump into one another? Or would it be more like 3 or 4 Divisions?

In any event, a 40 mile hex is a finite area, and if you add in things like buildings, trees, cliffs and steep slopes, etc., then the amount of space for soldiers is necessarily reduced. This idea is clearly appreciated and being executed in game mechanics by limiting the number of units that can operate without penalty on atolls and islands, so why suspend this fundamental point of reality with respect to non-island hexes?

[Panther Bait]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid


So Harry, you're saying that: an entire Corps (3 or 4 divisions?) or Army (a few Corps else 5 or 6 Divisions?) could easily operate efficiently in the area represented by a 40-mile hex, right?

If I understand the implications of this correctly, a relatively open non-island 40 mile hex could therefore--realistically--have what? up to 7 or 8 divisions operating in it without starting to bump into one another? Or would it be more like 3 or 4 Divisions?

In any event, a 40 mile hex is a finite area, and if you add in things like buildings, trees, cliffs and steep slopes, etc., then the amount of space for soldiers is necessarily reduced. This idea is clearly appreciated and being executed in game mechanics by limiting the number of units that can operate without penalty on atolls and islands, so why suspend this fundamental point of reality with respect to non-island hexes?

A front is generally a linear, i.e. one-dimensional, feature. Not necessarily straight, but a line nonetheless. A hex is a 2-dimensional feature representing about 1385 sq miles (assuming 40 miles between faces). So while 40 miles of front may support 7 or 8 divisions, 1385 sq. miles of terrain could theoretically hold much more (army reserves, artillery, etc). Of course not much more than the 7 or 8 divisions could realistically take part in an attack.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Wow. Read up to p. 7 of this thread, and just amazed at how much work you guys have been doing

IMHO, the weakest part of WiTP was the land combat, and it sounds like you guys are doing a lot to improve it.

My question: no stacking limits on non-island hexes? That doesn't seem consistent.

ADDIT: This is just based on my naive knowledge of military operations based on playing TOAW III, old board games etc., so maybe stacking limits are not realistic?

In WWII, a Western corps or Japanese army attacked on a 10-km (6-mile) front, defended 20-30 km (12-20 miles), and screened perhaps 60 km (40 miles). Russian shock armies went in on a 10-12 km front. Western armies and Japanese area armies attacked on a 20-30 km front and defended 60-90 km. So more than a Western army defending a hex should be overkill; likewise more than a Western army group attacking a hex violates economy of force.

So Harry, you're saying that: an entire Corps (3 or 4 divisions?) or Army (a few Corps else 5 or 6 Divisions?) could easily operate efficiently in the area represented by a 40-mile hex, right?

If I understand the implications of this correctly, a relatively open non-island 40 mile hex could therefore--realistically--have what? up to 7 or 8 divisions operating in it without starting to bump into one another? Or would it be more like 3 or 4 Divisions?

In any event, a 40 mile hex is a finite area, and if you add in things like buildings, trees, cliffs and steep slopes, etc., then the amount of space for soldiers is necessarily reduced. This idea is clearly appreciated and being executed in game mechanics by limiting the number of units that can operate without penalty on atolls and islands, so why suspend this fundamental point of reality with respect to non-island hexes?

Well using your old wargame analogy...I have a wargame that allowed 10 regimental equivalents per 5-mile hex...which factored out to 2 to 3 divisions on average.

Guess how many 5 mile hexes fit in one 40 mile hex - c. 67

67 times 2 to 3 = 134 to 201 divisions. ... is it economical or prudent to mass this much force into that area - probably not.

EDIT: now lets say an enemy entered a 40-mile hex from two adjacent hexsides, you could have a "front" within the 40 mile hex that consisted of ten(10) 5-mile hexes - when the 5-mile hexes are superimposed over the 40 mile hexes.... So in the end lets say 20-30 divisions on the "front".

[JeffroK]

I'd like to see unlimited stacking in an all land hex, plus the commensurate drain on supply in feeding them plus the increase in damage caused to them by air, land or sea bombardment.
 
If someone wants to put 20 Divs into a hex, dont complain when my 200+ B24's,B-25's, P-47's etc hit them into the stoneage.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I'd like to see unlimited stacking in an all land hex, plus the commensurate drain on supply in feeding them plus the increase in damage caused to them by air, land or sea bombardment.

If someone wants to put 20 Divs into a hex, dont complain when my 200+ B24's,B-25's, P-47's etc hit them into the stoneage.

That is how it works in TOAWIII, and it seems quite reasonable there. They seem to have it set up so the app calculates: for any given map scale (2km hexes up to 200km hexes) what a reasonable "spacing" rule is relatively to any given size of unit (company, on up). You get a little LED-like symbol next to a stack: green for any number of guys and machines in a hex (read number of "units" in the hex) that is below an ideal maximum; yellow for a certain range from the ideal up to a "really crowded" point; red for any number of units beyond the really crowded point.

Bombarding a hex with green = 'normal' levels of impact; yellow = heightened vulnerability to bombardment; red = much, much worse bombardment impact.

I know TOAWIII is a totally different game, and it just might not be possible to bring such mechanics into WiTP AE, but just thought I'd bring it up. Sorry if this was discussed already between p 7 and 23 [:)]

ADDIT:

Well using your old wargame analogy...I have a wargame that allowed 10 regimental equivalents per 5-mile hex...which factored out to 2 to 3 divisions on average.

Guess how many 5 mile hexes fit in one 40 mile hex - c. 67

67 times 2 to 3 = 134 to 201 divisions.

Well if this math is reasonable--which I would have virtually no idea if it is true or not, then obviously stacking limits for a game like AE with 40 mile hexes are kinda irrelevant.

But the point you and the previous fellow made about number of units able to engage in an attack remains salient.

If there was a limit to the number of Divisions that could attack or defend across any given hexside then that would be more realistic than letting 67 Divisions in the same hex all contribute equally to any given attack/defense.

[JeffroK]

I understand that AE is going to allow LCU to be in various "mode". Assault, Defend, Reserve, Strat Move.
 
It would be more useful to allow a limited number be in the Assault mode. While allowing defense in depth and follow up reserves, support etc to be in the same hex.
 
But how would you define the allowable assault units, by Division equivalents, Assault value ??? I would also have a modifier by terrain type.
 
Maybe more in the scope of WITP II.

[msieving1]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

In any event, a 40 mile hex is a finite area, and if you add in things like buildings, trees, cliffs and steep slopes, etc., then the amount of space for soldiers is necessarily reduced. This idea is clearly appreciated and being executed in game mechanics by limiting the number of units that can operate without penalty on atolls and islands, so why suspend this fundamental point of reality with respect to non-island hexes?

A 40 mile hex has an area of just about 2,000 square miles. By contrast, Midway Atoll has a land area of about 2 square miles. If you want to limit the size of forces on land hexes to 1,000 times that allowed on atolls, that might be reasonable.[:)]

[Anthropoid]

Yeah I was thinking about this the other day, and realized: a 40-mile hex is the size of a small County in my home state of Missouri! [:D]

Obviously there would be _some_ limit on the number of people and machines that could take up residence in an area that big, but I guess it would be really large number of Division-equivalents and therefore irrelevant for this game.

But the remaining point going back at least to Herwin's post in this thread: only 7 to 8 maybe 10 max Division equivalents should be able to actively attack or defend across one of the hexside fronts.

My understanding is that, at present in WiTP, if you have 35 Div-equivalents in a hex, the combat abilities of all 35 are aggregated in either attack or defense. While this is not totally unrealistic in that it can be shrugged off as 'reserves becoming engaged, rear-area support, or whatever.

The problem (from a realism standpoint which then becomes a breach of good gameplay when large stacks are allowed): if there were 35 Div in a 40 mile wide hex area, not all 35 of them would be able to move forward to a 7 or 8 mile wide hex side "front" to engage in combat during a 12-hour period. A smaller number of units in any given hex should be able to engage in attack or defense across any given hexside in any given 12 hour turn. Other games deal with this by simply restricting the number of units in the hex, but then a lot of those are dealing with much smaller hexes where stacking limits are actually realistic.

I'm reminded of that scene in Thin Red Line where the entire battalion is held up by a Japanese emplacement on top of Hill 53. After a day or two of sending mass waves of guys that get cut down and demoralized, the 'green' Colonel decides to send up 7 guys. They sneak up as close as possible through the grass and boulders and then make a ballsy attack on the Japanese defenders. One guy gets killed and they rout the position(s) killing maybe 25 or 30 Japanese soldiers and opening the way for the entire battalion to advance up and move along the ridgetop. I would guess that that was a pretty realistic scene no?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Wow. Read up to p. 7 of this thread, and just amazed at how much work you guys have been doing

IMHO, the weakest part of WiTP was the land combat, and it sounds like you guys are doing a lot to improve it.

My question: no stacking limits on non-island hexes? That doesn't seem consistent.

ADDIT: This is just based on my naive knowledge of military operations based on playing TOAW III, old board games etc., so maybe stacking limits are not realistic?

In WWII, a Western corps or Japanese army attacked on a 10-km (6-mile) front, defended 20-30 km (12-20 miles), and screened perhaps 60 km (40 miles). Russian shock armies went in on a 10-12 km front. Western armies and Japanese area armies attacked on a 20-30 km front and defended 60-90 km. So more than a Western army defending a hex should be overkill; likewise more than a Western army group attacking a hex violates economy of force.

So Harry, you're saying that: an entire Corps (3 or 4 divisions?) or Army (a few Corps else 5 or 6 Divisions?) could easily operate efficiently in the area represented by a 40-mile hex, right?

If I understand the implications of this correctly, a relatively open non-island 40 mile hex could therefore--realistically--have what? up to 7 or 8 divisions operating in it without starting to bump into one another? Or would it be more like 3 or 4 Divisions?

In any event, a 40 mile hex is a finite area, and if you add in things like buildings, trees, cliffs and steep slopes, etc., then the amount of space for soldiers is necessarily reduced. This idea is clearly appreciated and being executed in game mechanics by limiting the number of units that can operate without penalty on atolls and islands, so why suspend this fundamental point of reality with respect to non-island hexes?

To defend a 40 mile hex well you need a Western army. Hence stacking limits on non-island hexes don't make a lot of sense.

[JeffroK]

The Alamein Line Oct 1942
 
On a 30-35 mile front, the 8th Army had 7 Infantry Divisions, 3 Armoured Divisions & approx 2 Div eqiv in Brigades. This was not a deep formation and had many areas covered by patrol.
 
On the night of the attack, 4 Infantry Divs & Armoured Units made the major attacks, An Armd Div made a major diversionary attack and the other units made probing attacks.
 
Maybe someone could find the unit densities of other areas such as Normandy, Op Diadem, The Ardennes or the Soviet attacks into eastern Europe etc

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The Alamein Line Oct 1942

On a 30-35 mile front, the 8th Army had 7 Infantry Divisions, 3 Armoured Divisions & approx 2 Div eqiv in Brigades. This was not a deep formation and had many areas covered by patrol.

On the night of the attack, 4 Infantry Divs & Armoured Units made the major attacks, An Armd Div made a major diversionary attack and the other units made probing attacks.

Maybe someone could find the unit densities of other areas such as Normandy, Op Diadem, The Ardennes or the Soviet attacks into eastern Europe etc

A Western infantry battalion usually attacked a positional defence on a 500-700 meter front. The division usually went in on a 3-5 kilometer front. It defended about 8 kilometers, and could screen twice that frontage.

[Anthropoid]

Dunno if any of the AE/WiTP makers are involved in TOAWIII. Anyway, in TOAWIII, there are stacking rules for every scenario which putatively relate in a direct mathematical way to unit density and frontage given the map hex scale. I suppose it is possible that they just "made it all up," but given the level of detail in that game, I would suspect that some kinda homework was done. That might be a valuable resource.

[Dili]

Will we be able to tweak the quality of squads in editor or there is still hardcode ON for training limits like 55 for IJA and 60 for USA?