Dynamic Formations

[Panama]

How difficult would it be to enable formations to be dynamic so a unit can change from one formation to another? This was something that was done all the time in all or most armies. It would be a good thing to have available for several reasons.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

How difficult would it be to enable formations to be dynamic so a unit can change from one formation to another? This was something that was done all the time in all or most armies. It would be a good thing to have available for several reasons.

Item 4.2 in the Wishlist. It is complicated in that it has to be done graphically in some fashion. Also, it could be abused - players would want to shift units into high quality formations and out of low quality ones. So there would have to be constraints on it - either expressly by the designer, or limited to identical unit swaps, etc.

[Da_Huge_D]

I'm saying this third time, but maybe some day TOAW 4 will get historical/realistic hierarchy system like in HOI3. It would be kick-ass.

[Sker]

In order to do that with some kind of realism you should add at every formation a commander with his own statistics, one of wich will be the number of unit he can control efficiently. Something like COTA or BFTB system.
The imporatnt thing is that if you overstack a formation you will have to pay that with sevaral malus due to the lack of coordination.

A feature like that require a major rewrite of the game code i think, and can possibly be added only in a brand new TOAW

[Panama]

A formation, say a corps, could control only a certain number of units. That would avoid most abuse. Formation proficiency could decide how many units. Certainly no more than four divisions plus corp units for a corp sized formation. Supply could be made to flow through a hierarchy too instead of how it is now. Give higher HQ more importance.

As for a rewrite, I'm not sure. Ralph could tell you but I don't think it would be all that hard. Maybe as simple as changing pointers. Getting Elmer to work as well as now was probably much more difficult.

I don't know why a graphical change would be necessary. Cooperation could be determined by formation only. A unit gets put into a formation and aquires that formation's level.

As for leaders, some formations changed leaders often. How would you account for that?

Anyways, thought it needed to be dredged up again. Been reading too much lately. [:D]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Da_Huge_D

I'm saying this third time, but maybe some day TOAW 4 will get historical/realistic hierarchy system like in HOI3. It would be kick-ass.

And I'll ask the same thing I ask every time this is suggested: What would that hierarchy do? What physical effects would it have other than just associating formations? Linking the formations together without effects is just chrome.

Note that formations have actual effects on the units linked within them (reorganization, supply distribution efficiency, cooperation, etc.).

I'm not resisting the idea of a hierarchy, by the way. I'm sure there should be effects associated with hierarchies. But they would be subtle and hard to define. And no one ever takes that step of trying to do so.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

A formation, say a corps, could control only a certain number of units. That would avoid most abuse. Formation proficiency could decide how many units. Certainly no more than four divisions plus corp units for a corp sized formation.

No such limits on formations exist now, and hopefully never will. We could not get into what constitutes a division-level or independent corps-level unit, for example. And I'm sure plenty of scenarios have formations that exceed those limits - historically. And, it's not just an issue of number of units: icon types and color schemes would figure in as well (can you mix Rumanians and Hungarians?; can you put a para division in an armored corps?, etc.). As I said, this has to be a complex set of design parameters set by the designer - unless you limit it to swapping identical units (we thought about doing that in 3.4, but it didn't make the final cut).

Supply could be made to flow through a hierarchy too instead of how it is now. Give higher HQ more importance.

What does that mean? Do you literally mean that supply arriving at Antwerp must be sent to Paris (because SHAAF is there) before being sent back to units actually in Antwerp? That's lunacy. HQs and their associated units can be anywhere, so those sorts of issues will be rampant. And that would be a significant rewrite of the supply distribution system, seriously affecting how it worked for existing scenarios.

I don't know why a graphical change would be necessary.

Because you need a user-interface mechanism to effect the new attachment. How else could it be done? Want to have players type in the name of the formation? That would be a mess.

One idea we considered was that the unit to be attached would have to be in the same hex as the HQ of the formation to be attached to. Then you would call up a graphic similar to the composition panel, and pick from that.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

A formation, say a corps, could control only a certain number of units. That would avoid most abuse. Formation proficiency could decide how many units. Certainly no more than four divisions plus corp units for a corp sized formation.

No such limits on formations exist now, and hopefully never will. We could not get into what constitutes a division-level or independent corps-level unit, for example. And I'm sure plenty of scenarios have formations that exceed those limits - historically. And, it's not just an issue of number of units: icon types and color schemes would figure in as well (can you mix Rumanians and Hungarians?; can you put a para division in an armored corps?, etc.). As I said, this has to be a complex set of design parameters set by the designer - unless you limit it to swapping identical units (we thought about doing that in 3.4, but it didn't make the final cut).

Supply could be made to flow through a hierarchy too instead of how it is now. Give higher HQ more importance.

What does that mean? Do you literally mean that supply arriving at Antwerp must be sent to Paris (because SHAAF is there) before being sent back to units actually in Antwerp? That's lunacy. HQs and their associated units can be anywhere, so those sorts of issues will be rampant. And that would be a significant rewrite of the supply distribution system, seriously affecting how it worked for existing scenarios.

I don't know why a graphical change would be necessary.

Because you need a user-interface mechanism to effect the new attachment. How else could it be done? Want to have players type in the name of the formation? That would be a mess.

One idea we considered was that the unit to be attached would have to be in the same hex as the HQ of the formation to be attached to. Then you would call up a graphic similar to the composition panel, and pick from that.

Wow, have your hate on today, eh? Are you frothing at the mouth? Maybe instead of can't can't can't you should try try try.

[Panama]

Ok, back from getting the wife. Here's some 'I can' instead of your 'I can't'.

You know that Force editor in the scenario editor? You know how you can move a unit from formation to formation? Right. That took about thirty seconds of thought. Just put in a popup asking if you're sure you want to move unit XX to formation YY. So much for the 'graphics'. The moved unit will even take on the coop level of it's new formation. How did you come up with typing names? Sheesh. [8|]

BTW, historically a unit didn't need to be in the same hex as it's new hq to be considered 'transfered'. How dumb would that be?

Supply can flow from supply point to army hq to corp hq to division hq. Just like in real life. Historically. Like real life. How hard is that? Ralph has kind of done that already. Not much of a stretch unless you have a negative bent. Intermediary hq would have a purpose instead of being used as scouts. Now that's historical, isn't it. [8|]

There actually is a limit on the number of units you can have in a formation. Did you forget? How much of a stretch would it be for the limits to be designer limited? You would still have the formation upper limit but why not raise that?

Most of what I initially mentioned is already there. The supply hierarchy is mostly there since Ralph modified the way supply is calculated. The means of changing formations is already there, sitting in the scenario editor. The limits to formation size is already there and can be designer modified per formation. It's not all really that hard.

<(can you mix Rumanians and Hungarians?; can you put a para division in an armored corps?, etc.)>

And then there's this little bit. You can stack Rumanians and Hungarians where ever you want. The only thing that prevents it is house rules. Come on, you can do better than that lame example. And para divisions in armored corps? Historically, yes, it actually happened. The nerve of those Soviets. Again, lame.

Instead of spending so much energy about why something can't be done, use the same amount of energy to find out how it CAN be done. You might be surprised with what you can come up with. Ralph is one of those CAN guys and that's why the game is so much better now.

I forgot. The counter color schemes. That's up to the designer like so many other things like letting Rumanians and Hungarians stack. If they want to enable formation switching then let them do it and come up with a counter scheme. If they don't want to enable it they don't have to. Why does everything have to be set in stone?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Wow, have your hate on today, eh? Are you frothing at the mouth? Maybe instead of can't can't can't you should try try try.

Maybe you should think, think, think before posting.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

You know that Force editor in the scenario editor? You know how you can move a unit from formation to formation? Right. That took about thirty seconds of thought. Just put in a popup asking if you're sure you want to move unit XX to formation YY. So much for the 'graphics'. The moved unit will even take on the coop level of it's new formation. How did you come up with typing names? Sheesh. [8|]

That, in itself, would be a graphic revision. It's not just me, this was Ralph's objection as well. And it wouldn't be as effective as being able to click on the counter of the specific formation you wanted to move to. Players get names mixed up.

BTW, historically a unit didn't need to be in the same hex as it's new hq to be considered 'transfered'. How dumb would that be?

It would be better than nothing at all.

Supply can flow from supply point to army hq to corp hq to division hq. Just like in real life. Historically. Like real life. How hard is that? Ralph has kind of done that already. Not much of a stretch unless you have a negative bent. Intermediary hq would have a purpose instead of being used as scouts. Now that's historical, isn't it. [8|]

I just pointed out the lunacy that would produce. HQs can perform their function from about anywhere. HQ in the Pentagon, troops in Afganistan, etc. They need not be on the supply path at all. The supplies arriving in Antwerp didn't have to pass through Ike's desk in Paris.

There actually is a limit on the number of units you can have in a formation. Did you forget? How much of a stretch would it be for the limits to be designer limited? You would still have the formation upper limit but why not raise that?

I think that's exactly what I said - that it would have to be a designer setting. And it would be quite complicated.

Most of what I initially mentioned is already there. The supply hierarchy is mostly there since Ralph modified the way supply is calculated. The means of changing formations is already there, sitting in the scenario editor. The limits to formation size is already there and can be designer modified per formation. It's not all really that hard.

None of it is there.

<(can you mix Rumanians and Hungarians?; can you put a para division in an armored corps?, etc.)>

And then there's this little bit. You can stack Rumanians and Hungarians where ever you want. The only thing that prevents it is house rules. Come on, you can do better than that lame example. And para divisions in armored corps? Historically, yes, it actually happened. The nerve of those Soviets. Again, lame.

It's not lame at all. Stack them all you want, they won't cooperate like they would if they were in the same formation. And that something happened once somewhere is no excuse to permit it everywhere in mass. Designers would scream.

There are real consequences for unlimited transfers. As I originally said, players will abandon poor formations and stuff the crack ones.

Instead of spending so much energy about why something can't be done, use the same amount of energy to find out how it CAN be done. You might be surprised with what you can come up with. Ralph is one of those CAN guys and that's why the game is so much better now.

Somebody has to think of the consequences of things. You clearly aren't going to.

I forgot. The counter color schemes. That's up to the designer like so many other things like letting Rumanians and Hungarians stack. If they want to enable formation switching then let them do it and come up with a counter scheme. If they don't want to enable it they don't have to. Why does everything have to be set in stone?

I repeat, it all would have to be designer settings. And it would be non-trivial.

Now, we did consider a simpler version whereby identical units could be swapped between formations. That would at least allow players to reorganized scattered forces into more concentrated ones.

[Panama]

"I just pointed out the lunacy that would produce. HQs can perform their function from about anywhere. HQ in the Pentagon, troops in Afganistan, etc. They need not be on the supply path at all. The supplies arriving in Antwerp didn't have to pass through Ike's desk in Paris."

What you just pointed out was something quite illogical. How does an Army distribute supply? The supplies did have to pass at least through Corps and Division. Or did Bob the private put in an order for bullets and UPS delivered them straight to his foxhole? Never mind. I hate dealing with illogical arguments. Ike's desk. [:D]

In any event, I guess it's all impossible to do, units will be stuck in the same formation for the length of a scenario, months or years. Supplies will always pass directly from Cherbourg to Bob's foxhole without any HQ needed in between. Right? At least that's what it seems you're saying. [:(]

You win. Sorry for bringing it up. You're not really negative, just stubborn as my Uncle's mule. [;)]

[Da_Huge_D]

I agree 100% with Panama with this. There is similiar system in many many many games (like John Tiller's Campaign series) and even in strategy boardgames.
I don't see any problem on it. Why it's so hard to agree? Maybe you are just lazy to bring it up on next TOAW. Lol [8|]

[Telumar]

I agree with Panama, too.

I don't see the problems Bob sees.

Attaching reattaching can be done via the right click menue. I think the GUI stuff should be the more easier thing to code.

When i think of supply being delivered through the hierarchy i don't think of locations of HQs and/or Supply units, but of supply distribution efficiency.... This all depends on how the designer sets up his formations. Is the HQ a mere command unit? Has it supply squads assigned? Is there a supply unit with the formation?

It can all be done. It can all be worked out. And of course it's a non-trivial matter. It would be a non-trivial improvement!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

What you just pointed out was something quite illogical. How does an Army distribute supply? The supplies did have to pass at least through Corps and Division. Or did Bob the private put in an order for bullets and UPS delivered them straight to his foxhole? Never mind. I hate dealing with illogical arguments. Ike's desk. [:D]

Of course they had to pass through Corps or Division control - but that doesn't require that they pass through the physical location of that HQ. To require that for no reason would be a surefire formula to lose the war. The HQ isn't a supply depot. Of course, it may, on occasion, have one of its depots near by. But it would have a suite of depots, positioned to most effectively supply the HQ's units. There is no more reason for the supplies to pass through the HQ's physical location than there is for all the HQ's subordinate units to pass through that location before conducting operations.

The SHAEF counter example illustrates the lunacy this would impose on TOAW. The Allied Expeditionary Force was getting supplies from all over - Normandy, Marseilles, Antwerp, etc. To require all those supplies to pass through SHAEF's location would add huge distances to most supply routes. And there's no place where you can put SHAEF where that wouldn't be the case.

To a lesser extent, that's going to be the case for any HQ. Requiring supplies to be traced through the HQ is going to add unrealistic distances to supply paths. TOAW supply system wouldn't work as well as it does now. It may seem like the supply path bypasses the HQ now, but it doesn't. It just assumes max efficiency on the part of the HQ's quartermasters.

In any event, I guess it's all impossible to do, units will be stuck in the same formation for the length of a scenario, months or years.

I'll just repeat my initial post (every word of which was correct):

"It is complicated in that it has to be done graphically in some fashion. Also, it could be abused - players would want to shift units into high quality formations and out of low quality ones. So there would have to be constraints on it - either expressly by the designer, or limited to identical unit swaps, etc."

You literally asked "how difficult...". So I tried to answer that. The answer is that it will be hard unless it is limited significantly. That doesn't mean it will never be done, though.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Da_Huge_D

There is similiar system in many many many games (like John Tiller's Campaign series) and even in strategy boardgames.

I'm guessing that if we backtrack, we'll find something like this as the source of this nonsense.

Furthermore, understand that at small scales, supply distance isn't that big a deal - even for TOAW. For example, if the supply radius is, say, 50 (very-small-scale hexes), then there won't be much supply difference if the distance to supply is 10 or 15 hexes. But, if the radius is, say, 10 (large-scale hexes), the difference between 10 or 15 hexes starts to be quite significant. Remember that TOAW is practically universal in both period and scope. How can we shackle every subject with this?

[sPzAbt653]

Maybe one day we could have Old Supply Rules, New Supply Rules, and Dynamic Supply Rules.

Dynamic Supply would use a higher HQ as the initial supply point, not on map supply points. Using the SHAEF example, the SHAEF unit would be assigned a supply level of 10,000, and those supplies would be funneled from SHAEF to Army Group HQ's, from there to Army HQ's, from there to Corp HQ's, and on down the line to the smallest HQ in the scenario. Each HQ gives supply to any subordinate units. Supply between HQ's would be affected by movement cost. Thus if you try to supply a corp in N. Africa from SHAEF in England, you won't get much in Africa. OKH wouldn't be able to keep a large presence in N. Africa. Want more supply in N. Africa ? Move SHAEF there ... but then you won't be able to effectively supply a cross chanel invasion. (Higher HQ's would have to be able to trace supply across sea hexes at some determined movement point cost).

Probably lots of issues, but its fun to think about. This isn't my idea, I remember some other game system that used it, maybe V4V ? And I'm not putting in my vote for it being a necessary change, but it seems some would like it.

[Panama]

If units had to receive supply from specific HQ or suffer a penalty you would certainly not see the helter skelter mess of units you now see in some scenarios. They might actually resemble a military campaign instead of a clearance sale at Macys. Imagine that. [8D]

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Panama
If units had to receive supply from specific HQ or suffer a penalty you would certainly not see the helter skelter mess of units you now see in some scenarios.

I would have to re-work my habit of just sending a unit here or there to shore up a particularly shakey part of the front line. I mean without the rest of the formation, just a single unit. Sometimes to a far distant part of the front lines. My formations end up scattered all over the map. And due to "force cooperation" my supply lines still "work". With "dynamic supply" I'd have to consider moving the entire formation instead of just a single unit. That would make the scenario more "realistic" and therefore I'd have to pay attention to where my "supply sources" are and make adjustments as necessary, continually, each turn. That's a lot of wiggle room for error to creap in and I'm pretty sure I'd run a unit or several into "out of supply" areas and perhaps not know it immediately. I'm guessing my style of play would have to change in perhaps a major way in order to keep up with the supply lines and their limitations. Perhaps we need to change the "force cooperation" scheme? No more supply for orphan units in their area? I'm not sure I like "dynamic" supply if it's going to mean more "record keeping" to keep up with each formation's supply situation. Maybe we can adopt something like crop circles to designate the supply radius of each source of supply?

[Telumar]

I think we're drifting. Wasn't the topic dynamic formations? Now let's put the supply issue aside and concentrate on dynamic formations. We don't necessarily need hierarchical supply to have a hierarchical order of battle / dynamic formations. Supply can come later.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
[blockquote]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Most of what I initially mentioned is already there. The supply hierarchy is mostly there since Ralph modified the way supply is calculated. The means of changing formations is already there, sitting in the scenario editor. The limits to formation size is already there and can be designer modified per formation. It's not all really that hard.

[/blockquote]
None of it is there.

I don't see a supply hierarchy, too.

But what i see is that we already have the ability for a unit to change its parent formation. In the editor: Cut current unit / paste unit. That's the functionality Panama meant. I don't know much about coding. But the functionality is already in the code. Graphically you would need an additional line or two in the "right click on unit popup-menue". Then highlighting of HQs (highlighting is already there) or a window with a list (all there).

Maximum number of controlled units of a HQ could be set up by the designer or be dependent on the number of command groups assigned, which itself could be modified by the designer (1 command group = x or y units). Assigned unit size should play a role, too. An additional battalion costs less "control points" for a divisional HQ than an additional regiment. There even would be no need for a maximum number of assigned units. A penalty would do, too. Say a HQ exceeding its "control points" could result in cooperation penalties, supply penalties, additional reorg check for each subordinated unit etc.