Dynamic Formations

[Panama]

Ralph's rework of the supply system is a step along the way to creating the ability for supply to flow from HQ to HQ instead of supply unit to supply unit. The HQ would act as quartermaster giving supply range a boost just as having a supply unit now does. Perhaps how much of a boost would depend on the transport the army/corps/division has assigned to it.

So what I meant was by having supply range represented by movement instead of hexes was a part of the puzzle already in the game.

Ya know nothing in this game has to be in stone. Most everything can have an on/off switch. I've gotten my hands on all of the iterations of TOAW and with the earlier ones it seems that if you played one scenario you've played them all. They all had the same feel.

As the game has gotten older and the various renditions have come out it's gotten a little away from that. But what I would like to see personally is a TOAW where each scenario can feel like a complete game in and of itself. The only way to do that is enable a scenario designer to modify almost everything that goes into making a scenario. That would truely make it timeless.

[ralphtricky]

I guess the basic questions I don't see answered in this thread are...

What are the effects of moving a unit from one formation to another? What interesting decision does this force the player to make?
What new options for play are enabled by adding this? (either scenarios or better fidelity for some scenarios, or something.)
Can Elmer be programmed to understand this, or is the effect small enough that he can ignore it?

Ralph

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

I guess the basic questions I don't see answered in this thread are...

What are the effects of moving a unit from one formation to another? What interesting decision does this force the player to make?
What new options for play are enabled by adding this? (either scenarios or better fidelity for some scenarios, or something.)
Can Elmer be programmed to understand this, or is the effect small enough that he can ignore it?

Ralph

Phew.. good questions. Okay, first brainstorming...and i hope i am not the only one trying to come up with answers:

Effects: Depends. Depends on how the designer sets up formation cooperation. Better cooperation could be one effect. If a formation loses its HQ during the battle it would add to more realism if the formation's units can be assigned to nearby headquarters. If cooperation is problematic why not form two 'healthy' formations from four or five weakened/battle weary formations? All of course dependend on doctrine/nation (unit colour). Limitations could be set up by the designer. Think of Silvanski's Götterdämmerung Scenario. Soviets and Western Allies should not be able to mix. Brits, Americans and French should be limited to their specific nation's formations. Die-Hard Fascist Italian and German troops could, but would not be that effective etc.

There are situations where dynamic formations would make an interesting alternative to the historical organisation. I can think of at least two situations where the 'defender' side gets all kinds (a hodgepodge) of reinforcements and where dynamic formations would allow a more flexible approach to the situation than sticking with the historical organisation throughout the scenario. It never goes the historical way, so why stick to historical organisation? Think of Market Garden or my Anzio scenario. The possibility of forming ad-hoc battlegroups would allow to explore different approaches to the situation or simply adjusting to the non-historical situation. Unifying command in a certain sector, form ad-hoc groups for i.e. counterattack (in Anzio i.e. the Germans could form quite a formidable mobile battlegroup in the Osteriaccia sector in the opening turns with the mobile units which are actually dispersed among various formations and therefore limited in cooperation - you'll actually have to play through the first turns of Anzio 44 or A bridge too far 44 to know what i mean). There certainly could be/are more situations in scenarios more fitted for TOAW in unit/hex scale than these two 'extreme' examples. Any Ardennes scenario i.e.

Further, you know these scenarios where Corps troops form a single formation. Overlord 44, i.e. All US Independent Tank Battalions are within one formation. These units are normally dispersed all along the front in support of various Divisons etc. If the formation goes into reorg as the result of heavy losses/battles in one area it would affect all Independent Tank Battalions along the entire front. Realism? None. Assigning these units to other formations, the Divisions they supported, would solve this. Of course the designer could solve the problem by assigning them to the Divisions they actually supported during the battle from the beginning. But we know this changed so often and is situation dependent. So again, why stick with the historical organisation throughout the length of a scenario?

Think of a East Front campaign scenario like FitE, you could shift single regiments from one sector to another, say in an emergency situation, without the result that the commanding HQ would be 1000 kms away..

Elmer.. i don't know. This is your field of expertise. But i guess it would be difficult.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Dynamic Supply would use a higher HQ as the initial supply point, not on map supply points. ....

.... This isn't my idea, I remember some other game system that used it, maybe V4V ?

This illustrates how divorced from reality wargames can be when they abstract things. Therefore, just because some other wargame does it doesn't mean there is any historical basis for it.

[sPzAbt653]

and i hope i am not the only one trying to come up with answers:

Answers I'm not so sure about, but I don't mind joining the discussion, it's very interesting. I certainly agree with everything Telumar says, and if a player wants to make any of those formation changes during play he can, and if he doesn't want to he doesn't have to. A great deal of realism can be added to a scenario (especially the larger ones) or can be ignored at the players option, with no effect on play.

I think Elmer can be left out of having the option. Why would he have any reason to try and figure out what unit goes to what formation? I can't think of anything. In some scenarios the PO formations have been specifically designed. In those cases we wouldn't want Elmer having a swap meet.

Dynamic Supply would add tremendously to realism.

[Curtis Lemay]

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. They might actually resemble a military campaign instead of a clearance sale at Macys. Imagine that. [8D]

That's detachment and reassignment. Just what dynamic formations would allow! [:D]

Seriously, limits on formation scattering can be based upon command and control factors rather than breaking the supply system.

[ralphtricky]

Telumar,
Thanks for taking the time to think about it. Some things will need clarification like 'Limitations could be set up by the designer' and 'Would not be that effective' in the first paragraph.

One thing that bothers me is that I'm hearing in this thread mostly talk about ways to reduce cooperation effects and do alternate history, and not a lot about the trade-offs. Without trade-offs, why wouldn't people put everything into a few formations? There have to be trade-offs, and reasons to NOT allow the formations to combine, otherwise, why not automate it and let the computer handle it?

The overlord 44 example actually sounds more like we need either a 'Disruption radius?' or something similar which says that if a unit is disrupted, all units in that formation within that radius would also be affected, or something like that instead as a simpler answer.

Another thing that might help is to allow the editor to edit non-PBEM games in progress, or add a second 'insecure' PBEM mode that would allow people to run the editor. It would involve some level of trust between the players, but it's the simplest way to allow formations to combine.

Ralph

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Dynamic Supply would use a higher HQ as the initial supply point, not on map supply points. ....

.... This isn't my idea, I remember some other game system that used it, maybe V4V ?

This illustrates how divorced from reality wargames can be when they abstract things. Therefore, just because some other wargame does it doesn't mean there is any historical basis for it.

I thought I would get blasted for referencing another system, but I had to give credit were it belonged because that's the way I am. I understand your point that supply didn't pass across Ike's desk on the way to the front, but I thought the system that I crudely outlined played very well from a game perspective. There is a current thread in the general room discussing how good it was. Not that every knuckleheads opinion is proper, but some of us knuckleheads have a good thought on occasion.

The system isn't a free for all, there are limitations to what the player can do. But the only unrealistic thing I can remember doing was attaching all my artillery in the Stalingrad perimeter to a few 'artillery only' HQ's, while the infantry stayed attached to 'defense only' HQ's. This allowed me to send less supply to the defending infantry while sending more to the artillery. This made it possible to blast Soviet formations that were preparing to attack with greater effectiveness. Hmm ... not really unrealistic after all.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

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.

I'll leave it up to Ralph to say what could be reused or not - but I expect it's far more difficult than you think. That editor feature isn't quite what we would want. It moves units around the force - formations are not explicitly involved. That makes it hard to put the unit in the right formation. And that's assuming you've got the names right. A better method would be clicking on a map icon to select the unit and an HQ icon to select the formation. That's why using the composition panel might be best - but the unit would have to be stacked with the target formation.

Designer limits on unit colors, types, sizes, etc. would be complicated to implement and use. No getting around that.

That's why I suggest an easier, smaller option: Limit it to swapping identical units (same color scheme, icon, unit size, & maybe even authorized TO&E). Designer limits could be added later.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The system isn't a free for all, there are limitations to what the player can do. But the only unrealistic thing I can remember doing was attaching all my artillery in the Stalingrad perimeter to a few 'artillery only' HQ's, while the infantry stayed attached to 'defense only' HQ's. This allowed me to send less supply to the defending infantry while sending more to the artillery. This made it possible to blast Soviet formations that were preparing to attack with greater effectiveness. Hmm ... not really unrealistic after all.

You do understand that HQs don't actually generate supplies in the real world? Let's stick to reality and try to make TOAW more realistic.

[sPzAbt653]

why wouldn't people put everything into a few formations?

HQ's, as the basis for each formation, can only contain a certain number of units. Division HQ can hold the equivalent of 5 regiments, Corps HQ can hold the equivalent of 5 divisions, etc. A simple example, but can be made more complex by designer chosen parameters?

allow the editor to edit non-PBEM games in progress

I'm not sure that would work on the formation level, as it messes with events and sometimes objectives.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar
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.

I'll leave it up to Ralph to say what could be reused or not - but I expect it's far more difficult than you think. That editor feature isn't quite what we would want. It moves units around the force - formations are not explicitly involved. That makes it hard to put the unit in the right formation. And that's assuming you've got the names right. A better method would be clicking on a map icon to select the unit and an HQ icon to select the formation. That's why using the composition panel might be best - but the unit would have to be stacked with the target formation.

Designer limits on unit colors, types, sizes, etc. would be complicated to implement and use. No getting around that.

That's why I suggest an easier, smaller option: Limit it to swapping identical units (same color scheme, icon, unit size, & maybe even authorized TO&E). Designer limits could be added later.

The alternatives I see (without thinking much about it) are
1) Open the Unit panel and select Change Formation, then select the formation from a list. This has the disadvantage that the person first has to look at the formation and remember the name to look it up in the list. It has the advantage that spelling out why they can't do it, the possible penalties, etc. are clearly spelled out.
2) As Bob said, click on the unit, then click on the HQ (or actually any unit in the formation to move to.) This has the same issue that you need to understand which unit is in the formation you want to go to. You also need to worry about stacked units and which unit is the one to attach to.
3) Allow people to open some games in the editor and make changes. This involves trust, or me making restrictions on what can be changed.
4) Cut/Paste, I don't think this code would work. I'd have to look at it. Unless you've used the editor a lot, it doesn't sound like an intuitive operation for the average user.
5) Cheats, I can see people moving all the units out of a formation that's due to be withdrawn, so that an empty formation is withdrawn.[:-] You're going to have to be able to say that some formations can't be changed. I don't know if any formations have events which change proficiency or any other statistics, but that's something that needs to be taken into account.
6) The other piece is how do you explain to 'Joe User' exactly why they couldn't attach in a way that they'll understand, along with any penalties they may incur.

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The system isn't a free for all, there are limitations to what the player can do. But the only unrealistic thing I can remember doing was attaching all my artillery in the Stalingrad perimeter to a few 'artillery only' HQ's, while the infantry stayed attached to 'defense only' HQ's. This allowed me to send less supply to the defending infantry while sending more to the artillery. This made it possible to blast Soviet formations that were preparing to attack with greater effectiveness. Hmm ... not really unrealistic after all.

You do understand that HQs don't actually generate supplies in the real world? Let's stick to reality and try to make TOAW more realistic.

But HQ's do represent the infrastructure that handles allocation. I don't see the reality in having a static supply point anchored at Berlin. But I do see the reality in having an OKH unit represent that allocation, or a SHAEF unit in England. If the supply is tied to the formation chain, it is far more realistic than the current system, and I might argue that you couldn't get more realistic. Maybe we see it differently.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

why wouldn't people put everything into a few formations?

HQ's, as the basis for each formation, can only contain a certain number of units. Division HQ can hold the equivalent of 5 regiments, Corps HQ can hold the equivalent of 5 divisions, etc. A simple example, but can be made more complex by designer chosen parameters?

allow the editor to edit non-PBEM games in progress

I'm not sure that would work on the formation level, as it messes with events and sometimes objectives.

It would have to be more complex, TOAW is a lot of different scales, and has to be flexible. I don't know that adding in a maximum equipment setting is the right thing to add to the formation either since it adds complexity, and presenting it in a non-frustrating way is important.

Why would using the editor be different from some other method? The editor by itself doesn't introduce any special processing that the in game stuff would. If the in game stuff has to do something different, then the editor should be able to as well. If the editor is broken the answer should be to fix it, not add another layer. If necessary, I could add slightly different processing to the editor when it was editing a save game, but there would be a level of trust involved.

Ralph

[sPzAbt653]

2) As Bob said, click on the unit, then click on the HQ (or actually any unit in the formation to move to.) This has the same issue that you need to understand which unit is in the formation you want to go to. You also need to worry about stacked units and which unit is the one to attach to.

This sounds good. Right click the unit to bring up the unit box, click on change formation, right click on the target unit of the target formation, this generates a pop up saying move 'unit x' to 'formation Y' - Yes - No, click yes and the deal is done. Or clicking yes will generate a 'Formation Full' notification.

5) Cheats ...

Formations are withdrawn by unit color, not formation, so no worries. If a formation is scheduled to withdraw and you move its units to another formation, the system will still withdraw them, by unit color. No cheating ! [:-]

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
but I expect it's far more difficult than you think

I never thought it would be easy. I might sound optimistic or enthusiastic, yes. When it comes to new ideas..

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That makes it hard to put the unit in the right formation. And that's assuming you've got the names right

I thought each unit and each formation has a specific number (from looking at the oob xml files)

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

the unit would have to be stacked with the target formation.

Sorry, but this would be silly. Everyone stays in place as in real life/history. Besides, why would the unit have to be stacked together with the HQ? Just for GUI/interface reasons? That's absurd.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Designer limits on unit colors, types, sizes, etc. would be complicated to implement and use. No getting around that.

Yup. I outlined some thoughts further above. Command Groups, HQ size, subordinated unit size etc. Certain colour combinations can't, some can, some can only with penalties. I see, it will get more complicated when it comes to unit types. An Infantry Division HQ commanding two Panzer-Regiments? etc

You must put some trust into scenario designers, of course one can do a lot of silly, unlogic, unrealistic things with the editor. But most designs are done in a reasonable way. As the player i have the freedom to attack or not to attack that soviet Tank Korps with my Infantry Regt. Well, most won't do it.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That's why I suggest an easier, smaller option: Limit it to swapping identical units (same color scheme, icon, unit size, & maybe even authorized TO&E). Designer limits could be added later.

Same colour scheme - ok. Or maybe same background colour. But icon, size or even TOE. That's not what i would like to see, don't know about the others around here. Besides i already mentioned issues with unit/HQ sizes

Don't misunderstand me. It should not get too complicated, i would like to prefer a simple, elegant solution, a compromise between realism and elegance.

[sPzAbt653]

I don't know that adding in a maximum equipment setting is the right thing to add to the formation either since it adds complexity, and presenting it in a non-frustrating way is important.

I certainly don't know about the complexities, so I'm only throwing possible suggestions around. I wasn't referring to equipment in any way, but the computer should be able to figure out that if a divison HQ can hold the equivalent of 5 regiments, and it has three regiments attached and you add 6 artillery battalions, it is now full and can't take any more. Again I have to come back to the supply issue (because I can't get it out of my head), and if you add 6 art bat's to that division it will become a supply hog, putting a strain on the divisions ability to function properly.

If the editor is broken the answer should be to fix it

I'd have to go thru it to give the concrete examples, but there are times when formation events are changed by actions in the editor, and other times when formation objectives are wiped or become mirrors of another formation. If you want I can spend some time creating specifics to see if they would affect the process you are thinking about.

[Telumar]

RE: Trade-offs.

Reorganisation takes time. A unit would lose a certain amount of MPs if assigned to an other formation. Say 50% or a designer setting.

Cooperation penalties for assigning i.e an Italian Blackshirt battalion to 15.PzG Regt HQ: Either the attached Blackshirt Bn loses proficiency (temporarily for the duration of the assignment) or formation proficiency is lowered. Or the Blackshirt battalion has an increased chance to go into reorg.

For cooperation the HQ's coulour scheme would be decisive. 90.Light Division can't that easily control Ariete's Tank Regiment, even if its the only subordinated unit. Maybe the more 'limited cooperative' units are assigned to a HQ the more severe the penalty is.

EDIT: this would also solve the issue Inf Div HQ controlling two Tank Regiments. Simply penalized by unit colours.
Another way, without the unit colour approach, would be that different types of units of the same size would add more command load to a HQ than others. Then the designer can build different types of HQs by simply adding more or less Command Groups.
But i see the unit colour approach is more intuitive and less complicated. (What about more colour combinations? More than five per background colour?)

EDIT 2:

a divison HQ can hold the equivalent of 5 regiments

Then why not putting an awfull amount of Infantry Regiments under command of the Corps HQ? Lol
Maybe the Command Group approach would be better, though... and to rely on intelligent design by the designers.

[sPzAbt653]

Limit it to swapping identical units (same color scheme, icon, unit size, & maybe even authorized TO&E).

I don't see why this would be necessary, unless you were talking about an initial run thru for feasibility and UI, in order to keep things simple at first.

[sPzAbt653]

For cooperation the HQ's coulour scheme would be decisive. 90.Light Division can't that easily control Ariete's Tank Regiment, even if its the only subordinated unit. Maybe the more 'limited cooperative' units are assigned to a HQ the more severe the penalty is.

I'm still not getting the color scheme issue. If part of Ariete were attached to 90.Lt Div., Ariete would bring its liason officers to 90.Lt HQ and there would be no difficult control issues, or none that I could see reflected in a scenario. What I see is that 90.Lt is better served by containing its proper subordinate units. Hmm ... maybe I'm still thinking in terms of the supply issue. I might have to bail out of this conversion due to a bias in my brain. [:(]