Comprehensive Wishlist

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Maybe something in the event editor. A rows/column type restriction. Wouldn't be perfect but might be the easiest. Could also lift the restriction that way.

Approached that way, a radius effect would probably be what's wanted. The unit cannot move outside of a certain radius from a set of points.

However, some kind of targeted exclusion zone would be a lot easier to work with.

[l0ww]

Hello, generals. it's my first post on this forum, yay.[:D]
here is my brief idea for the supply system that i wanna see in next patch, or TOAW IV.
any question or comment will be much pleased!

--Basic ideas--

*Supply is divided into two types: combat supply and general supply.

*Combat Supply(CS) : CS is countable supply material which is to be consumed only in combat or bombardment operation. CS is represented as like units in the map, but can't move without transport units. any units within 25km from CS are able to use CS, in other words, CS have radius of 25km "throwing range"(it would be better if the range could be changed in the editor). the amount of CS to resolve one combat depends on the types of unit icon, and the unit size. e.g. tank regiment needs 6CS to conduct single attack.
CS can be captured by enemy units that enters the hex which CS is placed on, if there is no friendly combat unit in the same hex. CS can be destroyed by friendly units with expense of MP and some GS. CS can be attacked, but only by barrage or air bombardment.

CS rules don't apply to more than 20km per hex scale scenarios.

*General supply(GS) :GS is supply to keep any units alive. just as current TOAW supply, and will be handled as the same way as current supply system does. GS doesn't need to be delivered with trucks or transport units.

*combat units :a unit which has more than 1 attack strength and 1 defence

*transport units(TU) : a highly abstracted unit which can only transport CS. CS can move both on land, and on water.
TU has 2 roles and 3 types.

Roles:
1:transports CS to the frontline
2:extends CS range.
by placing TU with CS in same hex,
you can extend your CS range by up to 200km

Types:
all tyeps has 3 parameters. 1.transport capacity per one TU(TC), 2.extended CS range 3.MP

Big: TC=1000CS per unit and extend CS range to 200km.

Medium: TC=500CS per unit and extend CS range to 150km

small : TC=250CS per unit and extend CS range to 100km

ALL types has a MP of 75km per day

--detailed descriptions--

*CS is not caliculated as actual units, therefore they doesn't affect "Target density" in combat.

*CS doesn't need any supply.

* In each specific scenario-designer-defined-turns, player is given defined amount of CS. Player must distribute given CS to the supply depot hexes in the map. Supply depot hexes are limited to : friendly controlled Major cities and ports.

*CS which distributed into supply depot hexes can transport by using TU.

*the CS amount to conduct one single combat depends on units icon types, Unit size,combat types, how damaged the unit is compared to the beggining of the battle. (it's "must" that the matrix games allows designers to edit these numbers in the editor.)
e.g. Tank regiment requires 24CS to conduct one attack combat. Infantry regiment requires 12CS, Artillery 36CS, Infantry division requires 36CS and so on....

if the CS amount for infantry regiment to do one attack is 12CS, then : division will be 36CS, battalion will be 4CS.
unit damage affects the CS amount. this will be caliculated as follows:damaged unit strength / original unit strength x100 (%) suppose, there is 8-12(which means combat strength of 20) infantry regiment. and after few combats, that unit is now 4-6(10). so, now CS amout requirement to condust one attack is 10 / 20 x 100 = 50% , and original requirement is 12CS, and the half of 12CS, thus 6CS is the new requirement amout to do the attack.
combat types will also be considered.
there are 2 types of them : attack combat and defense combat.defence combat only needs half of the attack requirement.

[jkantor]

The only boardgame I like to play is OCS by Multimanpublishing because it uses Supply Points that are moved on the map along with trace like you are suggesting. But OCS uses both for fuel and Ammo points - and I think that's a requirement for WWII era scenarios where there is a huge difference in capability and logistical requirement between foot units and motorized or mechanized ones.

[Panama]

Assault engineers that have the same effect on dug in troops as heavy artillery. Reducing fortified to entrenched, entrenched to dug in, dug in to mobile deployment.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Assault engineers that have the same effect on dug in troops as heavy artillery. Reducing fortified to entrenched, entrenched to dug in, dug in to mobile deployment.

As I've noted, it's far from clear that assault engineers actually played this role in all attacks on all cases of what TOAW considers 'fortified defense.'

I'm being a killjoy, but as it stands, your idea seems to be a bad one. It would create a weapon that didn't clearly exist -- an 'assault engineer' capable of exerting a unique effect on all types of dug in defenders.

I suppose if there were special 'assault engineer squads' it wouldn't necessarily do any harm, as people would only put them in scenarios if they felt they were appropriate. However, it still seems to me that you're missing part of the equation, as you have no means of defining under what circumstances they had a dramatic effect.

[ColinWright]

Anyway, read an account of what would be one of the special cases:  the German assault on Sevastopol.  Wikipedia has a detailed account:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sevastopol_(1941%E2%80%931942)#Axis_forces

One notes various elements the Germans emphasized in preparing for the assault, some of which TOAW assigns special attributes for assaulting fortifications, some of which it does not:  yes, additional engineers -- although not, apparently, any kind of specialized 'assault engineers.'  Also, heavy artillery, and also, careful planning for heavy Luftwaffe support. 

Elements noted as being especially helpful in the attack are pinpoint attacks by Stukas, support from assault guns, and point-blank fire from anti-aircraft guns.  Engineers played their part -- but they don't seem to be any more important than any of the other mentioned elements.  I'll note that neither dive bombers nor assault guns nor AA is given any special ability to 'dig out' defenders.

And I will note that this is a special case.  Not all TOAW 'fortified hexes' are Sevastopols.

[ColinWright]

...reading an account of the Herman Goering's abortive counterattack on the Allied beachhead on Sicily -- and it confirms something.

Generally, naval gunfire support only has a truly dramatic effect within a few kilometers of the coast -- for TOAW purposes, in the coastal hex.

While of course that could be made an editable value, I'd say the game would be improved if in fact ships could only provide fire support in coastal hexes. While they may well have fired further inland, that doesn't usually seem to have been the case -- or at any rate, their effectiveness fell off sharply.

As matters stand, in Seelowe for example, the Kriegsmarine can provide devastating fire support up to 15-20 km inland. For most navies most places, I don't think that's realistic at all.

[Panama]

As I understand it the prep gunfire from naval platforms was quite dismal in it's ability to destroy much of anything other than people's homes and businesses. As far as suppression, no accurate enough with friendlies closing.

[ColinWright]

All this should be in 'Comprehensive Wishlist'...and now it is.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

If there were an equipment flag for "anti-entrenchment ability" then designers could make their own Flamethrower/Sapper squads as they desired. They could even give some extra purpose to all those Flamethrower Tanks as well. And it would be up to them, not affecting earlier stuff.

I kind of agree that it might be good to have another stage before reaching Fortified deployment. Perhaps with a x6 benefit. In fact, you could subdivide the whole thing into more stages than that, even. PacWar had 9 stages of entrenchment, for example.

I don't really agree that it should be proscribed without engineers, though - that level of fortification would be the "Fortified Line" terrain. Ultimately, of course, we'd like engineers of some sort to be able to construct stuff like that (as well as airfields and ports, etc.). But that has to be well thought out - or we'll end up with Maginot Line hexes on every hex of the scenario.

But, for me, a more serious remaining entrenchment issue is that it isn't prorated for MPs left. Ralph didn't want to do that last time - I can't remember exactly why, but I think it was something to do with the PO.

On the bridge issue, an engineer with 25% engineering should take 4 turns to repair the bridge. And, as it currently works, it may take longer or shorter to do so. But, if you're repairing 100 bridges over the course of the game, it's going to average out about the same. So I don't think there would be much real benefit to the difficulty of keeping track of how many repair levels a blown bridge has gone through.

Again, for me, a more serious bridge issue is that bridges over normal rivers are as easy to blow/repair as bridges over super rivers. There ought to be a difference of some level.

No particular disagreement...but I'll repeat/qualify some things.

1. Yeah. No particular reason to object to a special 'assault engineer' weapon. If you don't like the effect, don't put them in. In fact, putting some in various engineer units should allow one to more or less modulate the effect.


2. I don't see a particular need for yet another level of entrenchment. It wouldn't actually hurt, but...

Mainly, I'd just like to see it take longer to reach that final level, and I would like the status to be more promptly heritable. Units do relieve each other in fortified lines -- and a week after taking over a sector, the new unit isn't still struggling to reach 'entrenched' status. It jumps all the way to fortified in about a day, I would think.


3. I think people are missing a key point on the 'bridges' thing. Given the information that TOAW provides, bridge repair is indeed a crapshoot. 'Blown bridge' and no other information -- you indeed don't know how long it will take to fix. I suppose you could have it 'blow' with some random level of damage you could ascertain and then assign engineers to accordingly, but really...

Examples of blown bridges that come to mind.

Bridge blown by the Dutch at Maastricht in 1940. As I recall, they neatly dumped exactly one span in the river...and in a day or so, the Germans had it partially replaced and were on their way. Lots of materials in the vicinity, lots of bridging supplies on hand, and an expectation this would happen. The Germans probably had blueprints for what they were going to do.

Bridges blown by the Germans in Sicily. The Americans were very frustrated. Wrecked from abutment to abutment. Probably substantial canyons and no local materials, to boot. Also, (at a guess) little idea what the bridges were until they came to them.

Bridge blown by the Germans at Remagen. Whoops...

And this last brings up a point. For whatever reason, a lot of bridges that were supposed to get blown, didn't get blown. That isn't exactly simulated in TOAW -- but a random rate of repair is a start.

Point is, that while in a perfect system one could come up to the blown bridge in TOAW and know just about how long it is going to take to fix, as matters stand, one doesn't know -- nor should one. The bridge could be 'blown' as in completely destroyed in a remote location with hellish access and some serious engineering problems to be solved -- or it could be 'blown' as in actually, the charges failed to go off in time and it's quite intact. That'll get simulated when yer engineer unit moves onto the bridge, promptly repairs it, and yer panzers are on their way without ever expending an extra MP.

Point is, that as the system stands, a 'blown bridge' creates the same problem a mechanic faces if you call him up and say 'my car won't start. How much will it cost to fix it?'

No other information. Now, supply him with some more details, and he can figure 'sounds like a broken timing belt' or alternatively, 'sounds like the doofus left his lights on.' Then he can give you a pretty accurate figure.

But as it is -- it is indeed a more or less random amount. It could be the $50.00 he'll bone you for the jump, or it could be $800.00. You can't say, 'well, the mechanic should be able to fix the car in four hours.' From the information given, it's entirely unknowable.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

As I understand it the prep gunfire from naval platforms was quite dismal in it's ability to destroy much of anything other than people's homes and businesses. As far as suppression, no accurate enough with friendlies closing.

I'm aware of several instances where naval gunfire had an impressive effect.


1. Supporting the Australian crossing of the Damour at its mouth in 1941.

2. Repelling the counterattack of Herman Goering at Gela in 1943.

3. Stopping the German attempt to overrun the Anzio beachhead in 1944.


What has struck me -- and what I would like to see the system replicate -- is that all these instances occurred right in the coastal hex. USN aside, I'm not aware of any instance of naval gunfire being used with marked effect further inland.

As matters stand...where was the Royal Navy at El Alamein? After all, if the designer doesn't somehow prevent it, battleships can cruise up and down coasts, adding hefty values to any attack or any defense up to 35 kilometers inland.

Not what actually happened...

[ColinWright]

I think that more broadly, in TOAW we face a dilemma.

We want a system that is manageable in its complexity, and that yet reflects the imponderables and unknowns and subtleties and variations of actual warfare. Actually, no two hills are exactly the same, but...

So when we come to an apparent shortcoming, we shouldn't just rush to 'fix' it. After all, it's a lot easier to notice problems than it is to remedy them. The crunch isn't a shortage of marching orders for Ralph Tricky. Plenty of time to consider what we want...

One aspect is defining the precise range of the problem. Did this always happen? Did it ever happen? Kind of like I notice this recurring urge to create some sort of 'uber-fortified' hex. Well, these things weren't all that common, and as a rule, they didn't stand anyway. So I think we might well wind up further off the mark if we made it possible to make them than we are now.

Another aspect is how well can we address this issue, and how much work will be needed? See volume based supply. A praiseworthy cause, and I've banged the drum louder than most -- but a quick fix? That it won't be.

Conversely -- well, see my latest brainstorm about restricting ships guns to the coastal hex. Seems to fairly well sum it up -- or at least move closer to reality than the current situation. Might also be fairly easy to program -- couldn't say for sure.

Finally, the issue has to be considered in context. See the 'bridges don't take a random amount of time to fix -- that's ridiculous.' Well, it's true in the real world, but in TOAW...

The program reduces all blown bridges to a single quantity -- and in doing so, does indeed essentially make the length of time required to fix them a random quantity. It could be almost anything. You can't say 'all blown bridges will take 1200 engineering troops a day and a half to fix.' It could easily be a hundredth of that. It could easily be a matter of no one's going to do much of anything for three weeks because the pile driver won't be here until then, and until we have a pile driver, that bridge can't be fixed.

[ColinWright]

Perhaps TOAW is best viewed as series of admittedly excessive generalizations about the infinite complexity and variation of what happens and has happened in warfare over the course of the twentieth century.

So it's not really a matter of 'fixing' things so much as of looking at the generalizations and deciding if they can be improved, or if it would be worth throwing in yet another qualification.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

2. I don't see a particular need for yet another level of entrenchment. It wouldn't actually hurt, but...

Mainly, I'd just like to see it take longer to reach that final level, ...

That's what another level of entrenchment would achieve. It does seem that going from x2 to x4, to x8 is disjointed. If there was a x6 level...

and I would like the status to be more promptly heritable. Units do relieve each other in fortified lines -- and a week after taking over a sector, the new unit isn't still struggling to reach 'entrenched' status. It jumps all the way to fortified in about a day, I would think.

Hard to do. First, suppose the original unit is still in the hex. How does the game know that it's really going to leave? Or, suppose the original unit has left. How does the game know it wasn't 20 turns ago, even with enemy occupation inbetween? And are the units identical? Battalion leaves and Division moves in, etc. It's already the case for Fortified Line, of course. Perhaps that should suffice.

3. I think people are missing a key point on the 'bridges' thing. Given the information that TOAW provides, bridge repair is indeed a crapshoot. 'Blown bridge' and no other information -- you indeed don't know how long it will take to fix. I suppose you could have it 'blow' with some random level of damage you could ascertain and then assign engineers to accordingly, but really...

Thing is, if the Engineering level is 100%, it isn't random at all. Which makes me assume that the real rationale for making it random for smaller amounts was convienience, not simulation of unknowns about bridges.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

2. I don't see a particular need for yet another level of entrenchment. It wouldn't actually hurt, but...

Mainly, I'd just like to see it take longer to reach that final level, ...

That's what another level of entrenchment would achieve. It does seem that going from x2 to x4, to x8 is disjointed. If there was a x6 level...

Well, sure. That wouldn't do any harm. However, I was thinking that 'okay, achieving defending status is a matter of getting 'set' and might take a well-trained unit a few hours. 'Entrenched' means everyone has a proper hole and the command post actually has a dugout of sorts. That's a day, what with this and that. A proper trench system is more like a month.

It's easy enough to set up an algorithm that slows as it approaches 100%. I should think this would be fairly doable.

and I would like the status to be more promptly heritable. Units do relieve each other in fortified lines -- and a week after taking over a sector, the new unit isn't still struggling to reach 'entrenched' status. It jumps all the way to fortified in about a day, I would think.

Hard to do. First, suppose the original unit is still in the hex. How does the game know that it's really going to leave?

That doesn't really matter. Have at it. Have two battalions manning that stretch of trench.

Or, suppose the original unit has left. How does the game know it wasn't 20 turns ago, even with enemy occupation inbetween?

The enemy occupation is a bit of a problem, and unmanned fortifications will deteriorate -- see Tobruk by June 1942, but I still don't see this as an overwhelming problem. One would have a mechanism that in certain rare cases would have a somewhat questionable effect.

Of course, if you wanted to have unmanned fortifications or fortifications that have changed hands automatically revert to a lower level, that would okay too -- in fact, it's not a bad idea. Certainly one of the problems that stymied World War One attackers was that it was hard to promptly adopt what the enemy had dug -- what with no communication trenches across no mans land and everything facing the wrong way, and all the instructions in German.

But it wouldn't be essential. An inability to do this is not a reason to refrain from making a change that would still be a net improvement.

And are the units identical? Battalion leaves and Division moves in, etc.

Nu? What's wrong with a battalion digging positions intended for a division to occupy? In fact, if you have some labor battalions, now you have an authentic use for them.

You've got a point -- but generally, a unit isn't confined to making a system that is only large enough for itself. It's perfectly capable of making enough room for any friends that might want to come help out when the actual fireworks start.

It's already the case for Fortified Line, of course. Perhaps that should suffice.

Is it? A unit can move into fortified line and promptly achieve fortified status? I'm suspicious. In any case, can you dig 'fortified line'?

3. I think people are missing a key point on the 'bridges' thing. Given the information that TOAW provides, bridge repair is indeed a crapshoot. 'Blown bridge' and no other information -- you indeed don't know how long it will take to fix. I suppose you could have it 'blow' with some random level of damage you could ascertain and then assign engineers to accordingly, but really...

Thing is, if the Engineering level is 100%, it isn't random at all. Which makes me assume that the real rationale for making it random for smaller amounts was convienience, not simulation of unknowns about bridges.

Perhaps. However, motives don't matter. Given the complete lack of any detail that TOAW provides about the 'bridge' in question, how long it is going to take to fix is indeed a crapshoot. To return to the mechanic metaphor, maybe he doesn't want to give you a figure for fixing your car because he intends to rob you blind.

Could be. It still remains true that absent further information, he really has no way of knowing.

What wouldn't be accurate is some sort of formula that 'all blown bridges take exactly 1000 man hours to fix.' Obviously, that's quite untrue, and no, you can't send an engineering battalion along with your spearhead and figure it'll be able to fix each blown bridge it comes to in exactly one hour.

[ColinWright]

On a related topic.

There was the 'destructible roads' fight. I forget the details of that, but considerable fireworks, as I recall.

I still think all roads should be destructible, but yet another way of looking at it occurred to me.

The Germans retreating through Italy did an especially thorough job in this respect. Every bridge -- even those far too small to show up on a TOAW map, got wrecked, the road itself mined, culverts blown in, and in one place in Sicily, 150 feet of cliffside road literally dropped into the sea.

Perhaps roads should at least be 'destructible' in hills and/or other rough terrain. Once they are in hills, they do indeed become very destructible. I was looking at a picture of some army engineers fixing a bridge. Yeah, it's a 'bridge' -- that's about twenty feet long. It's not going to be on any TOAW map. Problem is, it spans a gully that's about forty feet deep. That's the sort of thing that's going to be everywhere if the terrain is rugged enough.

There are only two ways of simulating it. 'Rivers' in every single hex, or destructible roads.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

However, I was thinking that 'okay, achieving defending status is a matter of getting 'set' and might take a well-trained unit a few hours. 'Entrenched' means everyone has a proper hole and the command post actually has a dugout of sorts. That's a day, what with this and that. A proper trench system is more like a month.

I don't know that "Fortified Deployment" is a proper trench system. That would be "Fortified Line" terrain. Rather, it's just being dug in to the point that the unit itself gets a x8 benefit.

It's easy enough to set up an algorithm that slows as it approaches 100%. I should think this would be fairly doable.

For sure it seems too swift now, since the same effort to dig into Entrenched deployment only got it another x2, while Fortified gets another x4. So, at a minimum, it should take two steps to get to Fortified. Then X effort would return Y results at each step. But perhaps there should be diminishing returns, so that it takes more than X effort to get Y results at higher and higher levels. But I don't know that for sure and certainly don't know just what the rate of diminishment should be.

That doesn't really matter. Have at it. Have two battalions manning that stretch of trench.

I completely disagree. The original unit only dug a defense for itself. That's why a battalion can dig in as fast as a corps. If the original unit is going to stay then the new unit has to start from scratch. Otherwise, imagine the abuse that would ensue. One unit digs in then eight more get to Fortified automatically. Why would any useful unit ever waste time digging in?

The enemy occupation is a bit of a problem, and unmanned fortifications will deteriorate -- see Tobruk by June 1942, but I still don't see this as an overwhelming problem. One would have a mechanism that in certain rare cases would have a somewhat questionable effect.

It's worse than that. The entrenchment level may have been made for a front in a completely different orientation, as well.

Of course, if you wanted to have unmanned fortifications or fortifications that have changed hands automatically revert to a lower level, that would okay too -- in fact, it's not a bad idea. Certainly one of the problems that stymied World War One attackers was that it was hard to promptly adopt what the enemy had dug -- what with no communication trenches across no mans land and everything facing the wrong way, and all the instructions in German.

Enemy occupation decreases the entrenchment level already. It's a good thing - provided that entrenchment level continues to affect entrenchment chances.

But it wouldn't be essential. An inability to do this is not a reason to refrain from making a change that would still be a net improvement.

Actually what you're suggesting isn't essential. The way it works now is about right, if the hex is unoccuppied. The entrenchment level benefits the unit in digging in, but doesn't guarantee any level.

Nu? What's wrong with a battalion digging positions intended for a division to occupy? In fact, if you have some labor battalions, now you have an authentic use for them.

You've got a point -- but generally, a unit isn't confined to making a system that is only large enough for itself. It's perfectly capable of making enough room for any friends that might want to come help out when the actual fireworks start.

The battalion has only dug a defense for a battalion. The Corps needs a defense for a Corps. Again, This would be abused ridiculusly. Why dig in a Corps if a battalion can do it for it?

The only way this could be safely effected would be if both the old (Fortified) and new (Mobile) units were in the same hex and "swapped" deployments. And there would have to be some sort of check of their TO&E for sufficient similarity. Too much work for too little benefit.

Is it? A unit can move into fortified line and promptly achieve fortified status? I'm suspicious. In any case, can you dig 'fortified line'?

Move into a Fortified Line hex and you're in a Fortified Line hex. You can't create Fortified Line yet, but that sounds like a better use of resources addressing that.

What wouldn't be accurate is some sort of formula that 'all blown bridges take exactly 1000 man hours to fix.' Obviously, that's quite untrue, and no, you can't send an engineering battalion along with your spearhead and figure it'll be able to fix each blown bridge it comes to in exactly one hour.

But, again, if the unit has 100% engineering, then that's exactly what you know. There is no random aspect whatsoever. And, think if you have one unit with 100% engineering and four bridges to repair. They'll be repaired in exactly four turns. Now suppose you have four engineers with 25% engineering each and those same four bridges. You've got the same amount of assets applied to the same task. It should still take four turns to repair them all.

Well, currently it does - on average. And the more bridges get repaired in the game the closer that average will get to equivalent. That's why I don't see an issue with the way it is now. But, it wouldn't be wrong if it kept count of repair stages.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

However, I was thinking that 'okay, achieving defending status is a matter of getting 'set' and might take a well-trained unit a few hours. 'Entrenched' means everyone has a proper hole and the command post actually has a dugout of sorts. That's a day, what with this and that. A proper trench system is more like a month.

I don't know that "Fortified Deployment" is a proper trench system. That would be "Fortified Line" terrain. Rather, it's just being dug in to the point that the unit itself gets a x8 benefit.

It's easy enough to set up an algorithm that slows as it approaches 100%. I should think this would be fairly doable.

For sure it seems too swift now, since the same effort to dig into Entrenched deployment only got it another x2, while Fortified gets another x4. So, at a minimum, it should take two steps to get to Fortified. Then X effort would return Y results at each step. But perhaps there should be diminishing returns, so that it takes more than X effort to get Y results at higher and higher levels. But I don't know that for sure and certainly don't know just what the rate of diminishment should be.

You seem to be understanding what I am getting at. A minimal level of digging in -- defending status -- can be achieved in a matter of hours. It's as much a matter of not being hit while forming up or in march order as anything. Really full entrenchment can take months, depending on conditions. One should be able to hop to 'x2' simply by stopping and doing it. 'x8' should take quite a while.

That doesn't really matter. Have at it. Have two battalions manning that stretch of trench.

I completely disagree. The original unit only dug a defense for itself.

Notta necessarily. Lines are commonly prepared in advance -- and prepared for considerably larger forces than those digging them.

That's why a battalion can dig in as fast as a corps. If the original unit is going to stay then the new unit has to start from scratch. Otherwise, imagine the abuse that would ensue. One unit digs in then eight more get to Fortified automatically. Why would any useful unit ever waste time digging in?

Well, first, you'd have to set aside 'diggers' to make the line. Secondly, you'd have to know where it was going to go. These were real-life considerations, and forces both benefitted from looking ahead -- as when the Germans withdrew to the Hindenberg Line in 1917 -- and suffered from not looking ahead -- as when the Germans never could fall back to a properly prepared line in 1943.

I also think that there's a tendency to 'fort worship.' That is to say, historical evidence notwithstanding, people keep acting as if super-elaborate structures such as the Maginot Line were markedly more impenetrable than what would be built by any motivated unit holding the same ground for a few months.

I don't think so. The Germans started preparing their winter line in Italy in October 1943 and the Allies were fully up to it a month later. It held for seven months. Conversely, given a month with an adequate and undistracted force, the Germans were able to reduce Sevastopol.

Then too, a good deal of your argument is hinging on 'battalions and corps.' Well, having such a wide spread in unit size is bad design in the first place, and really, one should be talking about battalions and brigades, and really, battalions do prepare positions that can be readily reinforced to brigade strength.

However, you are right that some piss-ant AT unit shouldn't be able to prepare a line for a whole brigade -- or should take an awful long time to do it. It might be necessary to elaborate the digging in formulas in some way to account for the size of the entrenching unit versus the size of the hex. Obviously, in -- say, a five km hex -- a battalion of a dozen AT guns can fortify itself quite nicely without necessarily having made accommodation for two infantry battalions as well.

The enemy occupation is a bit of a problem, and unmanned fortifications will deteriorate -- see Tobruk by June 1942, but I still don't see this as an overwhelming problem. One would have a mechanism that in certain rare cases would have a somewhat questionable effect.

It's worse than that. The entrenchment level may have been made for a front in a completely different orientation, as well.

Indeed. However, in TOAW we have to take the average of these things. Allied units in 1918 were able to take some advantage of Hindenberg Line fortifications, though -- just not full advantage. A fine hole is a fine hole when it comes to sheltering from an artillery barrage.

Of course, if you wanted to have unmanned fortifications or fortifications that have changed hands automatically revert to a lower level, that would okay too -- in fact, it's not a bad idea. Certainly one of the problems that stymied World War One attackers was that it was hard to promptly adopt what the enemy had dug -- what with no communication trenches across no mans land and everything facing the wrong way, and all the instructions in German.

Enemy occupation decreases the entrenchment level already. It's a good thing - provided that entrenchment level continues to affect entrenchment chances.

But it wouldn't be essential. An inability to do this is not a reason to refrain from making a change that would still be a net improvement.

Actually what you're suggesting isn't essential. The way it works now is about right, if the hex is unoccuppied. The entrenchment level benefits the unit in digging in, but doesn't guarantee any level.

But there you are. In the real world, positions are often prepared in advance by relatively small forces and then occupied by larger ones. The failure to do this is one of the things that made German generals complain in 1943.

Nu? What's wrong with a battalion digging positions intended for a division to occupy? In fact, if you have some labor battalions, now you have an authentic use for them.

You've got a point -- but generally, a unit isn't confined to making a system that is only large enough for itself. It's perfectly capable of making enough room for any friends that might want to come help out when the actual fireworks start.

The battalion has only dug a defense for a battalion. The Corps needs a defense for a Corps. Again, This would be abused ridiculusly. Why dig in a Corps if a battalion can do it for it?

I think both ends of this have already been covered.

The only way this could be safely effected would be if both the old (Fortified) and new (Mobile) units were in the same hex and "swapped" deployments. And there would have to be some sort of check of their TO&E for sufficient similarity. Too much work for too little benefit.

I think you only say 'too much work for too little benefit' because you haven't considered just how widely what happens in TOAW diverges from historical reality.

One of the things that makes it harder to hold a line in TOAW than it is in reality is that units can't move in and immediately assume the fortified deployment of the previous defender. Your infantry regiment has been hammered down to a 1-3. In the real world, if there's a fresh regiment, it can move in and relieve the 1-3, immediately becoming fortified in its stead. In TOAW, the new unit is going to be caught in at best entrenched status. While catching units at the precise moment of relief was an excellent tactic, it was considerably harder to do in reality than it is in TOAW -- and that's one of the reasons lines are harder to hold in TOAW than they were in reality.

It's actually one place where TOAW really falls down. One should be able to cling fairly well to a line, then have to fall back to a new one. Actually, one just gets rather slowly and indeterminately driven back, since there is no such ability to immediately inherit the fortifications occupied by the previous defender. What happens in real life is more like what happened in Italy, where the Germans were finally pounded out of the Winter Line, then were neither able to nor attempted to make a serious stand until they had fallen back to the Gothic Line. We could be better simulate this if it was both more time-consuming to reach fortified status and if such a status was more readily heritable.

There's also no particular need that the defenders be identical in size. 'Intelligence reports indicated that only one battalion was in ______. Actually, the Germans had moved in three additional battalions, and there were now four battalions in _________.'

This aspect of your argument takes on overwhelming validity only when there is an extreme difference in the size of the units, which is (a) bad design, and (b) in some cases at least posits that somehow your ant unit has indeed been holding the line by itself all this while.

Your point about a unit only preparing accommodations for itself has some validity, but fails on two points. First, it may well have prepared rooms for additional guests, and secondly, assuming it was actually trying to comprehensively defend the position, there should be trenches, strongpoints, etc covering the entire frontage, and those can simply be occupied in greater strength.

Is it? A unit can move into fortified line and promptly achieve fortified status? I'm suspicious. In any case, can you dig 'fortified line'?

Move into a Fortified Line hex and you're in a Fortified Line hex. You can't create Fortified Line yet, but that sounds like a better use of resources addressing that.

What wouldn't be accurate is some sort of formula that 'all blown bridges take exactly 1000 man hours to fix.' Obviously, that's quite untrue, and no, you can't send an engineering battalion along with your spearhead and figure it'll be able to fix each blown bridge it comes to in exactly one hour.

But, again, if the unit has 100% engineering, then that's exactly what you know. There is no random aspect whatsoever. And, think if you have one unit with 100% engineering and four bridges to repair. They'll be repaired in exactly four turns. Now suppose you have four engineers with 25% engineering each and those same four bridges. You've got the same amount of assets applied to the same task. It should still take four turns to repair them all.

Well, at a certain point you do know. After all, that's more or less what goes on with these disaster relief projects. They go in with enough to deal with whatever they might find. Send along enough bridging men and material to span anything that's in the region, and you should be able to fix whatever's been blown up.

However, I'm not arguing that the current system is perfect. Merely that one that trades this for some set formula might not be an improvement. Your average divisional engineering battalion is liable to run into some unanticipated challenges along the way. 'But there were no...' is a common discovery in the history of military campaigns.

Well, currently it does - on average. And the more bridges get repaired in the game the closer that average will get to equivalent. That's why I don't see an issue with the way it is now. But, it wouldn't be wrong if it kept count of repair stages.

We don't seem to be arguing about much, then. 'Repair stages' might be okay. At least you would know when to expect that this thing will be fixed -- which is something that would become apparent once somebody had actually shown up to look at the damage and phoned back to find out what parts were in stock. Once you've actually let the mechanic look at your car, he has a better idea of when you can expect to have it back.

I've usually found the unpredictability of bridge repair to only occasionally get out of hand, so I can't say I see it as the most pressing issue, but it wouldn't hurt if the problem got defined as soon as an engineering unit actually started on the job. Essentially, the program would decide whether the 'blown bridge' was a matter of someone having torn up the floorboards or of somebody having dynamited both piers on the Golden Gate Bridge once but only once work had started.

[ColinWright]

Perhaps ant units lacking a certain number of active defenders proportionate to hex size shouldn't be able to fortify by themselves.

Consider a unit of a dozen AT guns in a 5 km wide hex. If it's there alone, it's going to be in trouble if an attacker comes along. Regardless of how well the pieces have been dug in, in most situations they can be flanked and driven out.

Conversely, if the unit is of adequate size, then it can indeed (eventually) prepare strongpoints, trenches, dugouts, etc that will cover the entire frontage and be adequate for a considerably larger force than itself -- and in a decent army that sees the least likelihood of a serious enemy attack, presumably will.

On the one hand, I don't see the default position -- what we have currently -- as ideal, or even really adequate. On the other hand, it seems readily susceptible to improvement.

I'd say that as one moves up the scale of entrenched status to 'fortified' three things should start happening:

the status should become more inheritable

the rate of improvement should slow

the rate of improvement should become more dependent on the ratio of total active defenders digging to the size of the hex (note that all the diggers would need to be summed, or one brigade would be able to do more work than three battalions).

In other words, an AT battalion can promptly deploy -- but it's going to take an infantry battalion working for several weeks to make a fully fortified 5 km hex. Once that status is reached, though, additional units can move into that hex and promptly assume fortified status.

[governato]

Just chiming in: I have just finished designing a large scale scenario for TOAWIII that includes all the European front (it usesa modified Europe Aflame map).
I had to lower the Entrenchment Rate (edit/deployment/set entrenchment rates) to 66% to get more realistic withdrawals of corps/army sized units.
I noticed that with the Entrenchment rate set at 100% it was hard to get an historical Operation Bagration as the Axis would be able to fall back and dig in too quickly and effectively. I have not done any extensive tests, but with it set at 66%, it takes longer for large units to get to fortified status.

[Jo van der Pluym]

I had the following request for the next updat / wishlist

Namely that units with Guerrilla symbol can transported by helicopter