Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question

[Arimus]

I abstract this by modifying the map and giving motorized units the ability to enter woods with a very low movement factor. 5% works for me. I toyed with the idea of adding woods and dense woods. They only difference being motorized wouldn't be able to move thru the dense woods.

First off, trying to track fragments would be very difficult and what does it really add in terms of gameplay? Some units may lose their transport and be dismounted for the remainder of the scenario? Not worth the effort imo, just abstract it.

Second, I don't know how forests were in WWII in Europe but in 1990 most were not so dense that we couldn't pick our way thru given enough time. Plus there seemed to be small logging trails everywhere. Again, probably not a good comparison, but, meh, we did it.

As a side not, maybe you should consider changing the unarmed halftracks from the AFV class to the Truck class. From what I read, the men prefered to fight dismounted from the halftracks. I changed it in the ESTAB and the halftracks live much longer. Prior to, they were getting hammered...

[wodin]

If it's possible to limit there movement to normal foot movement through a forest then thats a quick and easy way round at the moment. SO try and get the 5% speed to match foot movement rates through a forest.

[Deathtreader]

[quote]First off, trying to track fragments would be very difficult and what does it really add in terms of gameplay? Some units may lose their transport and be dismounted for the remainder of the scenario? Not worth the effort imo, just abstract it. [quote]

Hi Arimus,

I agree with your point above. Abstacting something like this makes a lot of sense..........perhaps it could be done in much the same manner as supply convoys are today. The transport could all be pooled at the various bases or HQ's and when called upon would take the paths and durations to remount the infantry and when dismounted the empty trucks/carriers would travel back to their base or HQ. Alternatively, they could loiter at the dismount point (as supply convoys do now for awhile when awaiting a safe path to their destination unit) until required again. Naturally, they would be subject to interception and losses -- just like supply convoys. This way at least, the surviving transports when pooled might be able to lift some of their dismounted infantry units instead of multiple discrete surviving fragments that invidually can no longer lift any any of their dismounted infantry units due to transport truck/carrier losses.

Just a thought.........

Rob.[:)]

Hmmmm..... sorry for the double quote. Doesn't seem to want to disappear.

[Arjuna]

It's a little more complicated than that. You have to differentiate between those vehicles that were pure transports and those that were fighting vehicles like half tracks. These often stayed near the dismounted grunts to provide fire support from their mounted heavy weapons. So in my opinion you need to have two component units, one for the leg guys and another for the transport.

got to go...I'll be back.

[pcelt]

May I make what is probably a very naive point--but why cant this whole particular operation be modelled fairly abstractly

1)Infantry -carrying vehicles can move as infantry into the closed" zero-movement for vehicles" terrain as normal infantry does--but with a delay factor to reflect the unloading aspect
2) The point about differentiation re those carried in fighting vehicles and those in lorries seems irrelevant as in the close and Zero-movement rated terrain for vehicles we are considering, those fighting vehicles would not enter either------ so in all cases the infantry element would fight as infantry only.
3) Once after any combat, the unit is given any new movement out and beyond the close terrain order it can be reunited with its carrier (but with a time-delay factor to reflect reuniting and reloading.)

i appreciate that with the abstraction, reality simulation is reduced--but in my view ,playability and ability of handling situations without increasingly complex management stages by the player are very important. The player has plenty of major decision issues without over- complicating minor management issues.
My feelings were that the discussion was leading toward a need for more and more low level organizational steps and processes. What I would like would be an AI process which simply enabled Carried infantry to have a more relevant and realistic role in close terrain combat than it currently has.
I think the abstraction approach oulined would make sense to the player, would give those units a more realistic value but not involve a whole new layer of different processes and actions

[Arimus]

Not only the player, but what about the AI? I forsee truck components running all about the battlefield and maybe even leading attacks!
Sorry Dave, couldn't resist!

[wodin]

I want it pretty detailed (I don't want to much abstraction, so most of it goes on under the hood so to speak) but with an easy UI. Can be done, takes alot of work though.

[pcelt]

Arimus--An amusing and fanciful spectacle you depict but not, I think ,what would be involved at all with this approach. Infantry and carrier would never exist as separate units but the unit would move and fight as infantry only , in close terrain and move and fight as now as a single motorised or mechanised unit in usable terrain. Transitions would simply involve delay costs to represent loading/unloading of the infantry to fight in terrain currently prohibited but in reality usable by infantry.
Abstraction--yes certainly-- but not the release of a load of headless chicken.............

NB
I need to clarify this post---I had assumed as a "Dave " in real life that the last "Arimus" contri was a barb directed at my last effort and this post was a defense of my "abstraction".
I now realise that it was aimed in Dave Arjunas direction and he can sure defend himself......

[Arimus]

Maybe I misunderstood what Dave said when he said "component units".

[Arjuna]

pcelt,

I acknowledge that yoursuggestion could work. However, it is a fair bit of an abstraction. It sweeps under the carpet the issues of where to locate and for that matter protect transports when the grunts have dismounted. If I understand the model proposed the force would not have access to any of the heavy weapons on the vehicles while the force was dismounted in terrain that would normally not be passable to motorised forces. If that were so then you could not model what often happened in attacks, where the grunts attacked through the woods while the half tracks supported with fire from the open.

Another issue with this approach is that while it works fine for integrated units like motroised or mech infantry companies it fails to address those cases where non-integrated inf companies are being transported. Eg as with the American airborne and infantry forces moving into the Ardennes from off map. Moreover it couldn't be used to model airmobile ops using helicopters nor amphibious ops using amph vessels or amphtracks. In these cases the transports were not integrated but rather used as a pooled transport resource. We would need doctrine to handle these cases. So my thinking is that we do the same for the integrated units as well.

But look I'm still musing over this issue while I'm on Defence contract at the moment, so there is still time to hone the solution and I appreciate everyone's suggestions. ( But not Arimus's barb about transport components leading the charge. [:'(][;)] )

Regardless, I do take to heart your concerns about the risk of burdeniung the player with micro management. Rest assured that whatever solution we end up with the AI will be doing all the heavy lifting.

[Arimus]

A comprehensive solution that would allow for tank-riders, transport pools, and mounting/dismounting would be a great enhancement to the game.

[pcelt]

Arjuna--I take great comfort from your final paragraph and look forward to whatever elegant AI solutions inspire you if and when you escape from your "makeweight" defence contract work and get back to the real battles of WW2.[;)]

[Arjuna]

[:D]