Comprehensive Wishlist

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Colin,

send me an email and you get the wish list as .pdf. Not sure why the free word viewer ain't work.

Klink, Oberst

Sent. I was quietly hoping there'd be some good Samaritan out there. Thank you.

[ColinWright]

This one's not so hot:

"9.17.1 Embarked units must assault unrevealed anchorage hexes, even if they prove to be unoccupied."

One could easily be landing somewhere where there is little likelihood of opposition even if the hex isn't 'revealed.' While absurdities may occur with the current system, the change seems more likely to simply produce different absurdities than to actually produce a net improvement.

If, for example, I have a Boer War scenario, and the British come up with some idea involving debarking on the Natal coast or whatever, the prospective anchorage might well not be revealed -- but they'd hardly feel it necessary to prepare for a full-on naval assault. Probably send a boat in an hour ahead of time to make sure there are no surprises waiting -- but I can't see this rule working well in such a case.

Similarly with Japanese landing in New Guinea in early 1942, and no doubt others can come up with other cases.

As so often, if such an effect could be controlled in the editor, that would resolve the objection. However, the programming cost may be excessive, in which case it seems best to me to refrain from an 'improvement' of dubious value.

[ColinWright]

Many of the other proposed naval changes sound good, but those under the 'revolutionary' section don't.

"9.16.1 Ships would be subject to damage. This would cause reduction in capability as appropriate. It would require repair. Sinking would be caused by 100% damage only. Naval units would not “evaporate” as land units do. They would only be eliminated if all ships in them were “sunk”. Damaged ships would not be returned to the pools – they would have to get back to port under their own power, debilitated by whatever damage they had incurred."

This seems to me to be entirely misconceived. In the scale and time frame OPART deals in, it's practically the opposite of reality. Take Crete: only a quarter or so of the Mediterranean Fleet was literally sunk -- but another two quarters was so damaged as to be unserviceable for various lengths of time.

Destroyers leaking from near misses can't put to sea again with reduced efficiency -- they have to dock and be repaired, or they'll sink. They're out, or they're in. Rarely are they coming back out of port but with only half of their original fighting strength.

The current system actually handles this about right. In OPART terms, all three-quarters of the Mediterranean fleet would be 'sunk' off Crete. Then the replacement engine will reluctantly dispense about half of the losses back over time.

And that's about what happened. A quarter were sunk for good, another quarter were so badly damaged as to be out of service for the duration of any reasonable TOAW scenario, and the third quarter were indeed repairable over the next few weeks or so.

In general, the whole thing seems to suffer from attempting to take a tactical approach to what is, after all, an operational level game ('Ships can have a secondary armament – with different range and shell weight from main armament...9.16.2 Modeling of catastrophic hits that detonate magazines.').

Sorry, but it's my guess that all this should be junked. If not junked, at least make it optional. It'll make matters worse rather than better. Get a stand-alone tactical naval game if that's what you want. This is like trying to make OPART do your taxes. It's not the right engine for the application.

[ColinWright]

'8.34.3 Alternate: Player option to set a divisor value for the unit. Both the unit’s remaining MPs and interdiction chances would be divided by that value.'

That's outstanding. Simple, elegant, and fairly accurate.

It's likely to prove cumbersome to do it unit by unit, though. Setting a default for the entire force, moving those units for which one has concerns, then turning the default off to move the rest of the force and/or toggling back and forth as needed would be better, if not necessarily practical to program.

[ColinWright]

'7.33 Attack Planner table showing percent chance of success – like old style CRT'

It won't be the end of the world if this appears -- but it appears to ignore the way OPART works.

The whole effectiveness of the system owes much to the fact that there are so many contributing variables that one has to go with one's gut feeling, modified by experience ('hmm...these guys actually seem to give way pretty easily -- let's try popping more of them with reduced forces').

But you don't know. You aren't given any terribly definitive data. It's like actual battle in that respect -- and this is a good thing.

[ColinWright]

'7.32 Ability of a fresh unit to replace an existing fortified unit in a location – gaining its fortified deployment immediately.'

Also outstanding. In an ideal world, there'd be some chance that your turn would end and you'd discover that the fortification hadn't 'took.' This would simulate units being caught relieving other units.

...But that'd take some research to work out just how often it happened and just how catastrophic the effects were. I'll take this one as is.

[ColinWright]

"...6.38 Explicitly model tank-carrying trucks.
6.38.1 Would be used when moving over friendly territory – no tank breakdown, fast motorized speed..."

Excessively detailed, of dubious importance -- was there ever a force which found itself unable to move up tanks on account of no tank carriers?

[ColinWright]

'2.44 Bridge repair made non-random:
2.44.1 Less than 100% engineer attempts would be accumulated over time and between units, till 100% was reached. So a 25% engineer would take exactly four turns to repair a bridge.'

Been through that. For the reasons I gave at the time, I don't think this is necessarily a good idea.

However, it has its virtues, and either way, it won't exactly break the game. In general, though, I oppose efforts to make things completely predictable and controllable. Actual war tends to be just the opposite.

[ColinWright]

"2.45 Make terrain effects cumulative for both movement and combat."

That sucks. How do you square this with not wrecking previous scenarios? I, for one, have mapped many things on the assumption that effects aren't cumulative.

...and I don't want them to be. Some hills are wooded. They're not uber-hills on that account -- on the whole, they're fairly average hills. Now I can't put in the trees unless I want to see the hills become that much more formidable. So much for Merrie Olde Englande in Seelowe -- all those hills are going to have to become bald whether they are or not.

The only way this could work is if it's designer option. As a fixed setting, it's an extremely bad idea.

[ColinWright]

'4.7.2 “Minimum dividable unit size” designer setting. This would replace the “section” workaround.'

Good.

[ColinWright]

'4.10.3.1 Would reorder OOB accordingly.'

The ability to do this should be designer controlled, formation by formation.

[ColinWright]

'5.19 “Isolated” supply state: Supplied previous turn, but no line of communications in current turn – no adverse effect (treated as “Supplied”). Becomes “Unsupplied” the following turn if communications are not re-established.
5.19.1 So it takes two turns to become unsupplied.'

This isn't bad. However, it's really just stepping around the wildly different ammunition requirements for different arms (an infantry battalion can keep going on a few tons of ammo for quite some time -- an artillery battalion will blaze it off in a matter of minutes.)

...and this leads us into volume supply.

...

Nothing wrong with 5.19 -- it's just not addressing the central problem. The thing is -- vide Stalingrad and numerous other encirclements -- that isolated units swiftly lose their mechanized mobility and any use for their artillery. These arms just consume tons of material when they fight -- and once they're out of shells, they're useless. A rifleman, on the other hand, can fight for weeks with far less ammo. How much does one 105 mm round with propellant weigh? Fifty pounds? How many rifle cartridges is that? A thousand?

I've looked up tonnages for ammunition sent into battles. Infantry units consume a small fraction -- something like 5% if I recall aright -- of what the other arms demand. Hence, they would retain their functionality a lot longer if cut off. In fact, they did. The artillery is fairly quickly reduced to fighting as infantry.

[ColinWright]

In sum, if I had to pick one thing to keep, it would be that interdiction divisor -- and if there's one thing I'm sure should go, it's that cumulative terrain thing. That's going to damage a lot of scenarios. They were all designed under an assumption that is now invalid.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Many of the other proposed naval changes sound good, but those under the 'revolutionary' section don't.

"9.16.1 Ships would be subject to damage. This would cause reduction in capability as appropriate. It would require repair. Sinking would be caused by 100% damage only. Naval units would not “evaporate” as land units do. They would only be eliminated if all ships in them were “sunk”. Damaged ships would not be returned to the pools – they would have to get back to port under their own power, debilitated by whatever damage they had incurred."

This seems to me to be entirely misconceived. In the scale and time frame OPART deals in, it's practically the opposite of reality. Take Crete: only a quarter or so of the Mediterranean Fleet was literally sunk -- but another two quarters was so damaged as to be unserviceable for various lengths of time.

Destroyers leaking from near misses can't put to sea again with reduced efficiency -- they have to dock and be repaired, or they'll sink. They're out, or they're in. Rarely are they coming back out of port but with only half of their original fighting strength.

The current system actually handles this about right. In OPART terms, all three-quarters of the Mediterranean fleet would be 'sunk' off Crete. Then the replacement engine will reluctantly dispense about half of the losses back over time.

And that's about what happened. A quarter were sunk for good, another quarter were so badly damaged as to be out of service for the duration of any reasonable TOAW scenario, and the third quarter were indeed repairable over the next few weeks or so.

In general, the whole thing seems to suffer from attempting to take a tactical approach to what is, after all, an operational level game ('Ships can have a secondary armament – with different range and shell weight from main armament...9.16.2 Modeling of catastrophic hits that detonate magazines.').

Sorry, but it's my guess that all this should be junked. If not junked, at least make it optional. It'll make matters worse rather than better. Get a stand-alone tactical naval game if that's what you want. This is like trying to make OPART do your taxes. It's not the right engine for the application.

Right. Like such "tactical" games as WitP and PacWar.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Many of the other proposed naval changes sound good, but those under the 'revolutionary' section don't.

"9.16.1 Ships would be subject to damage. This would cause reduction in capability as appropriate. It would require repair. Sinking would be caused by 100% damage only. Naval units would not “evaporate” as land units do. They would only be eliminated if all ships in them were “sunk”. Damaged ships would not be returned to the pools – they would have to get back to port under their own power, debilitated by whatever damage they had incurred."

This seems to me to be entirely misconceived. In the scale and time frame OPART deals in, it's practically the opposite of reality. Take Crete: only a quarter or so of the Mediterranean Fleet was literally sunk -- but another two quarters was so damaged as to be unserviceable for various lengths of time.

Destroyers leaking from near misses can't put to sea again with reduced efficiency -- they have to dock and be repaired, or they'll sink. They're out, or they're in. Rarely are they coming back out of port but with only half of their original fighting strength.

The current system actually handles this about right. In OPART terms, all three-quarters of the Mediterranean fleet would be 'sunk' off Crete. Then the replacement engine will reluctantly dispense about half of the losses back over time.

And that's about what happened. A quarter were sunk for good, another quarter were so badly damaged as to be out of service for the duration of any reasonable TOAW scenario, and the third quarter were indeed repairable over the next few weeks or so.

In general, the whole thing seems to suffer from attempting to take a tactical approach to what is, after all, an operational level game ('Ships can have a secondary armament – with different range and shell weight from main armament...9.16.2 Modeling of catastrophic hits that detonate magazines.').

Sorry, but it's my guess that all this should be junked. If not junked, at least make it optional. It'll make matters worse rather than better. Get a stand-alone tactical naval game if that's what you want. This is like trying to make OPART do your taxes. It's not the right engine for the application.

Right. Like such "tactical" games as WitP and PacWar.

You may or may not have a point -- how things work in WitP and PacWar, how valid they are as simulations, and how these mechanisms fit into the general structure of the game I couldn't say. I will observe that I don't have your apparently unwavering faith in the validity of these simulations -- and I doubt if closer inspection would change that. I've never seen any simulation that was completely valid. They all almost necessarily fall short. What varies is by how much they fall short.

However, the gist of what I posted is that the changes you propose, in TOAW, would seem to produce effects just the opposite of what happened in reality. A lot of it revolves around realizing that ships lost in TOAW aren't necessarily sunk -- they're just removed from play, some of them permanently, some of them temporarily. That is, in fact, what tended to happen -- at least off both Crete and Norway. How many ships are rendered hors de combat for a while and how many are actually sunk are two very different things. The battle report says you lost four destroyers. It doesn't say they're sunk. In reality, of course, the destroyers Kimberly and Kashmir have indeed gone to the bottom, the Khyber is going to be out for a while on account of its bow having been blown off, and the Kwaanza merely has some loosened rivets and buckled bulkheads and will be back in a few weeks. The game engine allows for that. Half your losses will go into the pool, and depending on what replacement priority you set for the unit, will trickle back in sooner or later. It's one of the few aspects of the current naval model that actually works passably well.

A key question is whether all this (the 'revolutionary' changes)is going to be a designer option -- or is it going to be something players will have to accept?

In any case, it wouldn't actually be something that would ruin the game -- naval warfare in TOAW is fundamentally misconceived anyway, and whether the essentially marginal changes you propose will make things slightly better or slightly worse is an interesting but hardly critical issue. I have little doubt that if you're determined enough, you'll have your way over this.

If I'm going to win any argument here, it'd be the one over making terrain effects cumulative for movement and combat. That would pose some vexing problems -- and it would seem to violate your own stricture against making any changes that would damage those scenarios that are already in existence.

[Panama]

3.4 already introduces changes that break older scenarios when using the new routines. I thought that was the reason for an old rules/new rules switch.

[sPzAbt653]

... Crete: only a quarter or so of the Mediterranean Fleet was literally sunk -- but another two quarters was so damaged as to be unserviceable for various lengths of time.

I think if I understand 9.16.1 correctly, then under these new 'damage' rules, then 1/4 of your Med. Fleet would suffer 100% damage and be sunk, while 2/4's would suffer such a large % of damage that they should return to port for repairs or risk being easily sunk.

I guess 9.16.1 wouldn't accurately cover all cases. Bismark only suffered slight damage initially, but that slight damage made its ruder inoperable, effectly putting it out of commission (although it could still fire).

I think it was one of the US ships that was shelling Cherbourg that got hit by a large caliber German shell which didn't explode but imbedded itself in the hull. The ship was not really damaged at all, but returned to port immediately (for obvious reasons).

I think as long as 9.16.1 doesn't create a lot of extra work for the player, then it might be ok, especially if you are into playing naval scenarios.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You may or may not have a point -- how things work in WitP and PacWar, how valid they are as simulations, and how these mechanisms fit into the general structure of the game I couldn't say. I will observe that I don't have your apparently unwavering faith in the validity of these simulations -- and I doubt if closer inspection would change that. I've never seen any simulation that was completely valid. They all almost necessarily fall short. What varies is by how much they fall short.

The fact remains that they are operational naval wargames and they clearly felt a need to model ship damage. Can you do naval warfare treating ships as monolithic blocks? Sure - just as you could do land combat treating ground combat units as monolithic blocks - as they did back in the 1970s. But thank God that's no longer necessary. Unfortunately, naval combat in TOAW doesn't even rise to that level of legitimacy. It's a joke for any purpose other than using them as floating artillery. So, we would have had to overhaul it in some fashion no matter what. Might as well do it right.

However, the gist of what I posted is that the changes you propose, in TOAW, would seem to produce effects just the opposite of what happened in reality.

I don't see any downside to increased realism. Did real ships suffer damage in combat? Or did they either emerge unscathed or go "poof". It's that simple. How can damage levels result in "effects just the opposite of ... reality"? It is reality!

A lot of it revolves around realizing that ships lost in TOAW aren't necessarily sunk -- they're just removed from play, some of them permanently, some of them temporarily. That is, in fact, what tended to happen -- at least off both Crete and Norway. How many ships are rendered hors de combat for a while and how many are actually sunk are two very different things. The battle report says you lost four destroyers. It doesn't say they're sunk. In reality, of course, the destroyers Kimberly and Kashmir have indeed gone to the bottom, the Khyber is going to be out for a while on account of its bow having been blown off, and the Kwaanza merely has some loosened rivets and buckled bulkheads and will be back in a few weeks. The game engine allows for that. Half your losses will go into the pool, and depending on what replacement priority you set for the unit, will trickle back in sooner or later. It's one of the few aspects of the current naval model that actually works passably well.

As currently devised, naval combat doesn't use the ship's Defense Strength. That means that it is as easy to sink a BB as a DD - that's been confirmed via rigorous tests. Furthermore, whether ships are sunk or returned to the pools is perversely based upon the ship's unit-proficiency. And those damaged ships don't have to limp their way back to a port for repair - a port that could even be under attack while it was there. Instead they magically escape what may have been certain death, to an absolutely safe location (the pools). Rebuild times are, at most, four weeks for a destroyed unit, regardless of ship size or level of damage - and that's only if the unit was destroyed. Contrary to the above, ships in the pool can return immediately to a fleet unit that remained on the map - and that could be as short as 6-hours. For floating artillery, that's fine. For naval combat of any kind, it's a joke.

If I'm going to win any argument here, it'd be the one over making terrain effects cumulative for movement and combat. That would pose some vexing problems -- and it would seem to violate your own stricture against making any changes that would damage those scenarios that are already in existence.

Here's a fact to remember about the Wishlist: Everybody gets their wishes entered - I don't filter anything out. I'm not making a comment on that suggestion, but I'll leave it to the one who suggested it to defend it.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If I'm going to win any argument here, it'd be the one over making terrain effects cumulative for movement and combat. That would pose some vexing problems...

This is one of my favorites. Terrain effects on defensive strengths of infantry when there is a forest in a clear hex is x2. When there is a hill it's x2. When there is and hill AND a forest x2. So why is it x2 when there's a forest on clear terrain and still only x2 when that forest is on a hill? Where's the logic?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

... Crete: only a quarter or so of the Mediterranean Fleet was literally sunk -- but another two quarters was so damaged as to be unserviceable for various lengths of time.

I think if I understand 9.16.1 correctly, then under these new 'damage' rules, then 1/4 of your Med. Fleet would suffer 100% damage and be sunk, while 2/4's would suffer such a large % of damage that they should return to port for repairs or risk being easily sunk.

I guess 9.16.1 wouldn't accurately cover all cases. Bismark only suffered slight damage initially, but that slight damage made its ruder inoperable, effectly putting it out of commission (although it could still fire).

I think it was one of the US ships that was shelling Cherbourg that got hit by a large caliber German shell which didn't explode but imbedded itself in the hull. The ship was not really damaged at all, but returned to port immediately (for obvious reasons).

I think as long as 9.16.1 doesn't create a lot of extra work for the player, then it might be ok, especially if you are into playing naval scenarios.

Could be okay. As I noted, it's not like this is a well-functioning model to begin with -- pretty hard to make it worse.

I'd say that my fundamental objection is just that it's philosophically wrong-headed. It doesn't really tackle the worst flaws in the naval model. It's a bit like getting new tires for the car when the problem is that the transmission is out.