TOAW IV features

[larryfulkerson]

would be nice to have the ability to select how a unit is going to divide

You have the ability to decide ( within a small range ) how many pieces the unit will
divide into.........what other ability would you like to be able to have? Change the
TOE? Change the Leader of the original unit? Choose the leaders of the new
pieces? I'm curious.

[SMK-at-work]

I imagine that in some scenarios you might want to split off more mobile components (eg tanks, infantry)into 1 subunit, and less mobile (eg artillery) into another, and/or create a specific mix for specific purposes.

some historical TOE's probably support this concept better than others - eg the WW2 US Combat Command concept is probably more flexible within a division than the usual triangular division organisation.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
I imagine that in some scenarios you might want to split off more mobile components (eg tanks, infantry)into 1 subunit, and less mobile (eg artillery) into another, and/or create a specific mix for specific purposes.

some historical TOE's probably support this concept better than others - eg the WW2 US Combat Command concept is probably more flexible within a division than the usual triangular division organisation.

Wow ! That's way cool. I hadn't thought of that. Good catch.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

would be nice to have the ability to select how a unit is going to divide

You have the ability to decide ( within a small range ) how many pieces the unit will
divide into.........what other ability would you like to be able to have? Change the
TOE? Change the Leader of the original unit? Choose the leaders of the new
pieces? I'm curious.

What SMK said, that's what I said brigade level or higher, wouldn't make much sense in units of only one arm, such as a infantry regiment. As for historical examples, during 1943 the Pz-Grenadier div. LSSAH usually formed an "armoured" kampfgruppe with its only halftrack-mounted infantry battalion, the Pz. regiment and the Self-propelled artillery, would be cool to able to do that in the game. Or as in Afica, where Rommel used to mix AA units with his Panzers.. although in this case one would need the ability of mixing up different units [:)]
Of course that would increase the workload of the player, but I guess if there's still the option of dividing it in equal parts, it won't hurt if don't want to.

[SMK-at-work]

TBF you can stack AA units with your panzers already for the "offensive defence"

[Meyer1]

Of course, one could argue that you can stack in the same hex whatever units that wanted, I would agree with this if the 9-units stacking limit didn't existed. This is the root of some problems, or compromises that designers have to make.
For example, in scenarios like FITE or DNO, you can't put two Pz. Divisions attacking in the same 10km-hex (which was not unusual) because the design of those units, that instead of a single counter are made of 6 or even 9 in DNO.
IMHO the stack limit has to go, or should be up to the designer to put one at his/her wish.

[larryfulkerson]

or should be up to the designer to put one at his/her wish.

The Scenario Designer has already the ability to set the Combat Density Threashold. This will determine when the red
combat dense indicator comes on.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

or should be up to the designer to put one at his/her wish.

The Scenario Designer has already the ability to set the Combat Density Threashold. This will determine when the red
combat dense indicator comes on.

Thanks for the info, did not know that. But, I think that the 9-counter limit is not possible to break, right?

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

or should be up to the designer to put one at his/her wish.

The Scenario Designer has already the ability to set the Combat Density Threashold. This will determine when the red
combat dense indicator comes on.

Thanks for the info, did not know that. But, I think that the 9-counter limit is not possible to break, right?

I think that's right. That rule is one limit that I would like to see a fix for. There's lots of situations where the terrain
should determine what's possible for a given hex. I would think.

[Meyer1]

Yeah,, dynamic hex-density penalty, based on terrain and scale, maybe some other factos too, and get rid of the 9-counter limit, that would better I think.
Now, since I've never designer a scenario, I'm sure that there are reasons to put some limit for some situations, but I can't imagine one right now. Maybe someone could come up with something in favour of the limit.

[76mm]

I'm all for stacking limits of some kind, they are a necessary feature, but the arbitrary 9-unit limit doesn't make much sense, especially given the variable hex and unit size in TOAW.

I like how Panzer Campaigns handles it--the scenario designer sets a "manpower stacking limit" which applies to all hexes, and then you can fit as many units in the hex as you want, as long as their aggregate manpower does not exceed the limit. Vehicles count for ten men.

Not perfect, but generally it works well.

[Meyer1]

76mm: yeah I agree with you, what I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a counter limit, or at least live it to the designers, because sometimes 1 battalion counter could be more "heavy" than 5 counters of shattered remains of battalions...
Also, the peculiarities of TOAW supply system are perhaps one of the reasons of the limit, as no matter how many units you put in an hex, all are gonna receive the same supply as if just one is present.
As you say, I like better how PzC handle this.

[Lobster]

It sounds like you are saying it should be an equipment/man limit. That would be a hairy concept indeed. While equipment does have volume I don't think it has anything to do with how much space it takes up since a two man team and a 204mm howitzer have the same volume of 999. Perhaps the limit in TOAW is related more to command control than overcrowding.

As for supply, different nations handled supply in their own way. German divisions were responsible for getting their own supplies from the corps dump. Soviet divisions received their supply from the Army dump. Except for artillery units which received their supply from Front dumps. I don't see a problem with all units in a hex receiving the same supply. What would be different is how units in the same hex consume supply during a turn. I think the game handles that ok since to do it in a micro manage fashion would be a nightmare to program. The easiest thing to do better is to break down the supply into POL, rations and ammo. But that's another thread.

[Lobster]

Another thing. It would be great if a scenario designer were allowed to set parameters for more than is currently allowed. That would include stacking limits. Like John Tiller games does it.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
It sounds like you are saying it should be an equipment/man limit. That would be a hairy concept indeed. While equipment does have volume I don't think it has anything to do with how much space it takes up since a two man team and a 204mm howitzer have the same volume of 999. Perhaps the limit in TOAW is related more to command control than overcrowding.

I don't really understand what you meant ("a two man team and a 204mm howitzer have the same volume of 999") but actually the concept is not very hairy at all, it is pretty simple, although as I said it is not perfect. It is certainly better than an arbitrary number of units of indeterminate size (division, battalion, company? Doesn't matter).

I don't think that having stacking for command and control reasons makes much sense either--all of the units could be from the same unit. If the point is to limit span of control, that is a worthy aim but surely there is a better way to do it than stacking rules.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Lobster
It sounds like you are saying it should be an equipment/man limit. That would be a hairy concept indeed. While equipment does have volume I don't think it has anything to do with how much space it takes up since a two man team and a 204mm howitzer have the same volume of 999. Perhaps the limit in TOAW is related more to command control than overcrowding.

I don't really understand what you meant ("a two man team and a 204mm howitzer have the same volume of 999") but actually the concept is not very hairy at all, it is pretty simple, although as I said it is not perfect. It is certainly better than an arbitrary number of units of indeterminate size (division, battalion, company? Doesn't matter).

I don't think that having stacking for command and control reasons makes much sense either--all of the units could be from the same unit. If the point is to limit span of control, that is a worthy aim but surely there is a better way to do it than stacking rules.

I can certainly see an issue with basing it on an equipment limit, though: You could pack a hex with a huge number of empty units then sit back and wait as the replacement system builds them up to full strength. Then you've created an impossibly overstacked position that might prove unassailable.

The stacking limit works ok so long as the designer fits his unit sizes to the hexscale. My only objection is where sub-units count the same as full units. I'd like to see that addressed.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

... as no matter how many units you put in an hex, all are gonna receive the same supply as if just one is present.

What's wrong with that? They are all the same distance from the supply source. Why shouldn't they have the same hex supply?

[Meyer1]

Lobster: As for supply, different nations handled supply in their own way. German divisions were responsible for getting their own supplies from the corps dump. Soviet divisions received their supply from the Army dump. Except for artillery units which received their supply from Front dumps. I don't see a problem with all units in a hex receiving the same supply. What would be different is how units in the same hex consume supply during a turn. I think the game handles that ok since to do it in a micro manage fashion would be a nightmare to program. The easiest thing to do better is to break down the supply into POL, rations and ammo. But that's another thread.

Curtis Lemay What's wrong with that? They are all the same distance from the supply source. Why shouldn't they have the same hex supply?

It doesn't matter if a unit is receiving supply from a Corps/Army or whatever, their capacity of supplying units is not unlimited, so is not the same if they are in charge of 10 battalions, instead of 30. Now, I know, that is relevant to the units that the Corps/Army is responsible of, and not to what hexes those units are occupying, and I agree. But, there are bottlenecks regarding the road situation, and also traffic jams should also affect supply even in the same hex that are happening.
I understand that perhaps is not worth it to look at those issues without changing completely the supply system, and that probably will never occur.

[Lobster]

I thought supply was subjected to the same movement point restrictions regarding crowded hexes as your units. An over crowded hex would increase the number of movement points it would cost the supply to move through thus reducing supply at the end point.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I thought supply was subjected to the same movement point restrictions regarding crowded hexes as your units. An over crowded hex would increase the number of movement points it would cost the supply to move through thus reducing supply at the end point.

From the "what's new" document:

In the new method, we use a formula based on the movement points that would be expended by a virtual "Supply Unit" (which has motorized movement and a 50% unit density) to get to the location. Note that this will mean that very dense locations will likely suffer some supply reduction due to added movement costs of that density condition (stacking limits, however, will not block supply).

So, you are correct. That's actually what I was asking for... I think. Now I'm gonna read how density is calculated [:)]