TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy

[gliz2]

Bob
On the bombing in IIWW I highly recommend to read "They Hosed Them Out" by John Bede Cusack.

I stand corrected that the heavy bombers were not used at low-level bombardments as B-24 were. But low-level bombardment was of limited use because of extremely heavy losses.
In the low-level attack by B-24 bombers against Ploesti, August 1st, 1943, out of 178 bombers, 41 were downed by the defenses and 13 lost for other reasons, totaling 54 losses (1/3 of total deployed planes)which is why… despite the great damage done such a low level assault was NOT repeated, as very few air forces could afford to lose 20–30% of every mission flown. It was deployed only when the potential losses to the target were considered worth the great cost in aircrew incurred. At altitude of below 3.000 feet mostly bi-engine bombers were only used.

The cloured flares were used by special pathfinders units to mark targets for heavy bombers for night runs on cities and factories (static targets). This technique was used for CAS (which excludebheavy bombers) by ground forces as there was a direct comms between CAS and ground forces (which did not exist between ground forces and heavy bombers).
TBH I think we are not having a discussion here. I mean your statement of heavy bombers using low level bombing to hit enemy ground forces is not substantiated by evidence in IIWW.

You are right that technically such an attack was possible. Just as you can eat a poisonous mushroom. In 99% cases you'll die of it, but yes, technically ypu CAN eat it.

To scalability: when heavy bombers drop their payload the devastation is terrible. And it has it's effects. See the battle of Monte Cassino or effects on Caen or May-sur in Normandy. The ground forces had to clean up the rubble first to be able to move (tanks could not pass in some cases for days). That is what I mean by effects of (heavy) bombardment.

I will post them Combat Charts in next few days.

PS. An extreme example should not be taken as general rrule. Just because once in IIWW a m8 Greyhound was able to destroy a Tiger I tank it does not mean that in combat M8s were capable of taking Tigers. They weren't as supported by all other examples from history.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I stand corrected that the heavy bombers were not used at low-level bombardments as B-24 were. But low-level bombardment was of limited use because of extremely heavy losses.
In the low-level attack by B-24 bombers against Ploesti, August 1st, 1943, out of 178 bombers, 41 were downed by the defenses and 13 lost for other reasons, totaling 54 losses (1/3 of total deployed planes)which is why… despite the great damage done such a low level assault was NOT repeated, as very few air forces could afford to lose 20–30% of every mission flown. It was deployed only when the potential losses to the target were considered worth the great cost in aircrew incurred. At altitude of below 3.000 feet mostly bi-engine bombers were only used.

Obviously, Ploesti was extremely heavily defended. Mediums would have suffered just as badly, if not worse. Normal ground targets, like troop concentrations wouldn't have that level of defense. What matters is what the planes were capable of, not what historical choices were made about them.

PS. An extreme example should not be taken as general rrule. Just because once in IIWW a m8 Greyhound was able to destroy a Tiger I tank it does not mean that in combat M8s were capable of taking Tigers. They weren't as supported by all other examples from history.

But if you want to attack Tigers with Greyhounds the game allows it. Are you saying that should be banned?

[gliz2]

And here the god mode vs realistic simulation comes into play.

Just because an infantry platoon with just rifles can charge through open field to assault a Tiger tank doesn't mean it would do so in reality. As a matter of fact putting the banzai attacks aside they wouldn't had. Just like in reality allied tankers avoided duelling with Tiger tanks. At some point there was even a Tigerphobia in Normandy which resulted in tankers refusing to follow orders.

To answer your question if we are talking on a platoon level then it would be a extremely low probability roll that M8 would attack the Tiger(s). If we are talking large scale engagement were the M8 are just accompanying tanks then they obviously be participating in that engagement.

It's hard to discuss a IIWW air force tactics with someone who has very basic knowledge of the subject.
You constantly fail to notice the issues or simply choose to ignore them.

Yes, heavy bombers were used in low-level attack on static targets (like dams or factories) or when attacking ships in the Pacific but I still haven't found evidence that this was done against ground forces (especially for CAS). Maybe you are confusing a low level attack against a static defence (where AA anyhow would be an issue) and against columns of enemies on the road with a CAS low level bombing (which was not possible due to the lack of communication, skills and appropriate equipment).

For example in Panzer Campaigns you have formations (combat, movement, strategic movement). And then you can see effectivenes of bombardment on them. And by the way the bombardment of columns of enemies were also mostly done by fighter-bombers and medium bombers because of the tactics and means. Heavy bombers were used for level bombing of the infrastracture.

Most games allow players to order units to do things that in reality would not have been possible. Even laten in the war the German military was extremely against suicidal missions (there are only few know cases from late April/May 1945). Therefore suicidal actions like a platoon of M8 assaulting on its own Tigers or platoon of SdKfz 222 assaulting T34/85 should not be allowed.
Command Ops does a great job in simulating this. It's an extremely valauble tool to discover the real limitations of humans. They were not robots blindly following orders. During the fights over Arnhem one Frost boys were able to push back the Tiger II assault because of the amount of lead they've poured on them. Although almost no PIATs to were left to the Paras ze Germans didn't know that. And as one of tank crew members described the feeling it was like sitting in a hughe practise target with hundreds of round constantly hitting the armour. The crew was not able to distinguish heavy (6-pdr) from light rounds (heavy mgs). It was so loud and so constant. So in the end they have pannicked although only just a single tank was damaged.

If you want to reply to the above please do so but I'm done. It's a separate discussion from Time Stamps and lets focus on them TS.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

And here the god mode vs realistic simulation comes into play.

Just because an infantry platoon with just rifles can charge through open field to assault a Tiger tank doesn't mean it would do so in reality. As a matter of fact putting the banzai attacks aside they wouldn't had. Just like in reality allied tankers avoided duelling with Tiger tanks. At some point there was even a Tigerphobia in Normandy which resulted in tankers refusing to follow orders.

There is no "God mode" in TOAW, as I've already explained. Formations and units can be reorganizing. In fact, sending a unit on a true "suicide mission" is an excellent way to put them into reorganization. And there were plenty of forces in WW II that DID carryout suicide missions. The Japanese were notorious for it, and the Soviets often sent troops forward with machineguns aimed at them in case they turned around.

It's hard to discuss a IIWW air force tactics with someone who has very basic knowledge of the subject.
You constantly fail to notice the issues or simply choose to ignore them.

Back to insults already. Great way to advance your claims.

Yes, heavy bombers were used in low-level attack on static targets (like dams or factories) or when attacking ships in the Pacific but I still haven't found evidence that this was done against ground forces (especially for CAS). Maybe you are confusing a low level attack against a static defence (where AA anyhow would be an issue) and against columns of enemies on the road with a CAS low level bombing (which was not possible due to the lack of communication, skills and appropriate equipment).

For example in Panzer Campaigns you have formations (combat, movement, strategic movement). And then you can see effectivenes of bombardment on them. And by the way the bombardment of columns of enemies were also mostly done by fighter-bombers and medium bombers because of the tactics and means. Heavy bombers were used for level bombing of the infrastracture.

Most games allow players to order units to do things that in reality would not have been possible. Even laten in the war the German military was extremely against suicidal missions (there are only few know cases from late April/May 1945). Therefore suicidal actions like a platoon of M8 assaulting on its own Tigers or platoon of SdKfz 222 assaulting T34/85 should not be allowed.
Command Ops does a great job in simulating this. It's an extremely valauble tool to discover the real limitations of humans. They were not robots blindly following orders. During the fights over Arnhem one Frost boys were able to push back the Tiger II assault because of the amount of lead they've poured on them. Although almost no PIATs to were left to the Paras ze Germans didn't know that. And as one of tank crew members described the feeling it was like sitting in a hughe practise target with hundreds of round constantly hitting the armour. The crew was not able to distinguish heavy (6-pdr) from light rounds (heavy mgs). It was so loud and so constant. So in the end they have pannicked although only just a single tank was damaged.

Again, it only matters what the stuff was capable of doing. The operational choices of the historical participants are just that: choices.

[gliz2]

Bob,
What insult is in making a statement? I have no clue about a modern warefare. Therefore how anyone could insult me saying that I have no understanding of modern warefare? You MAY take it personal but a criticism is not (or at least shouldn't be) by definition ad personam.
And You have constantly displayed a lack of understanding of IIWW air-ground forces cooperation.

And believe it or not I'm searching for the evidence for your claims. Because we are discussing and fact finding is a must. Otherwise it's emotional and personal monologues of two parties. Not discussion about factual.

You can build whatever theory based on some single events.
Soviets did not do banzai attacks and were not sent on a suicidal mission. They were forced not to withdraw or to advance to the extreme. However there are plenty evidance that they have not followed the orders and were "executed" by NKVD troops. So a very bad example.

I mentioned Japanese already, to point out differences in tactical approach. But if I'd follow your logic then it would mean I should be able to conclude a banzai attack with any troops. It is not a realistic approach.

An example of where it would lead is coding into the engine the ability for any strategic bomber to do diving runs. Of course they would in 99% cases died trying, planes would fall apart but technically yes one could issue such an order.

Well I'm all for HISTORICALLY plausable options but not for absurdities.

A god mode is a base of all hex games. I think you are confusing ability of issuing an order with following orders. Any unit in TAOW which you can issue an order will follow that order however absurd it might be.
A recon platoon charging on a fortified battalion? Sure thing.
A defense which will never try to break out unless you give the order?
Orders always being executed (especially in combined ops)? No problem (no the modifier does not simulate the issue properly).

If you think that an engine should allow for any absurdity imaginable then there is nothing to discuss because I'm totally against it Sir. And this is a personal preference. No argument will ever overcome personal preferences.

[altipueri]

Many years ago as a teenager I went to a local wargames club. But after a few visits I gave up because almost every evening descended into an argument between old men about what was or wasn't realistic.

Those old men were probably only about 30 however the experience kept me away from wargames until the heaven sent arrival of the computer and an AI/PO to play against.

Amen.

[gliz2]

Having an argument just to have an argument for itself is pointless.
But on the other hand without those hours of heated discussion no good game would have ever been made. You need to be constantly and constructively challanged.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Bob,
What insult is in making a statement? I have no clue about a modern warefare. Therefore how anyone could insult me saying that I have no understanding of modern warefare? You MAY take it personal but a criticism is not (or at least shouldn't be) by definition ad personam.

It was an obvious insult. And it is totally unnecessary to making one's argument. I have not made any personal comments about you.

And You have constantly displayed a lack of understanding of IIWW air-ground forces cooperation.

I defy you to identify any statement I've made in this thread that was factually incorrect. And by identify I mean the post #.

You can build whatever theory based on some single events.
Soviets did not do banzai attacks and were not sent on a suicidal mission. They were forced not to withdraw or to advance to the extreme. However there are plenty evidance that they have not followed the orders and were "executed" by NKVD troops. So a very bad example.

Being executed for not attacking is a very good example. Nevertheless, the Germans described a horde of Russians heading towards them linked arm-in-arm and obviously very drunk. That was an obvious suicide mission that they even had to be drunk to carry out. Stalin famously said "It takes a very brave man to be a coward in my army.".

I would add that the torpedo bombers at Midway were on a suicide mission - only one survivor (and he was a miracle). The Hood was on a suicide mission against the Bismarck, which was itself on a suicide mission. Late in the war the German u-boats were basically on suicide missions. The first wave at Omaha beach, not to mention Tarawa could be called suicidal as well.

The bottom line is that it would be absurd for TOAW to ban certain actions just because in some cases units refused to carry them out.

I mentioned Japanese already, to point out differences in tactical approach. But if I'd follow your logic then it would mean I should be able to conclude a banzai attack with any troops. It is not a realistic approach.

By my logic, if you want something banned, then you need a house rule. That's the only practical way for such minutia to be handled by TOAW.

An example of where it would lead is coding into the engine the ability for any strategic bomber to do diving runs. Of course they would in 99% cases died trying, planes would fall apart but technically yes one could issue such an order.

One could even issue orders for the planes to actually fly into enemy ships.

A god mode is a base of all hex games. I think you are confusing ability of issuing an order with following orders. Any unit in TAOW which you can issue an order will follow that order however absurd it might be.

Not if it is in reorganization. And, if you give it a suicide mission, that may very well be the result.

If you think that an engine should allow for any absurdity imaginable then there is nothing to discuss because I'm totally against it Sir. And this is a personal preference. No argument will ever overcome personal preferences.

I think that if you want to disallow some action in your scenario then you should handle that via a house rule. It should not be built into TOAW.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Many years ago as a teenager I went to a local wargames club. But after a few visits I gave up because almost every evening descended into an argument between old men about what was or wasn't realistic.

Those old men were probably only about 30 however the experience kept me away from wargames until the heaven sent arrival of the computer and an AI/PO to play against.

Amen.

And the worst of it was someone who was wrong never being wrong because they couldn't admit they were wrong. "I win because I was the last one to post so I'm right" [:D][8|]

[gliz2]

It's good to finally find some outsiders view on the issue rather to read all this fanboy banter all over again.

"The time management is obscured in such a way that the game becomes opaque. Will my turn end? Can I do another combat? What about the rest of the border?

I totally understand the argument of a turn being a week, and units moving occupy a certain portion of that time, but man, this is just a shitty way of doing it."

"I’ve said it time and time again, turn based is a throwback to the days of cardboard games. This is fine, but instead of using this back asswards time pulse system, why not just make it real time? It’s a hybrid bastard right now and would strongly benefit from a rework closer to Command Ops. Keep the hexes, keep everything, but kill this abomination of a time management system."

"Hopefully someone comes up with a similar game that fixes the issues here. If Atomic Games could damn well do it 20 years ago with a WEGO system, I’d think someone could do it today."

What is logicall in this pulse system where combat take place before the encirclement is completed yet the results are delayed in time so to allow encirclement? There is no logic behind it and it's both poor design and counterintuitive.

I have no problem with playing this handicapped game. I have problem with people (who are involved in the design) of admitting to the fact.

Link to the review

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

It's good to finally find some outsiders view on the issue rather to read all this fanboy banter all over again.

"The time management is obscured in such a way that the game becomes opaque. Will my turn end? Can I do another combat? What about the rest of the border?

I totally understand the argument of a turn being a week, and units moving occupy a certain portion of that time, but man, this is just a shitty way of doing it."

"I’ve said it time and time again, turn based is a throwback to the days of cardboard games. This is fine, but instead of using this back asswards time pulse system, why not just make it real time? It’s a hybrid bastard right now and would strongly benefit from a rework closer to Command Ops. Keep the hexes, keep everything, but kill this abomination of a time management system."

"Hopefully someone comes up with a similar game that fixes the issues here. If Atomic Games could damn well do it 20 years ago with a WEGO system, I’d think someone could do it today."

What is logicall in this pulse system where combat take place before the encirclement is completed yet the results are delayed in time so to allow encirclement? There is no logic behind it and it's both poor design and counterintuitive.

I have no problem with playing this handicapped game. I have problem with people (who are involved in the design) of admitting to the fact.

Link to the review

So you'd rather read WEGO and Real-Time fanboy banter? Let's just ignore the issues with those methods.

That review says more about the state of reviewing nowadays. Review a game after you've only made a cursory attempt to grasp it, and that's what you get.

[Lobster]

Simply put, you obviously don't like the game even though you say you have no problem with playing it. Your endless whining about the game system would indicate that, for you, it is painful to play. You do absolutely nothing to help but you are more than willing to stand on your shoddy soapbox and throw out big words. And you insult and accuse the people who do like it, defend it and play it and work on improving it of being blind. What you don't know is what is being done to improve the game. One of the things it will never be is a real time twitch fest. If that's what you're looking for go someplace else, you won't find it here. Complaining that TOAW is not rts is not ever going to make it rts. What is ****ty is your endless crying about a game you so clearly do not like and you will never accept anything anyone says to the contrary. As for outsiders views, you will only agree to what anyone says if they agree with your ideas. Why do you even come here? [;)]

[gliz2]

You are so funny guys. Any sort of criticism against certain aspect of mechanic you make about the game. If only there was ever a perfect game with no flaws.

I have issue with solution of rounds (and Time Stamps) and not with the Game itself. TAOW 4 does well on a grand scale (10-20km hex) or small (1-2 km) where turns are in weeks or in hours. Then the Pulse system works ok. Not the best solution but also not the worst. On the middle scale like FITE2 unfortunately the Rounds/Time Stamps systems creates a lo of issues. It is just not coherent and illogical. In one case it will allow for rolling over the enemy in other it will penalize with rounds burned for no reason (I haven't discovered the logic behind the results of the combat and the rounds burn). If you guys have some logical explanation to the below picture then please do share.


As I do not know the engine I cannot say what can or cannot be done. IF it would be possible I would see the whole rounds system dropped for Time Stamps (see I do not mind the Time Stamps themselves). TS should be a MPs penalty for the hex(es) where the combat took place. Clean and neat solution. You move through the hex after combat execution and you will have to spend more MPs. And you can have as many combat phases as MPs allow.

The reviewer had an issue with the implementation of the Pulse system. And for that you do not need much of game-play time. There are better or worse implementations but the whole system is flawed. And TAOW4 in current status and in scale of FITE2 is one of the latter. My personal opinion after 400+ hrs spent on the FITE2

PS. Ability to accept the flaws and willingness to improve are the key for improving things.

[gliz2]

Lobster there are people with whom you can have a discussion and there are those with whom you cannot. You have not presented any counterarguments other then constantly attacking me personally.

I love my daughter. Most perfect creature in this world for me. Does not mean she is without flaws or that she is always right.

If I would not enjoy playing the game I wouldn't invest time in writing AARs.

Your arguments make no sense whatsoever and are flawed logically. They bring zero value to the discussion. Bob in the contrary has put effort in presenting his views with examples and logic. Even if I do not agree with him I do not think offended or dissed. He has his point of view. Like everybody else.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I have issue with solution of rounds (and Time Stamps) and not with the Game itself. TAOW 4 does well on a grand scale (10-20km hex) or small (1-2 km) where turns are in weeks or in hours. Then the Pulse system works ok. Not the best solution but also not the worst. On the middle scale like FITE2 unfortunately the Rounds/Time Stamps systems creates a lo of issues. It is just not coherent and illogical. In one case it will allow for rolling over the enemy in other it will penalize with rounds burned for no reason (I haven't discovered the logic behind the results of the combat and the rounds burn).

FITE2 uses the same scale as CFNA. Check out Warspite2's AAR to see how well that scale works. It looked just like the historical campaign - and that was maintained for over 200 turns!

Whatever your issues are, you have yet to identify them well enough that I can understand what they are.

If you guys have some logical explanation to the below picture then please do share.

We're not mind readers. What's wrong?

The reviewer had an issue with the implementation of the Pulse system. And for that you do not need much of game-play time.

That is exactly what you need to have his issues: Not much game-play time. Any decent experience and he would have known better.

There are better or worse implementations but the whole system is flawed. And TAOW4 in current status and in scale of FITE2 is one of the latter. My personal opinion after 400+ hrs spent on the FITE2

TOAW does its job quite well. And I've got the AARs to prove it. That's the bottom line.

[larryfulkerson]

I don't have any proof but from what Warspite1 said about our PAW game was that the new Naval
Rules and the way the ships perform isn't realistic and he dropped out of our game and I haven't
heard from him since. That was about 3 months ago. And I gripped about not having any night
missions for my bombers but other than these two issues TOAW is without a doubt the finest war
game simulation I've ever played and I've been playing since 2003. And I've tried WITE, WITW,
Panzer Commander, etc. I keep coming back to TOAW because I like it a lot. It's not perfect
but it's getting closer all the time.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

It's not perfect but it's getting closer all the time.

Exactly Larry. It's because of the 'fanboys' that this game is still here and continues to improve. It will never be rts thank goodness but some of the things mentioned in this thread are or will be worked on for certain.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Lobster there are people with whom you can have a discussion and there are those with whom you cannot.

Exactly my point. You are of the latter. You don't care for the game system by your own words ("I have no problem with playing this handicapped game"). You never will care for the game system. No more need be 'discussed' because your position will never change no matter what Bob or anyone else tries to explain. The only reason you go on and on and on and on is because you think you are so correct in your thinking that you are astounded everyone does not flock to your feet and pronounce your great vision. There is a point where a wise man would see that there is little to no agreement to your views and stop flogging the dead horse. But nope, you gotta have the last word so that you can be correct. We see that a lot in forums. So please, be sure you make the last response you so you are correct and maybe this thread will die the death it so richly deserves. One can only hope. [8|]

[gliz2]

Bob,
I'm so sorry mate but I'll make a new thread with only simple questions with examples based on FITE2 (as I'm currently playtest it).
Too many emotional comments already here.

[Teufeldk]

Hi gliz2

I will jump in here:

What is it about the above picture that needs to be explained?

Maybe I can help?