Hallo,
i am playing the TAO2-Freeware version for the first time.
KP is just orderd by my german dealer, bat here
in germay we will get the game first in 3 weeks.
My question is about the size of the units:
In TOAW, TacOps or Airborene-Assault (e.g.) I can see every time
how man "real" men, tanks, pak's are behind the anonymous
icon (Say: 26. Koy. => 212 men.;4 tanks)
I need this Information for the big picture. And we all now,
a division (or I, II, III, X, XXX) in the last stages of WWII
existed often with verry different mix and numbers of units.
Does somebody know, how I can see, (or find out) how many
"concrete mens ..." are behind the Icons ?
Thanks and greetings
Rolfor
How can I see, how many "concrete mens" are behind my Icon ?
-
von Schmidt
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:33 pm
There is no way to see the exact nr of soldiers and equipment of the units in KP.
If you want to look at the 'big picture' it is abstraction that actually makes sense: for a general overview you want to know what the combat strength and the strength state of a unit is.
(Well , at least *I* would).
What would knowing the exact number of PAK88's add to knowing that the unit has lost half it strength, but is still at Att 4, def 3 and AT 2?
When playing TOAW, at first I also went into the detail display. But later on (in general) I just based my decisions on the main At/def factors. That is what counts.
Cheers,
von Schmidt
If you want to look at the 'big picture' it is abstraction that actually makes sense: for a general overview you want to know what the combat strength and the strength state of a unit is.
(Well , at least *I* would).
What would knowing the exact number of PAK88's add to knowing that the unit has lost half it strength, but is still at Att 4, def 3 and AT 2?
When playing TOAW, at first I also went into the detail display. But later on (in general) I just based my decisions on the main At/def factors. That is what counts.
Cheers,
von Schmidt
-
Belisarius
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Hallo guys 
thx for your answers. No problem for me. I will do a little research and find out, what the real numbers was.
I also understand, what you mean. I know this effekt: you play some hours and then you think in strengh, moral ans other abstract nubers.
But in a war, there fight no number against another number. In a war there are real people! And if I know my 22.Coy are at last 79 men i play with more responsibility - and often with a better strategy -. I play with MEN, not with symbols or UNITS! I name it UNITS bat I play with my men! Else I would play chess or backgammon.
Name it my philosophy *g* or the "operational art of my playstyle".
It's just MY way to do a wargame. And NO CRITIC to other players
Every player should play wargames in his own kind of playing. No question.
Back to TOA-2/3:
But: The waregamedeveloper do a lot of research and acurate rebuildings in the game. In TOA-2 you know, you can see the the insignias from B+Divs on the icons. What a incredible deep of Details. And than, no numbers about the heart of the game, the men who fight for you ?
Sorry boys, I don't believe it *hehe*
I just take a look:
- TacOps4: Every man is count ... verry good infos about this ...
- Uncomman Valour: You can even see the names of the pilots ...
- Combat Mission - easy to calculate ...
- Airborne Assault: Just select the unit ...
- E-Front, W-Front, PzC and the whole Tiller Games: no Problem easyly RC on the Unit-Info (= backside) ...
- SP, HOI ( I just take a look) - all numbers are there ...
No, i think in TOA-2 AND 3 you can see the number to. But they are hidden behind other numbers or figgers. I suspect *g*.
Therefore I do my question again:
Does somebody know, how I can see, (or find out) how many
"concrete mens ..." are behind the Icons ?
Greetings
Rolf
thx for your answers. No problem for me. I will do a little research and find out, what the real numbers was.
I also understand, what you mean. I know this effekt: you play some hours and then you think in strengh, moral ans other abstract nubers.
But in a war, there fight no number against another number. In a war there are real people! And if I know my 22.Coy are at last 79 men i play with more responsibility - and often with a better strategy -. I play with MEN, not with symbols or UNITS! I name it UNITS bat I play with my men! Else I would play chess or backgammon.
Name it my philosophy *g* or the "operational art of my playstyle".
It's just MY way to do a wargame. And NO CRITIC to other players
Every player should play wargames in his own kind of playing. No question.
Back to TOA-2/3:
But: The waregamedeveloper do a lot of research and acurate rebuildings in the game. In TOA-2 you know, you can see the the insignias from B+Divs on the icons. What a incredible deep of Details. And than, no numbers about the heart of the game, the men who fight for you ?
Sorry boys, I don't believe it *hehe*
I just take a look:
- TacOps4: Every man is count ... verry good infos about this ...
- Uncomman Valour: You can even see the names of the pilots ...
- Combat Mission - easy to calculate ...
- Airborne Assault: Just select the unit ...
- E-Front, W-Front, PzC and the whole Tiller Games: no Problem easyly RC on the Unit-Info (= backside) ...
- SP, HOI ( I just take a look) - all numbers are there ...
No, i think in TOA-2 AND 3 you can see the number to. But they are hidden behind other numbers or figgers. I suspect *g*.
Therefore I do my question again:
Does somebody know, how I can see, (or find out) how many
"concrete mens ..." are behind the Icons ?
Greetings
Rolf
Rolfor, no, there aren't numbers of men behind the factors. That is the way virtually all board wargames (or historic war simulations) have been throughout history. The generic "steps" actually give you a better picture of your unit than knowing how many "concrete men" you have, b/c unit strength is not determined by "men", but by weapons systems and morale, command, etc.
A one-step unit will, obviously, have less manpower than a 3 or 4 step unit and consequently be more "brittle". That is how the general viewed the scope of the operation you're fighting. "At what percentage effectiveness is 'x' division?"
Do not be led down the primrose path of extreme granularity of combat results. It's meaningless in a simulation at this scale. A unit "ceases to exist" long before its last man is killed.
A one-step unit will, obviously, have less manpower than a 3 or 4 step unit and consequently be more "brittle". That is how the general viewed the scope of the operation you're fighting. "At what percentage effectiveness is 'x' division?"
Do not be led down the primrose path of extreme granularity of combat results. It's meaningless in a simulation at this scale. A unit "ceases to exist" long before its last man is killed.
THX again
How I said, it is OK for me now. The game is great and therefore it would be a nice addition.
I know: " That is the way virtually all board wargames (or historic war simulations) have been throughout history."
But here are - just for thinking about this - a part of an article
Steve Lieb writes in 99:
Grognards and Graphics: Coming out of the 2D Closet
>>> "... It's a worthwhile question and really the reason for this whole article. My goal when playing a wargame is to be presented as closely as possible with the decisions faced by a real(istic) participant of the battle I'm simulating. This could be a panzer commander on the steppes and cornfields of Kharkov; or it could be Archduke Charles at Wagram, a Federation Command Cruiser captain in the Mutaran Nebula.
Personally, I'm not just playing wargames to see if I can crunch numbers and estimate probabilities from 'to hit' tables faster than my opponent. I want to be there - I want to feel the desperation when my attack to cutoff the salient is rebuffed with heavy losses. I want to feel the cold sweat down my proverbial back when an opponent sneaks through my pickets to attack from a totally unexpected angle. I'm an adrenaline junkie as much as any Xtreme athlete, just more cerebral. I don't think I'm unique, either. Perhaps I'm guilty of overgeneralization, but I think this is pretty common ..." <<<<<
I just want the numbers for my head *g* (a small evolution of Cardboard Games). Steve wants "to SEE" and "taste" the men, tanks and guns (a big evolution of Cardboard Games). But it 2003 this shold be no problem too.
Greetings
Rolfor
Article-Link:
http://www.warfarehq.com/Articles/Warga ... hics.shtml
How I said, it is OK for me now. The game is great and therefore it would be a nice addition.
I know: " That is the way virtually all board wargames (or historic war simulations) have been throughout history."
But here are - just for thinking about this - a part of an article
Steve Lieb writes in 99:
Grognards and Graphics: Coming out of the 2D Closet
>>> "... It's a worthwhile question and really the reason for this whole article. My goal when playing a wargame is to be presented as closely as possible with the decisions faced by a real(istic) participant of the battle I'm simulating. This could be a panzer commander on the steppes and cornfields of Kharkov; or it could be Archduke Charles at Wagram, a Federation Command Cruiser captain in the Mutaran Nebula.
Personally, I'm not just playing wargames to see if I can crunch numbers and estimate probabilities from 'to hit' tables faster than my opponent. I want to be there - I want to feel the desperation when my attack to cutoff the salient is rebuffed with heavy losses. I want to feel the cold sweat down my proverbial back when an opponent sneaks through my pickets to attack from a totally unexpected angle. I'm an adrenaline junkie as much as any Xtreme athlete, just more cerebral. I don't think I'm unique, either. Perhaps I'm guilty of overgeneralization, but I think this is pretty common ..." <<<<<
I just want the numbers for my head *g* (a small evolution of Cardboard Games). Steve wants "to SEE" and "taste" the men, tanks and guns (a big evolution of Cardboard Games). But it 2003 this shold be no problem too.
Greetings
Rolfor
Article-Link:
http://www.warfarehq.com/Articles/Warga ... hics.shtml
-
von Schmidt
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:33 pm
Um, you *do* realise that the strength of the units in KP was assigned manually by the developers, unlike TOAW or PzC where unit strength is derived from the raw numbers?
Ie: there are really no underlying personnel strenghts!
But if you *really* want to have an idea of the numbers, you can create a spreadsheet with all units and keep that up to date yourself.
4 step Panzer Div 16000 men, 3 step 12000 and so on.
Have fun!
BTW, since KP indeed gives one the experience of the commander on the spot, including the encirclements and bold dashes, I suspect that - on basis of the quote of his article- Steve Lieb would very much enjoy it.
von Schmidt
Ie: there are really no underlying personnel strenghts!
But if you *really* want to have an idea of the numbers, you can create a spreadsheet with all units and keep that up to date yourself.
4 step Panzer Div 16000 men, 3 step 12000 and so on.
Have fun!
BTW, since KP indeed gives one the experience of the commander on the spot, including the encirclements and bold dashes, I suspect that - on basis of the quote of his article- Steve Lieb would very much enjoy it.
von Schmidt
I too like to see numbers. I posted a similar question on another web site. If someone could just point me to a table or chart that tells me a 3-step unit of PzVI's has 'X' number of tanks; or a Panzer Grenadier unit with 4 steps is "how many" men; I would be happy.
I can deal with abstract from the game engine point of view but I guess i'm asking for a place where I can look to put numbers to "steps" so in my mind I have a cerebral link to what's actually happening on the battlefield. If I throw a 4-step PzV unt with one skull at a 4-step T-34-76 unit (with no skulls); I like to know I'm sending 21 PzV's to slug it out with 40 T-34-76's. I'm may feel, after reviewing the combat popup, that its worth the risk because my gut tells me a group PzV's will over come a slightly superior number of T-34's. Its just a fantasy think for me.
I can understand Rolfor's point of view. I can deal with abstraction but would like to what kind of numbers I'm dealing with in the "reality" or the virual battlefield. I can make a chart to help me if I can get some help on where to go to get the data.
hank
I can deal with abstract from the game engine point of view but I guess i'm asking for a place where I can look to put numbers to "steps" so in my mind I have a cerebral link to what's actually happening on the battlefield. If I throw a 4-step PzV unt with one skull at a 4-step T-34-76 unit (with no skulls); I like to know I'm sending 21 PzV's to slug it out with 40 T-34-76's. I'm may feel, after reviewing the combat popup, that its worth the risk because my gut tells me a group PzV's will over come a slightly superior number of T-34's. Its just a fantasy think for me.
I can understand Rolfor's point of view. I can deal with abstraction but would like to what kind of numbers I'm dealing with in the "reality" or the virual battlefield. I can make a chart to help me if I can get some help on where to go to get the data.
hank
-
Adam Parker
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:05 am
- Location: Melbourne Australia
There are a few schools of thought in game design - the traditional being for a game designer to look at history and allocate attack and defence strengths based on what was known concerning the combatants themselves and in relation to each other. Hence a basic wargame would give the 1st SS Panzer Div an 8-6 attack/defence rating vs a Volksgrenadier Division of 3-3 for example.
Another school of thought such as TOAW thought it good to use the PC to track every soul and vehicle forming a unit. A designer with exact information could create units precisely as they fought. More likely though, people would take the generic make-up for say, a 1944 German Infantry Division and go from there, maybe altering it by a percentage for losses estimated to the time of the battle being formed. Still this approach offered the problem of needing exact information for a scenario to be taken seriously - and didn't account for the fact that at any given time rarely would a unit commit 100% of its manpower to the front line. Every major weapon type, vehicle and squad would need to be accounted for (unrealistically imo).
Yet another school of thought uses a similar approach to TOAW but without the need to be as strict in accounting for every helmet and Opel truck. Here designers are able to work with manpower numbers limiting generalised head counts to combat forces actually known from accounts to have been in battle. The tweaking of generic OOB's works well here too. Truck pools, MG barrels, weapon types, horses heads etc are not of interest in exacting a force's combat abilities with this apporach. Panzer Campaigns is somewhat akin to this theory.
Units in KP are designed pretty much with the traditional school of thought in mind. Steps are a nice added feature in accounting for a unit's echelons, reserves, resilience etc. And as a player can allocate available replacements as desired in a very abstract manner - this non-specific approach to rating units for their combat strengths suits the game system well.
If people really want some background as to what their units more accurately represent therefore, then the only way they'll be able to achieve this is through the study of the campaign's OOB/TO&E's. Books such as Nash's "Hell's Gate" may help you. Nafziger's German OOB set will be of use. Nafziger also publishes a fine set of Soviet OOB folios. Look for books such as "Hitlers Nemesis" by Dunn and the "German Army Handbooks" by Forte and Lucas respectively. Try Dupuy's "Hitlers Last Gamble" for the Bulge.
IOW just as if you were playing a traditional board game, the information you're after will need to come from your own private research. A beauty of the hobby imo.
Another school of thought such as TOAW thought it good to use the PC to track every soul and vehicle forming a unit. A designer with exact information could create units precisely as they fought. More likely though, people would take the generic make-up for say, a 1944 German Infantry Division and go from there, maybe altering it by a percentage for losses estimated to the time of the battle being formed. Still this approach offered the problem of needing exact information for a scenario to be taken seriously - and didn't account for the fact that at any given time rarely would a unit commit 100% of its manpower to the front line. Every major weapon type, vehicle and squad would need to be accounted for (unrealistically imo).
Yet another school of thought uses a similar approach to TOAW but without the need to be as strict in accounting for every helmet and Opel truck. Here designers are able to work with manpower numbers limiting generalised head counts to combat forces actually known from accounts to have been in battle. The tweaking of generic OOB's works well here too. Truck pools, MG barrels, weapon types, horses heads etc are not of interest in exacting a force's combat abilities with this apporach. Panzer Campaigns is somewhat akin to this theory.
Units in KP are designed pretty much with the traditional school of thought in mind. Steps are a nice added feature in accounting for a unit's echelons, reserves, resilience etc. And as a player can allocate available replacements as desired in a very abstract manner - this non-specific approach to rating units for their combat strengths suits the game system well.
If people really want some background as to what their units more accurately represent therefore, then the only way they'll be able to achieve this is through the study of the campaign's OOB/TO&E's. Books such as Nash's "Hell's Gate" may help you. Nafziger's German OOB set will be of use. Nafziger also publishes a fine set of Soviet OOB folios. Look for books such as "Hitlers Nemesis" by Dunn and the "German Army Handbooks" by Forte and Lucas respectively. Try Dupuy's "Hitlers Last Gamble" for the Bulge.
IOW just as if you were playing a traditional board game, the information you're after will need to come from your own private research. A beauty of the hobby imo.
" ... Books such as Nash's "Hell's Gate" may help you. Nafziger's German OOB set will be of use. Nafziger also publishes a fine set of Soviet OOB folios. Look for books such as "Hitlers Nemesis" by Dunn and the "German Army Handbooks" by Forte and Lucas respectively. Try Dupuy's "Hitlers Last Gamble" for the Bulge."
thanks, this is the kind of info I was looking for. Once I know what the strengths are I can do the math in my head. I've read many eastern front books over the last couple of years but these are not in my library. I'll check them out.
Right now I'm finishing "das Reich" and will start on von Mellinthin's Panzer Battles next and I'll grab some of the ones you listed and start going through them.
... by the way, is there any web sites where i can get this info from ?
thanks, this is the kind of info I was looking for. Once I know what the strengths are I can do the math in my head. I've read many eastern front books over the last couple of years but these are not in my library. I'll check them out.
Right now I'm finishing "das Reich" and will start on von Mellinthin's Panzer Battles next and I'll grab some of the ones you listed and start going through them.
... by the way, is there any web sites where i can get this info from ?
-
Adam Parker
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:05 am
- Location: Melbourne Australia
Good books! If you like "Das Reich" - the "German Army Handbook" is by the same author in oversized soft cover. Dunn's "Nemesis" book which offers a superb lay person's coverage of the Soviet war machine was gloated over even by David Glantz - and I believe Glantz is about to release a book covering the Soviet force make-up from 1943-45 if not already. I quite like Dunn's work - very to the point and even describing the ins and outs of the various soviet AFV's, SU's and tubed weaponry!
Nafziger's 3 German volumes are serious things and expensive to boot at about $150 AUD each and although the 12 volume Soviet set is much more affordable per folio, collectively it will amount to the same.
Even Dunn's book was a mere $110 AUD. Unfortunately the good stuff does cost but it's timeless and will last if kept out of toddler's hands or wive's who see the credit card bill
Quite possibly the cheapest way to gain solid info would be Nash's book for Korsun and Dupuy's book for the Bulge. For online info you'll really need to hunt around and the value of what you'll find will imo be dependent on the sources on which it is based.
Nafziger's 3 German volumes are serious things and expensive to boot at about $150 AUD each and although the 12 volume Soviet set is much more affordable per folio, collectively it will amount to the same.
Even Dunn's book was a mere $110 AUD. Unfortunately the good stuff does cost but it's timeless and will last if kept out of toddler's hands or wive's who see the credit card bill
Quite possibly the cheapest way to gain solid info would be Nash's book for Korsun and Dupuy's book for the Bulge. For online info you'll really need to hunt around and the value of what you'll find will imo be dependent on the sources on which it is based.