Dynamic Formations

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Here’s how I would suggest that the designer decisions be handled. There would be five choices to make per formation (made via a dialog):

First there would be four choices about what types of units could be swapped with units already in the formation:

1. Allow different Background Color: Default is NO
2. Allow different Icon Color: Default is NO
3. Allow different Unit Icon: Default is NO
4. Allow different Unit Size: Default is NO

So, the defaults would only allow identical units to be swapped (a US Army infantry regiment could only be swapped with another US Army infantry regiment, etc.). Choice 1 would allow Germans to be swapped with Rumanians, etc. Choice 2 would allow USMC to be swapped with US Army, etc. Choice 3 would allow infantry to be swapped with armor, etc. Choice 4 would allow a division to be swapped with a company, etc. All four set to YES would allow a German infantry division to be swapped with a Rumanian armored company, etc.

Then, for adding additional units to the formation, the amount of additional force allowed would be chosen from a suite of size options as follows:

1. None (Default)
2. Squad
3. Platoon
4. Company
5. Battalion
6. Regiment
7. Brigade
8. Division
9. Corps
10. Army

So, if the choice was “Division”, then the formation could have a single division-sized unit added to it, or two brigade-sized, four regiment-sized, 16 battalion-sized, 64 company-sized, 256 platoon-sized, or 1024 squad-sized – or equivalent combinations (one brigade and two regiments, etc.). Obviously, the limit of a max of 24 units per formation would still apply.

Units added would have to meet the choices in the first four options as well (except for unit size, which would be covered by the fifth choice), based upon the second unit in the formation (assumed to be a normal unit). The first unit in the formation would be assumed to be the HQ and could never be swapped out. (These two assumptions could be made more sophisticated for a price, of course).

Note that the first four options take four bits, and the “additional force” option takes four bits (and could even allow six more levels – but that’s getting ridiculous), so that the total memory for the choices would be one byte. Each formation would have to have that byte added to their definitions.

The default “additional force” would allow swapping only – no adding units to the formation. Designers could deviate from that as far as they wished via the five choices. This doesn’t require any preconceived notions about limits to be built-in to TOAW – that’s left entirely up to the designer.

I like this idea. Easy, elegant, not overcomplicated. [:)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Grognard

Per my example above of moving a Div far far away from a parent formation. There should (and was historically - every time) be negative CCC and supply effects. This is NOT chrome.

But my point is that if you then add "reassignment at will" you're right back about where we are now - in game-effect terms. You can scatter your forces however you please, then, with a little housekeeping, they're going to be fine. So, it's mostly chrome. Nothing wrong with chrome, though. I'm one of the few designers that recolorizes his counters to get the look of the scenario how I want it. But then there are things that really affect how the game tumbles out.

And constraining scattering is more complicated than just adding a command radius or such. It's more like a boundary. The idea being to divy the front up into manageable chunks. A thinly held section might extend for a great distance yet belong to just one organization, while a densely contested one might be very small yet partitioned between many organizations. That's going to be hard to model. So it's non-trivial.

[Grognard]

You can scatter your forces however you please, then, with a little housekeeping, they're going to be fine. So, it's mostly chrome.

Respectfully, you're missing the point. They're NOT necessarily going to be fine. We're talking about HQ limits in both capacity and proficiency. We're trying to model real life concerns of operational commanders. And they certainly didn't scatter their forces at their pleasure then apply housekeeping. Why not? Look at STAVKA during the opening days. Their formations took a huge hit in combat effectiveness because their respective HQ's were incapable or just plain absent. = very low HQ proficiency, very small command span, very short command radius.

And constraining scattering is more complicated than just adding a command radius or such. It's more like a boundary. The idea being to divy the front up into manageable chunks. A thinly held section might extend for a great distance yet belong to just one organization, while a densely contested one might be very small yet partitioned between many organizations. That's going to be hard to model. So it's non-trivial.

Yes, absolutely. I accept this and realize this is a wish list topic.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Grognard

Respectfully, you're missing the point. They're NOT necessarily going to be fine. We're talking about HQ limits in both capacity and proficiency. We're trying to model real life concerns of operational commanders. And they certainly didn't scatter their forces at their pleasure then apply housekeeping. Why not? Look at STAVKA during the opening days. Their formations took a huge hit in combat effectiveness because their respective HQ's were incapable or just plain absent. = very low HQ proficiency, very small command span, very short command radius.

I'm just talking about the game mechanics of what's been proposed: Scatter your forces as much as you please, then reassign them back (housekeeping) to unscattered. They're going to be fine. That's not too different from where we are now, where, while you can't reassign, there aren't any really serious penalties for scattering. That's why this isn't going to have much effect, in actual game terms.

And, while reassignment may be doable, properly modeling the effects of any hierachy will be a slippery subject. That's what I've been saying all along.

[samba_liten]

What about a limit on how many formations can be re-assigned each turn, along with harsher penalties for being out of command?

[Panama]

It's the scenario designer who will make or break a dynamic formations. If free support is assinged to formations why bother with reassignment? Free support and you can scatter your units to the four corners and no problem. If a formation is tagged with internal support then reassignment will be practical.

In fact, there should be defensive penalties if two units from different formations with internal support are attacked when both are in the same hex. As it is now the only penalty is a possible lack of support from artillery. Currently Internal support only affects attacking and support.

There should also be a penalty if the unit is too far from a HQ that is in it's chain of command. Radios and runners can only reach so far. Not sure how you would handle that. But then if it's too far just reassign to a closer HQ I guess?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

In fact, there should be defensive penalties if two units from different formations with internal support are attacked when both are in the same hex. As it is now the only penalty is a possible lack of support from artillery. Currently Internal support only affects attacking and support.

Actually that was added in 3.4. Stack units with no/limited cooperation and the stack is penalized accordingly when attacked. See section IV item 9 in the What's New.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

In fact, there should be defensive penalties if two units from different formations with internal support are attacked when both are in the same hex. As it is now the only penalty is a possible lack of support from artillery. Currently Internal support only affects attacking and support.

Actually that was added in 3.4. Stack units with no/limited cooperation and the stack is penalized accordingly when attacked. See section IV item 9 in the What's New.

I've read that thing eight different ways. How did I miss that? Thanks.[8D]

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Panama
I've read that thing eight different ways. How did I miss that? Thanks.[8D]

Yeah, really[&:]. Sorry, too many big changes in this patch. I'm curious to hear about what scenarios have changes radically.

[Panama]

That might make a difference for FiTE. Many, many divisions start the game with absolutely no HQ. The whole thing starts off in utter confusion with units from the same formation hopelessly scattered over a huge map. It used to make a difference only if the Soviet attacked someplace, not a very large chance of that. Now, I don't know. Have not gone through it yet. Maybe some of the guys who have recently started playing the scenario using the latest patch could post.

I have not heard but it seems the authors have no interest in updating.

BTW, that was a good change. Sorely needed. Made no sense the way it was.