Comprehensive Wishlist

[Panama]

When the 'last two' units are added to the attack even more time is consumed because they used more movement points to get to where they were. More movement = more time.

[Panama]

Now, I ask you. If it took more time to get the last unit to the locaticon it is in how can it possibly effect the defending units path of retreat if it is not involved in the combat? It's not there if all of the other units attack. It is there if it is included in the attack. Movement = Time Consumed. All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact. Just asking if the game can't do the same when retreats are blocked by moved units that are not taking part in the attack and got there 'too late' to prevent a retreat.

BTW, sorry if I seemed to have spammed the forum. Won't allow more than one picture per post. [:'(]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Lessee here. A truck system potentially delivers a certain physical quantity to any given point.

A radio delivers a certain signal strength to any given point.

Now which one would you say the TOAW supply system resembles again?

How can you still not get this?

Think of the post office: One truck delivers to a subdivision spread over 500 acres. 50 trucks deliver to that high-rise office building on 1 acre.

Same in TOAW: a hex with a battalion in it has a handful of trucks backing it up. If that same hex has a corps in it then there will be a huge number of trucks backing it up. The battalion or the corps get the same fraction of the FSL in each case.

Try beating your head on the wall some more.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Not adding anything to the discussion, but this thread is just like a parliament.

A lot of nit-picking, meaningless discussions, relevant discussions lost in the noise, and in the end, very little get's done. [8|]

Yeah. Maybe I'm being partial, but I see it as a matter of Roadblock LeMay preventing all significant forward progress.

No. The problem is you. And that's been proven everywhere you turn up. Even on the boards you haven't been kicked off of. Look up the word "Troll" in the dictionary and your picture is being used.

As for my "preventing all significant forward progress" see 3.4.

Now, blocking bad ideas - that's a good thing.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The thing is, combat units don't deliver their own supply -- not all the way from the rear. Ultimately, the percent argument implies that 2.Gebirgsjager has organic supply assets that go all the way back to Spandau and pick up fresh MG 34's.

It's completely irrelevant where the trucks come from. However many are in the system, they will be apportioned in proportion to the target.

Again: If there are 200 divisions and 20,000 supply trucks, then each division is backed up by 100 trucks, regardless of where it is.

Nevertheless, divisions do have a lot of organic supply trucks, and they do add to the supply truck total as new divisions arrive. So that significantly blunts the effect of adding divisions to the theater.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact

Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.

[madner]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Now, I ask you. If it took more time to get the last unit to the locaticon it is in how can it possibly effect the defending units path of retreat if it is not involved in the combat? It's not there if all of the other units attack. It is there if it is included in the attack. Movement = Time Consumed. All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact. Just asking if the game can't do the same when retreats are blocked by moved units that are not taking part in the attack and got there 'too late' to prevent a retreat.

BTW, sorry if I seemed to have spammed the forum. Won't allow more than one picture per post. [:'(]

I'm perfectly aware how the system works, and I'm certain your "fix" would brake the game.

Consider this picture with the new system:


with your new rule and the overrun check by weak units.

Despite holes of 20km, it would be impossible to advance more then 2 or 3 hexes in the Red line, as due to ZOC MP cost it would be impossible to move strong enough units for encirclement. The only way would be to bash with frontal assaults, pushing the units back. Which would eat the turn away quickly.

Your "fix" would make the game far less realistic. Making such defense lines far to powerful and encirclement far to impractical.

What is more realistic:
a) the isolated unit is quickly pushed aside and the advance continues fairly quickly whit some units tasked with mopping up the unit.
b) Panzerarmy 1, 2, 3 and 4 are stopped by 4 rifle divisions for half an week.

You fail to recognize that due to moving in ZOC the units paid the heavy cost in MP. That was a design choice to make encirclement more costly and harder to pull off. Now you want to make the units pay twice for it.
Which boardgames recognize this and operate at the same scale?

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact

Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.

None of them had ten phases per turn that would affect movement that I recall. All I can remember was movement phase, combat phase exploitation phase. It's the potential for ten different impacts on time/movement that make the difference.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: madner

ORIGINAL: Panama

Now, I ask you. If it took more time to get the last unit to the locaticon it is in how can it possibly effect the defending units path of retreat if it is not involved in the combat? It's not there if all of the other units attack. It is there if it is included in the attack. Movement = Time Consumed. All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact. Just asking if the game can't do the same when retreats are blocked by moved units that are not taking part in the attack and got there 'too late' to prevent a retreat.

BTW, sorry if I seemed to have spammed the forum. Won't allow more than one picture per post. [:'(]

I'm perfectly aware how the system works, and I'm certain your "fix" would brake the game.

Consider this picture with the new system:


with your new rule and the overrun check by weak units.

Despite holes of 20km, it would be impossible to advance more then 2 or 3 hexes in the Red line, as due to ZOC MP cost it would be impossible to move strong enough units for encirclement. The only way would be to bash with frontal assaults, pushing the units back. Which would eat the turn away quickly.

Your "fix" would make the game far less realistic. Making such defense lines far to powerful and encirclement far to impractical.

What is more realistic:
a) the isolated unit is quickly pushed aside and the advance continues fairly quickly whit some units tasked with mopping up the unit.
b) Panzerarmy 1, 2, 3 and 4 are stopped by 4 rifle divisions for half an week.

You fail to recognize that due to moving in ZOC the units paid the heavy cost in MP. That was a design choice to make encirclement more costly and harder to pull off. Now you want to make the units pay twice for it.
Which boardgames recognize this and operate at the same scale?

So, what you are saying is that a unit that moves into a hex today should be able to block the retreat of a unit that retreated through that hex last week? If that is true and time and space should not be considered then it's pointless going on, isn't it? [:D]

I'm going to shoot this AP round in that direction today. Next week when some tanks drive by I'm sure to hit one.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Lessee here. A truck system potentially delivers a certain physical quantity to any given point.

A radio delivers a certain signal strength to any given point.

Now which one would you say the TOAW supply system resembles again?

How can you still not get this?

Think of the post office: One truck delivers to a subdivision spread over 500 acres. 50 trucks deliver to that high-rise office building on 1 acre.

Same in TOAW: a hex with a battalion in it has a handful of trucks backing it up. If that same hex has a corps in it then there will be a huge number of trucks backing it up. The battalion or the corps get the same fraction of the FSL in each case.

Try beating your head on the wall some more.

Fun as it is, rather than continuing this semantic joust, I think I'll take a look at your last proposal and then start a new thread about it.

That does little to settle whether it was you or I who 'won,' but it does do more to advance TOAW. At least, it could.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Not adding anything to the discussion, but this thread is just like a parliament.

A lot of nit-picking, meaningless discussions, relevant discussions lost in the noise, and in the end, very little get's done. [8|]

Yeah. Maybe I'm being partial, but I see it as a matter of Roadblock LeMay preventing all significant forward progress.

No. The problem is you. And that's been proven everywhere you turn up. Even on the boards you haven't been kicked off of. Look up the word "Troll" in the dictionary and your picture is being used.

As for my "preventing all significant forward progress" see 3.4.

Now, blocking bad ideas - that's a good thing.

Now Curtis. You're being hostile and negative. Remember: put-ups, not put-downs.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact

Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.

That's debatable. At least in the old wargames, your turn or phase was over. One could argue the attack had been delayed until the encirclement had been completed.

Looked at in that way, TOAW has moved further away from reality, not closer. Now the attack goes forward and the 'surrounded' defenders are annihilated a day before they were actually surrounded.

[madner]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: madner

ORIGINAL: Panama

Now, I ask you. If it took more time to get the last unit to the locaticon it is in how can it possibly effect the defending units path of retreat if it is not involved in the combat? It's not there if all of the other units attack. It is there if it is included in the attack. Movement = Time Consumed. All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact. Just asking if the game can't do the same when retreats are blocked by moved units that are not taking part in the attack and got there 'too late' to prevent a retreat.

BTW, sorry if I seemed to have spammed the forum. Won't allow more than one picture per post. [:'(]

I'm perfectly aware how the system works, and I'm certain your "fix" would brake the game.

Consider this picture with the new system:


with your new rule and the overrun check by weak units.

Despite holes of 20km, it would be impossible to advance more then 2 or 3 hexes in the Red line, as due to ZOC MP cost it would be impossible to move strong enough units for encirclement. The only way would be to bash with frontal assaults, pushing the units back. Which would eat the turn away quickly.

Your "fix" would make the game far less realistic. Making such defense lines far to powerful and encirclement far to impractical.

What is more realistic:
a) the isolated unit is quickly pushed aside and the advance continues fairly quickly whit some units tasked with mopping up the unit.
b) Panzerarmy 1, 2, 3 and 4 are stopped by 4 rifle divisions for half an week.

You fail to recognize that due to moving in ZOC the units paid the heavy cost in MP. That was a design choice to make encirclement more costly and harder to pull off. Now you want to make the units pay twice for it.
Which boardgames recognize this and operate at the same scale?

So, what you are saying is that a unit that moves into a hex today should be able to block the retreat of a unit that retreated through that hex last week? If that is true and time and space should not be considered then it's pointless going on, isn't it? [:D]

I'm going to shoot this AP round in that direction today. Next week when some tanks drive by I'm sure to hit one.

I'm saying that your proposal will make the game less realistic in the achievable outcomes then it is now. It is an abstraction, that does produce very good historic results. Your improvements which tunnel vision one part of the model won't improve it all, as you fail to consider the bigger picture or the ripple effects.

[madner]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact

Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.

That's debatable. At least in the old wargames, your turn or phase was over. One could argue the attack had been delayed until the encirclement had been completed.

Looked at in that way, TOAW has moved further away from reality, not closer. Now the attack goes forward and the 'surrounded' defenders are annihilated a day before they were actually surrounded.

In reality the encircling forces wouldn't need 3 days to move 10-20 km trough unopposed areas, and would be able to complete the encirclement much sooner then the MP in TOAW show.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: madner


I'm perfectly aware how the system works, and I'm certain your "fix" would brake the game.

...

with your new rule and the overrun check by weak units.

Despite holes of 20km, it would be impossible to advance more then 2 or 3 hexes in the Red line, as due to ZOC MP cost it would be impossible to move strong enough units for encirclement. The only way would be to bash with frontal assaults, pushing the units back. Which would eat the turn away quickly.

Your "fix" would make the game far less realistic. Making such defense lines far to powerful and encirclement far to impractical.

What is more realistic:
a) the isolated unit is quickly pushed aside and the advance continues fairly quickly whit some units tasked with mopping up the unit.
b) Panzerarmy 1, 2, 3 and 4 are stopped by 4 rifle divisions for half an week.

You fail to recognize that due to moving in ZOC the units paid the heavy cost in MP. That was a design choice to make encirclement more costly and harder to pull off. Now you want to make the units pay twice for it.
Which boardgames recognize this and operate at the same scale?

I'm unconvinced that allowing units to be trapped by encircling units that haven't gotten there yet is preferable.

In fact, if the attacking force doesn't want to be held up, it should just drive back the weak blocking force without attempting to trap it -- and that would be much closer to what usually does happen than what goes on in TOAW.

I could see tweaking the ZOC costs and such (as always, make them designer adjustable!), but the basic model you're objecting to is in fact what armies do a lot in the real world. It's called a defense in depth.

People often kid themselves that TOAW is offering a close simulation of actual warfare. It's not. It's way off, and always will be. However, we can try to get it closer, and if in fact we make changes that reflect the advantages of tactics employed in real life, we'll be getting closer.

The example you present doesn't show what's wrong with the proposed changes -- it shows what's right with them. With such changes, a defender could profitably offer a defense in depth.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: madner

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.

That's debatable. At least in the old wargames, your turn or phase was over. One could argue the attack had been delayed until the encirclement had been completed.

Looked at in that way, TOAW has moved further away from reality, not closer. Now the attack goes forward and the 'surrounded' defenders are annihilated a day before they were actually surrounded.

In reality the encircling forces wouldn't need 3 days to move 10-20 km trough unopposed areas, and would be able to complete the encirclement much sooner then the MP in TOAW show.

Okay -- so argue for reduced ZOC costs. Don't argue for a system where units are blocking hexes they haven't entered yet.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Okay -- so argue for reduced ZOC costs.

In 3.4.

[Panama]

Let me point out something. A hex located next to a unit is not unopposed. It is assumed that a unit occupying a hex is contesting the adjacent hexes through active patrols and zones of fire. This has been a wargame standard since zones of control have been used. It just happens to be a fairly accurate representation of the real world.

So, a hex adjacent to a unit is not easily traversed and since it's not a stroll in the park but a stroll through a combat zone care must be taken and that consumes time. More time equals more movement points since movement = time which is what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? That's why there are things like disengagement attacks even when moving on the flank of a unit hex to hex. To represent the fact that the hex is not unopposed.

Let me add, even if you wouldn't let me. [:D]

The discussion has nothing to do with ZOC costs. I don't give a hoot about ZOC costs. The problem is a unit having an effect on a hex before it's even there in a movement/time sort of way. Combat takes place on round one of ten and consumes one round. Blocking unit takes 75% of it's movement to get to blocking position which in a half week turn is a couple days after the defending unit retreats yet it somehow manages to prevent the retreat. Beam me over Scotty.

[Panama]

7.20.1 Defenders forced to retreat from combat may force blocking enemy units out of the way if those units’ “time stamp” exceed the combat round of the defender’s retreat.

7.20.2 A blocking unit’s “time stamp” is defined as the combat round the unit would be calculated to have arrived in the blocking hex.

7.20.3 Very advanced: Keep track of the hex each blocking unit entered from, and, if forced to move out of the way, move it back to that previous hex, and restore it’s movement that it had expended in entering the blocking hex.


This is possilby the only way to resolve the issue. And acutally, a player could avoid having this happen at all if it appears his movement will surpass the amount of time needed to resolve a combat. Since a combat can last longer than expected you could never really be sure unless you had 1 maximum round per combat.


7.20.4 After all such blocking enemy units are forced to move out of the way, if the defenders are still blocked, they can attempt to breakout via combat. The weakest blocking hex would be targeted for attack by the retreaters. Only one round of combat would be permitted. Only non-routed retreaters would be allowed to participate in the combat. (Alternate: instead of a combat round, a RBC would be attempted instead.)


If there are still going to be units blocking why bother to move any units back anyplace? Letting units that are forced to retreat attack a blocking unit doesn't sound like a realistic event anyway. Besides, it will just complicate an already complicated programming exercise.


7.20.5 If the combat succeeded in forcing all remaining blocking units out of the way, all retreaters would be allowed to retreat into the vacated hex. But if the attack failed, the retreaters would be destroyed just as now, and all their losses would go to the dead pile, none would go to the “on hand” pile.

7.21.1 Very advanced: Breakout before combat.
Under certain (yet to be determined) circumstances, the defending force might choose to attempt a better coordinated breakout than possible during a forced retreat by breaking out before the enemy combat is effected. Obviously, only non-reorganizing units could participate in such an attempt. If triggered, the above sequence would be followed the same way, except that the retreating force would obviously be in better condition to succeed, and it would occur in the beginning round of the attack.


I think the RBC for retreating units covers this doesn't it?


7.21.1.1 Possible triggering factors could include defender average loss tolerance, attacker odds vs. breakout odds, Leader initiative (if implemented and applicable), or prearranged orders.

[madner]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Let me point out something. A hex located next to a unit is not unopposed. It is assumed that a unit occupying a hex is contesting the adjacent hexes through active patrols and zones of fire. This has been a wargame standard since zones of control have been used. It just happens to be a fairly accurate representation of the real world.

So, a hex adjacent to a unit is not easily traversed and since it's not a stroll in the park but a stroll through a combat zone care must be taken and that consumes time. More time equals more movement points since movement = time which is what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? That's why there are things like disengagement attacks even when moving on the flank of a unit hex to hex. To represent the fact that the hex is not unopposed.

Let me add, even if you wouldn't let me. [:D]

The discussion has nothing to do with ZOC costs. I don't give a hoot about ZOC costs. The problem is a unit having an effect on a hex before it's even there in a movement/time sort of way. Combat takes place on round one of ten and consumes one round. Blocking unit takes 75% of it's movement to get to blocking position which in a half week turn is a couple days after the defending unit retreats yet it somehow manages to prevent the retreat. Beam me over Scotty.

What war game standard [8|]. That is a logical fallacy, you are trying to avoid arguing by claiming some sort of conses on the issue.

I'm just appalled that you have an issue with encirclement due to realism but take mp issue on that. Combat zone due to field of fire and active patrols in a hex that can be as large as 50x50km [&o]
The typical German brake trough frontage for a panzer division was about 2km.