Matrix Games Forums

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?

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.

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.

ORIGINAL: Panama

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

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. [:'(]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Okay -- so argue for reduced ZOC costs.

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.