Comprehensive Wishlist

[madner]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

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

I would rather not brake something that isn't broken. Removing the ZOC and introducing the new rule has to be in the same package, to achieve the desired result. But it will create new issues, while really adding nothing of value to the game play, or the historical results.
Modeling a part of the model too realistic won't make the game itself realistic.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Your lesson for today Little Grasshopper:

In board wargames, zones of control (ZOC) represent the tiles adjacent to tiles occupied by objects. For example, in hexagonal tiled maps, the six hexagons adjacent to the hexagon occupied by a unit would be considered to be in its "zone of control."

Zones of control commonly are used to represent the portion of the map over which a military ground formation has a direct influence, due to the range of its weapons and the distance its sub-units may deploy from its center of gravity. Game rules often include specific effects associated with a zone of control. Typical effects include one or more of the following:

Destruction of retreating enemy units.
Enemy units must be attacked.
Increased movement cost.
Interdiction of enemy supply lines.
Partly negate enemy zone of control.
Prevent further movement, including voluntary advances or retreats.
Reveal hidden enemy units.
Zones of Control also represent the indirect effect a formation has on the movement rate of an enemy unit in its vicinity. That is, units deep behind friendly lines, and so outside enemy zones of control, may move almost at road speed under many conditions, while once they approach an enemy unit - and so enter its Zone of Control - their movement rate should slow dramatically, perhaps only to yards per hour, which in game terms is indistinguishable from stopping in the presence of the enemy.

Zones of control come in many forms, including fluid (sometimes called elastic), rigid and locking. each type being judged by its effect on an enemy unit. For example, a fluid zone of control increases the movement cost of an enemy unit in its grasp (that is, it slows the enemy unit's speed); a rigid zone of control will force enemy units to stop and a locking zone of control will prevent an enemy unit from voluntarily leaving its position without combat. A zone of control may produce almost any combination of effects the game designer wishes.

Depending on what their designer is trying to represent zones of control may be cancelled by terrain features, such as mountains and rivers, by the presents of enemy units or even by enemy zones of control.

Strategy computer games, such as the Civilization series, commonly use zones of control as a method to balance combat and grant extra strength to units in pairs.

**********

Now, if you somehow disagree with gaming history, fine. It's not my problem. I've been around wargaming for almost 50 years. I do actually know something about it and the history of wargaming. Most especially boardgames. I have taken a trip or two into miniatures. Not to my liking but fun in it's own way.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: madner



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.

BTW, I will debate, sometimes hotly. I will refuse to argue. I save that for my wife. She always wins. [:D]

[madner]

Again I'm perfectly aware what ZOC is, I'm asking you to start providing arguments for your propositions.
"Wargame standard" isn't one, it is a appeal to popular belief, one of the many fallacies in arguing (or if you prefer debating).

If you want to make a point then by all means provide the name of the games and what they achieve with the concept.

It makes perfect sense in a game like steel panthers, but in a game where a hex can represents enough space to fit several corps in, it isn't realistic. But it produced very good results.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: madner

Again I'm perfectly aware what ZOC is, I'm asking you to start providing arguments for your propositions.
"Wargame standard" isn't one, it is a appeal to popular belief, one of the many fallacies in arguing (or if you prefer debating).

If you want to make a point then by all means provide the name of the games and what they achieve with the concept.

It makes perfect sense in a game like steel panthers, but in a game where a hex can represents enough space to fit several corps in, it isn't realistic. But it produced very good results.

I would suggest you first lay off whatever it is you're using so you can think clearly about what it is you've said. "Provide the name of the games"? [:D]

And quit changing the subject. I don't give a ff about ZOC. TOAW has fine ZOC. They work fine and I'm not going to discuss ZOC. The End.

[madner]

It isn't that strange to actually backup your claims by examples, in fact that is what separates an argument from random thoughts.
The reason is that different war games have different scales, if something works on the tactical level it doesn't need to work on much higher. So if you can provide a game on the same scale, with a similar concept as TOAW it strengthens your argument. But as TOAW is fairly unique with his impulses I'm pretty sure there won't be a very similar game.

It is interlinked, you can't discuss a change that is influenced by movement points without discussing what effects those MP, or in the extensions the effects on the game. [8|]

[jmlima]

Bugger. See what I meant?

There were more replies to my previous useless post, than to Curtis (rather good) supply system proposal.

C'mon guys, focus!

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Bugger. See what I meant?

There were more replies to my previous useless post, than to Curtis (rather good) supply system proposal.

C'mon guys, focus!

I thought I did a rather fair job including the proper section from the Comprehensive Wishlist. One cannot be held responsible for the ravings of lunatics. [;)]

[Panama]

Okay, since ZOCs seem to be on someone's mind let's visit them.

Enemy Adjacent: 12.5% to 25% of the original Movement Allowance.
This depends on the unit’s Reconnaissance Capability.
This penalty is doubled if the unit is moving from one such location
to another. The cost is assessed upon leaving a hex adjacent
to the enemy, not upon entering it.

A unit is penalized no matter what type or size of unit it is moving next to. If all things are equal a battalion will cost the same as a division, a HQ the same as an infantry unit in terms of movement penalties applied.

Couldn't we reduce or increase ZOC movement penalties depending on relative sizes of units and types of units?

Also, wouldn't it be appropriate to levy a movement penalty to enter an enemy ZOC? For a unit to enter an enemy ZOC at road march speed doesn't seem to be right.

Addendum:

It would be nice if a scenario designer could decide how 'sticky' ZOC were in a scenario.

[Panama]

Some armies, most notably the Germans, were very good at forming task oriented Kampfgruppen. They were also very good at forming Kampfgruppen out of remnants of units after a battle.

Given this maybe, when dividing German WW2 units voluntarily or through combat results, German units should be allowed to keep their full proficiency instead of reducing it by 20%.

Perhaps extend the same thing to other armies of other eras that have actively demonstrated this organizational flexibility.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: madner

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

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

I would rather not brake something that isn't broken...

It's highly questionable that it isn't 'broken.' TOAW may work fine as a game -- but if you want to compare the 'battles' that take place in the game to how things work out in reality, you'd best not look too close.

I'd be inclined to at least test a model with some mechanism to reflect the twin facts that (a) surrounding units that haven't gotten there yet aren't there yet, and (b) that once there, they don't become immune to breakout attempts simply by virtue of not being assigned to the attack.

That prototype completed, it could be seen if some adjustment of the ZOC costs was in fact called for, and what other anomalies had been spawned. Then we could see whether we had made things better, or still worse.

It's called development. It needs to be taken one step at a time -- and the first step is to implement the basic change and then see what has to happen in turn.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Some armies, most notably the Germans, were very good at forming task oriented Kampfgruppen. They were also very good at forming Kampfgruppen out of remnants of units after a battle.

Given this maybe, when dividing German WW2 units voluntarily or through combat results, German units should be allowed to keep their full proficiency instead of reducing it by 20%.

Perhaps extend the same thing to other armies of other eras that have actively demonstrated this organizational flexibility.

In any case, I've always found the proficiency drop a rather irritating feature. I don't think it models anything that happens in reality with any particular fidelity. Sometimes that drop would be 0%. Other times it would be 50%. 20% is a more or less arbitrary figure.

Really, what can happen isn't that I/Fant.19 isn't less proficient proportionately at holding Villa Cochino than the entire regiment would be. If there's any effect, it's that the isolated battalion is going to be less easily controlled, supplied, and supported. So I don't see the proficiency drop as particularly appropriate in the first place.

Just forget it entirely. Maybe impose an MP cost to subdivide and reassemble if it is felt the behavior needs to be discouraged.

As to the Germans -- yeah. Something needs to be done to reflect their resiliency. On the other hand, necessity is the mother of invention. If the Germans repeatedly displayed their proficiency in this direction, their opponents were continually presenting them with the need to do so.

If a need was felt to attempt to model this ability, one idea would be to have weapons that would otherwise go to the pool used to instantly reconstitute destroyed elements of the formation. These units would appear in the same hex as the HQ.

How easy this would be to program and how well it would work is another question. But it would more or less simulate what we're talking about. The event could even be made a probability determined by the units' proficiency.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama



Addendum:

It would be nice if a scenario designer could decide how 'sticky' ZOC were in a scenario.

AND how sticky for each side. After all, The Germans quickly discovered that one of the chief liabilities of the Russians is that they wouldn't react to units moving around their flank.

If we were able to simulate that, we'd be moving closer to a more realistic simulation of the Eastern Front. 13 Moscow Militia might be capable of putting up a fight for Vyazma town -- but the Germans will find it rather easy to surround it.

As opposed to, say, warfare on other fronts. The Germans may have overrun the French, for example, but they weren't endlessly closing multi-division pockets.

Note that the ability to pass through ZOC is already affected by the reconnaissance ability of the units in question. Perhaps all that would be necessary would be to either increase this effect or to allow the designer to impose global modifiers on each force.

As it is, one can do something. For example, my concern was with their ability to bypass rather than be bypassed, but I habitually strip the recon ability from all those scout carriers in British infantry units. Perhaps designers of early East Front scenarios should look at crippling the recon ability of their Russian units and enhancing that of the Germans. Here, I've adopted an idea of Ben's. Typically, all German tanks get the recon box checked.

Perhaps in an East Front scenario, German infantry squads as well as tanks should get a recon ability. One would want to test the effect this had on their ability to mount direct assaults -- but it should allow them to bypass Russian units and/or RBC unprepared defenders with much greater facility.

In fact, I think I'll copy this to one of those East Front threads.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama

Some armies, most notably the Germans, were very good at forming task oriented Kampfgruppen. They were also very good at forming Kampfgruppen out of remnants of units after a battle.

Given this maybe, when dividing German WW2 units voluntarily or through combat results, German units should be allowed to keep their full proficiency instead of reducing it by 20%.

Perhaps extend the same thing to other armies of other eras that have actively demonstrated this organizational flexibility.

In any case, I've always found the proficiency drop a rather irritating feature. I don't think it models anything that happens in reality with any particular fidelity...

While we're on the subject of things we might be happier without...

I know this has already been mentioned, but the increased movement cost for entering enemy-owned hexes can cause more problems than it's worth. In fact, the whole concept of hex ownership should be looked at critically. A good deal of the time, there ain't no such animal. North Africa would be the most glaring example, but it's also doubtful if 'hex ownership' impeded Guderian's panzers or the Russians advancing in Bagration.

Hex ownership has some effect -- and the effect is often legitimate -- on supply and reconaissance. For that reason, it should perhaps be retained. However, at a minimum, designers should have the ability to dispense with its effects on movement.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Hex ownership has some effect -- and the effect is often legitimate -- on supply and reconaissance. For that reason, it should perhaps be retained. However, at a minimum, designers should have the ability to dispense with its effects on movement.

But they have in 3.4.

XII.3 Enemy-Hex Conversion-Costs. Default is 100, where each enemy hex converted costs the moving
friendly unit the original 10% of its movement allowance (reducible by high recon levels, though). A value
of 50 would mean each hex costs 5% of the unit’s movement allowance (same effect of recon as above),
and a value of 200 would mean that each hex converted would cost 20% of the unit’s movement allowance.
A value of 0 would mean that there wouldn’t be any cost of hex conversion, no matter what the unit’s
movement allowance or recon level was. Actual cost to the unit is still rounded down. And there is still a
minimum cost of one, with the single exception for the setting of 0.

[Panama]

Yes, Guderian, Manstein and Rommel skipped classes the day of that lesson. The way I understand it, the increased movement cost for entering 'enemy' controlled hexes was to simulate the friction caused by transversing areas where you had no intel. In other words, to express caution because you are unsure of what or who is where. Typically more of a game specific concept. THis is where the generic TOAW engine falls down. Another item that should be up to the scenario designer. The 'Set movement cost of entering enemy controlled hexes' option.

We need to incorporate more scenario designer tools to eradicate the generic nature of TOAW.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Hex ownership has some effect -- and the effect is often legitimate -- on supply and reconaissance. For that reason, it should perhaps be retained. However, at a minimum, designers should have the ability to dispense with its effects on movement.

But they have in 3.4.

XII.3 Enemy-Hex Conversion-Costs. Default is 100, where each enemy hex converted costs the moving
friendly unit the original 10% of its movement allowance (reducible by high recon levels, though). A value
of 50 would mean each hex costs 5% of the unit’s movement allowance (same effect of recon as above),
and a value of 200 would mean that each hex converted would cost 20% of the unit’s movement allowance.
A value of 0 would mean that there wouldn’t be any cost of hex conversion, no matter what the unit’s
movement allowance or recon level was. Actual cost to the unit is still rounded down. And there is still a
minimum cost of one, with the single exception for the setting of 0.

I'm beginning to believe 3.4 is a cruel hoax or an unachievable fictional place like utopia. [:D]

BTW. In a game where movement is expressed in positive integers why oh why are percentages used in the above? [:'(]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Hex ownership has some effect -- and the effect is often legitimate -- on supply and reconaissance. For that reason, it should perhaps be retained. However, at a minimum, designers should have the ability to dispense with its effects on movement.

But they have in 3.4.

XII.3 Enemy-Hex Conversion-Costs. Default is 100, where each enemy hex converted costs the moving
friendly unit the original 10% of its movement allowance (reducible by high recon levels, though). A value
of 50 would mean each hex costs 5% of the unit’s movement allowance (same effect of recon as above),
and a value of 200 would mean that each hex converted would cost 20% of the unit’s movement allowance.
A value of 0 would mean that there wouldn’t be any cost of hex conversion, no matter what the unit’s
movement allowance or recon level was. Actual cost to the unit is still rounded down. And there is still a
minimum cost of one, with the single exception for the setting of 0.

Ho!

Why read when others can do it for you?

This is great news. I'd been using a work-around -- but it was cumbersome, to say the least.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Hex ownership has some effect -- and the effect is often legitimate -- on supply and reconaissance. For that reason, it should perhaps be retained. However, at a minimum, designers should have the ability to dispense with its effects on movement.

But they have in 3.4.

XII.3 Enemy-Hex Conversion-Costs. Default is 100, where each enemy hex converted costs the moving
friendly unit the original 10% of its movement allowance (reducible by high recon levels, though). A value
of 50 would mean each hex costs 5% of the unit’s movement allowance (same effect of recon as above),
and a value of 200 would mean that each hex converted would cost 20% of the unit’s movement allowance.
A value of 0 would mean that there wouldn’t be any cost of hex conversion, no matter what the unit’s
movement allowance or recon level was. Actual cost to the unit is still rounded down. And there is still a
minimum cost of one, with the single exception for the setting of 0.

I'm beginning to believe 3.4 is a cruel hoax or an unachievable fictional place like utopia. [:D]

BTW. In a game where movement is expressed in positive integers why oh why are percentages used in the above? [:'(]

In the end, it boils down to an integral value anyway. You can either enter the hex or you can't. Percentages are a convenient way of dealing with the fact that while an additional 3 MP's might be reasonable for a unit with a movement allowance of 33, the same fixed cost would radically slow a unit with a movement allowance of 5.

As to when 3.4 comes out, barring 2011, it'll be well before Orient is ready to begin playtest.

Now to go try to figure out what all that mumbo-jumbo about the new supply calculations boils down to.

[ColinWright]

Re 3.4. Actually read it.

Great stuff! More than I could have reasonably hoped for.

It would seem, though, that the terrain and defending status modifications to the odds of an RBC means that it is always possible an ant might stand. Is that correct?

If so, if an opportunity arises to make further changes, I'd vote for making RBC certain in extreme cases. Situations where a whole tank regiment is held up by a fragment with five MP squads or some such thing are generally the result of over-cautious doctrine/commanders -- and are better simulated with a low formation proficiency level. I.e., better that Milquetoast 4 just be prone to re-org without apparent cause than that Genghis Khan be halted by three men and a boy.