Comprehensive Wishlist

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If I'm going to win any argument here, it'd be the one over making terrain effects cumulative for movement and combat. That would pose some vexing problems...

This is one of my favorites. Terrain effects on defensive strengths of infantry when there is a forest in a clear hex is x2. When there is a hill it's x2. When there is and hill AND a forest x2. So why is it x2 when there's a forest on clear terrain and still only x2 when that forest is on a hill? Where's the logic?

Logic? What does any of this have to do with logic? However, let me make a series of points.

First -- and most inarguably -- all previous scenarios were designed on the basis that terrain was not cumulative. So this change would distort them.

Second, more terrain doesn't necessarily benefit the defense. It's going to be a lot easier to advance up a tree-covered hill than it's going to be to advance up one where you have no cover from fire from the crest. If the meadow leading up to Cemetery Ridge had been tree-covered, Pickett's job would have been easier, not harder.

In short, it's not clear that terrain modifiers should be cumulative.

Third, it's a lot easier to correctly portray the terrain if the modifiers aren't cumulative. Range of hills (a) may be essentially less formidable than range of hills (b) -- even given that range of hills (a) are tree-covered while range of hills (b) aren't. As matters stand, I can make range of hills (a) tree-covered without worrying about how in doing so, I'll be making them a tougher proposition than range of hills (b) -- I can make the terrain actually look like what it is, which I like. This is, after all, all about simulation.

Given this change, I'd either have to distort the actual terrain, or wind up with terrain that reverses the actual military advantages in question. I can even see 'mountains' being more easily traversed and more easily attacked than your basic tree-covered range of hills.

So whatever the appeal of this change, I think it's a bad idea. If people are set on it, it at least needs to be a designer choice that can be adopted or rejected without having to simultaneously forgo other changes one might want to take advantage of. In other words, having to take it or leave it as part of a 'package' would be almost as bad as having no choice in the matter at all.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You may or may not have a point -- how things work in WitP and PacWar, how valid they are as simulations, and how these mechanisms fit into the general structure of the game I couldn't say. I will observe that I don't have your apparently unwavering faith in the validity of these simulations -- and I doubt if closer inspection would change that. I've never seen any simulation that was completely valid. They all almost necessarily fall short. What varies is by how much they fall short.

The fact remains that they are operational naval wargames and they clearly felt a need to model ship damage. Can you do naval warfare treating ships as monolithic blocks? Sure - just as you could do land combat treating ground combat units as monolithic blocks - as they did back in the 1970s. But thank God that's no longer necessary. Unfortunately, naval combat in TOAW doesn't even rise to that level of legitimacy. It's a joke for any purpose other than using them as floating artillery. So, we would have had to overhaul it in some fashion no matter what. Might as well do it right.

However, the gist of what I posted is that the changes you propose, in TOAW, would seem to produce effects just the opposite of what happened in reality.

I don't see any downside to increased realism. Did real ships suffer damage in combat? Or did they either emerge unscathed or go "poof". It's that simple. How can damage levels result in "effects just the opposite of ... reality"? It is reality!

There you are. The ships aren't going 'poof' except in your head. In fact, half of them are merely being forced to immediately return to port, there to undergo repairs of uncertain duration. Of the remaining half, half aren't necessarily sunk -- those vessels so badly damaged that they will not be repaired before the end of the scenario also fall into this category. For example, Formidable or whatever that carrier was that the Germans hammered in early 1941 would be 'sunk' in OPART terms. She didn't go 'poof' -- she's just no longer militarily useful, and hence permanently lost for the purposes of the scenario.

This part of the existing engine actually isn't bad. I wish that you'd devote your energies to fixing the parts that are bad.

A lot of it revolves around realizing that ships lost in TOAW aren't necessarily sunk -- they're just removed from play, some of them permanently, some of them temporarily. That is, in fact, what tended to happen -- at least off both Crete and Norway. How many ships are rendered hors de combat for a while and how many are actually sunk are two very different things. The battle report says you lost four destroyers. It doesn't say they're sunk. In reality, of course, the destroyers Kimberly and Kashmir have indeed gone to the bottom, the Khyber is going to be out for a while on account of its bow having been blown off, and the Kwaanza merely has some loosened rivets and buckled bulkheads and will be back in a few weeks. The game engine allows for that. Half your losses will go into the pool, and depending on what replacement priority you set for the unit, will trickle back in sooner or later. It's one of the few aspects of the current naval model that actually works passably well.

As currently devised, naval combat doesn't use the ship's Defense Strength. That means that it is as easy to sink a BB as a DD - that's been confirmed via rigorous tests. Furthermore, whether ships are sunk or returned to the pools is perversely based upon the ship's unit-proficiency. And those damaged ships don't have to limp their way back to a port for repair - a port that could even be under attack while it was there. Instead they magically escape what may have been certain death, to an absolutely safe location (the pools). Rebuild times are, at most, four weeks for a destroyed unit, regardless of ship size or level of damage - and that's only if the unit was destroyed. Contrary to the above, ships in the pool can return immediately to a fleet unit that remained on the map - and that could be as short as 6-hours. For floating artillery, that's fine. For naval combat of any kind, it's a joke.

You note various flaws -- I heartily agree the patient is sick. I just don't think your prescription is going to cure the disease.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

There you are. The ships aren't going 'poof' except in your head. In fact, half of them are merely being forced to immediately return to port, there to undergo repairs of uncertain duration. Of the remaining half, half aren't necessarily sunk -- those vessels so badly damaged that they will not be repaired before the end of the scenario also fall into this category. For example, Formidable or whatever that carrier was that the Germans hammered in early 1941 would be 'sunk' in OPART terms. She didn't go 'poof' -- she's just no longer militarily useful, and hence permanently lost for the purposes of the scenario.

This part of the existing engine actually isn't bad. I wish that you'd devote your energies to fixing the parts that are bad.

Total falsehoods - even after I spelled it out for you. This part of the engine is so bad it's a joke. The ships are going "poof" - they magically disappear from the map - even if escape was hopeless. They don't have to limp back to any port - they are "teleported" to the pools - where no enemy action can interupt their repairs. Their unit rebuild time is not uncertain - it is determined exactly by their unit size, and the max time is four weeks. In the real world, Capitol ships can take months to fix major damage. And if the ship was from a fleet unit (multi-ship) it will return immediately - no rebuilding is involved - as short as 6-hours. And, as I've pointed out, the actual effecting of the combat is disconnected from reality. Whether ships sink, got to the pools, or survive unscathed is based on absurdities.

You note various flaws -- I heartily agree the patient is sick.

And I didn't even list them all. We don't really know how combat is effected (we do know that Defense Strength isn't used). But we know that without saving damage, it can't work very well. Either you consider each shot individually - in which case that shot must sink the ship or have no effect - or else you amalgamate the culmulative shots - making a bunch of DDs as deadly as a BB. Only by accumulating damage can any level of realism be attained. Then the shots can be considered separately and have their effects accumulated.

As I said: It had to be overhauled no matter what. Might as well do it right.

I just don't think your prescription is going to cure the disease.

And yet you are unable to list a single flaw in the prescription. As I said: There is no downside to increased realism.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

First -- and most inarguably -- all previous scenarios were designed on the basis that terrain was not cumulative. So this change would distort them.

That is a moot point. 3.4 does that already. That's why there's a switch for new rules/old rules.
Under the Play menu - Default Options

"Which game rules do you wish to play with?
Updated Defaults
Classic Defaults
Cancel

There's also options to play with the new or old turn order and new or old supply rules. Under the Play menu - Game Options

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Second, more terrain doesn't necessarily benefit the defense. It's going to be a lot easier to advance up a tree-covered hill than it's going to be to advance up one where you have no cover from fire from the crest. If the meadow leading up to Cemetery Ridge had been tree-covered, Pickett's job would have been easier, not harder.

Which also means more terrain can benefit the defense.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If people are set on it, it at least needs to be a designer choice that can be adopted or rejected without having to simultaneously forgo other changes one might want to take advantage of. In other words, having to take it or leave it as part of a 'package' would be almost as bad as having no choice in the matter at all.

And this is spot on. It would be a far better game engine if scenario designers could toy with almost every aspect. I'd like to see a scenario designer have the ability to assign movement points to terrain instead of using the games default and a plethora of other things. Global values, unit values, formation values, etc.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

There you are. The ships aren't going 'poof' except in your head. In fact, half of them are merely being forced to immediately return to port, there to undergo repairs of uncertain duration. Of the remaining half, half aren't necessarily sunk -- those vessels so badly damaged that they will not be repaired before the end of the scenario also fall into this category. For example, Formidable or whatever that carrier was that the Germans hammered in early 1941 would be 'sunk' in OPART terms. She didn't go 'poof' -- she's just no longer militarily useful, and hence permanently lost for the purposes of the scenario.

This part of the existing engine actually isn't bad. I wish that you'd devote your energies to fixing the parts that are bad.

Total falsehoods - even after I spelled it out for you...

He made a desert and called it victory.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

First -- and most inarguably -- all previous scenarios were designed on the basis that terrain was not cumulative. So this change would distort them.

That is a moot point. 3.4 does that already. That's why there's a switch for new rules/old rules.
Under the Play menu - Default Options

"Which game rules do you wish to play with?
Updated Defaults
Classic Defaults
Cancel

There's also options to play with the new or old turn order and new or old supply rules. Under the Play menu - Game Options

Sure -- but that's just it. I'd like to be able to take advantage of many of the improvements without necessarily being stuck with all of them.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Second, more terrain doesn't necessarily benefit the defense. It's going to be a lot easier to advance up a tree-covered hill than it's going to be to advance up one where you have no cover from fire from the crest. If the meadow leading up to Cemetery Ridge had been tree-covered, Pickett's job would have been easier, not harder.

Which also means more terrain can benefit the defense.

Or not. It's unpredictable. Terrain aren't necessarily cumulative in reality.

And this is spot on. It would be a far better game engine if scenario designers could toy with almost every aspect. I'd like to see a scenario designer have the ability to assign movement points to terrain instead of using the games default and a plethora of other things. Global values, unit values, formation values, etc.

However, it wouldn't be all that great if pending that we are stuck with benefits of arguable benefit. You'll say 'well, you can just use the old rules/new rules switch,' but that's leaving me with the choice of either (a) remapping everything and then doing all future mapping so as to reflect the effects of the change, or (b) forgoing variable supply, variable AA, etc. The variable AA is particularly critical, as I believe that when AA values were 'fixed' they were jacked to absurd levels: the 'variable' setting provides the only way of beating AA back down to some reasonable level of inefficacy.

I don't think cumulative terrain is a good idea. Norm, in his wisdom, made it non-cumulative, and it's unclear if it is in fact cumulative. Are forested hills more difficult to take than unforested ones? Should they be more difficult to traverse and/or assault than the mountains above them? Secondly, it would make it extremely difficult to map the terrain in a way that resembled the facts on the ground. Unless you wanted to make a swatch of terrain that was unusually difficult to traverse and/or fight in, when you came to hills in your forest, you'd either have to make them bald hills or just deny that the hills were there.

It's a change. Point is, I think it's a change with more ill effects than good.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Under the Play menu - Default Options

"Which game rules do you wish to play with?
Updated Defaults
Classic Defaults
Cancel

There's also options to play with the new or old turn order and new or old supply rules. Under the Play menu - Game Options

I think you're making a bit of a confusion.

I believe the menu you've mentioned never had the funtion of changing rules - you can choose new supply rules and new turn order (on game options). That menu just effects the Tool Tip.

Please read from 3.4 "what's new" document:

"13. Note that the settings for “Tool Tip Show” and “Tool Tip Hide” turn Tool Tips on and off (see 27 below). And “Menu Show Delay” turns the movement popup window on and off (see 29 below). While players should not find effecting their choices difficult, there is, nevertheless, an aide to assist with it. Back on the “Play” pulldown above, note that there is an option of “Default Options”. Selecting that calls up this dialog:
Selecting “Updated Defaults” will set those three values to use Tool Tips and skip the movement popup (TOAW will employ these two new features). Selecting “Classic Defaults” will set those three values such to turn both features off (TOAW will function like older versions did)."

ORIGINAL: Panama

Which also means more terrain can benefit the defense.

Have you been playing a lot lately? I guess not. If you had you'd agree with me that more benefits for defense and TOAW is over for good...

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas
Have you been playing a lot lately? I guess not. If you had you'd agree with me that more benefits for defense and TOAW is over for good...

That suggests something. A designer-set limit on how much units can entrench and/or the benefit derived would do a lot to make the game able to simulate pre-World War One conflicts.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

That suggests something. A designer-set limit on how much units can entrench and/or the benefit derived would do a lot to make the game able to simulate pre-World War One conflicts.

There's already something very similar introduced by 3.4:

"4. Entrenchment Rates. Default is 100, under which units dig in at the same rate as now. A value of 50 halves the rate, and a value of 200 doubles the rate, etc. A value of 0 prevents any digging in at all, and (under that special case) digging in attempts don’t zero remaining MPs."

And it works just fine.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

That suggests something. A designer-set limit on how much units can entrench and/or the benefit derived would do a lot to make the game able to simulate pre-World War One conflicts.

There's already something very similar introduced by 3.4:

"4. Entrenchment Rates. Default is 100, under which units dig in at the same rate as now. A value of 50 halves the rate, and a value of 200 doubles the rate, etc. A value of 0 prevents any digging in at all, and (under that special case) digging in attempts don’t zero remaining MPs."

And it works just fine.

Probably does work just fine -- for modern warfare, what with barbed wire, indirect fire, machine guns, magazine rifles with a range out to whatever, etc. However, what with one thing and another, a Civil War army -- for example -- just wasn't going to reach anything like x8 no matter how long it dug in. Given the values for attack and defense already built into TOAW, x4 would be about it -- and I suspect playtesting might suggest a limit of something more like x2.

Take something like Chattanooga. A Confederate army about half as strong as the Union army is dug in behind an escarpment. If you let that force get to x8, the Union is never going to drive Bragg off that ridge.

There's nothing wrong with a modifiable entrenchment rate. However, being able to impose an absolute cap would be nice as well.

[BigDuke66]

Something for "7.30 More sophisticated retreat direction rules":
Retreating should when possible occur in a direction that is either to the nearest HQ or nearest supply source.
Currently playing "Götterdämmerng 1944-1945" and I see units on the Western front retreat westwards, what is really annoying, is the "rule" for retreating still that each force gets a "home side" to which it will retreat?

[sPzAbt653]

I haven't done any thorough tests, but tend to think that a unit will usually retreat towards the nearest friendly supply point. I haven't noticed that HQ's make much of a difference. I've had success with adding a low value supply point (5 or less, new supply rules) to a certain area in order to make units retreat in the 'correct' direction.

[BigDuke66]

Interesting idea, thanks.

[Brett Turner]

I'm Brett Turner, designer of Two Weeks in Normandy 44, presently working on version 3.1, to balance for TOAW 3.4. The ant unit changes have had a big effect on this scenario, as there are a lot of weak German units on all beaches except Omaha, and the Allies are getting off those beaches a lot faster now.

It is getting harder and harder to balance this scenario, as with anything like a historical OOB, the Allies advance way too fast. The fundamental problem is supply; the Allies didn't have enough supply to attack everywhere. It's hard to model that in the TOAW system; units keep attacking even at very low supply. I have the Allies starting at 5% force supply (up to around 15% when they get off the beaches), and the Germans at a very ahistorical 35% supply, and the historical German forces still struggle to stand.

I may well end up imposing artificial "supply reorganization" turns with negative Allied shock, just to slow down the Allied advance. I hate how heavy-handed this is, but nothing else is consistently working. I've already given the Germans a replacement rate which is much too high, and Allied proficiencies are much lower than I think they should be, just because nothing else balances the scenario.

What might well work is a new editor setting: minimum supply to attack. I would like to be able to say, no unit can attack in this scenario unless it has at least x% supply. Then, attackers with low supply would be forced to wait until their supply builds up, and supply would actually limit advance rates. The default can be set at zero, so no existing scenarios will be broken.

From various internet searches, I am sensing that I am not the only designer frustrated with modeling situations in which armies attacked less than 100% of the time because of low supplies. This is a pretty simple change which would allow some very interesting new effects.

Nothing on the wish list quite seems to match this. 5.17 comes close but is limited to armor and air.

Thanks,

--Brett Turner

[sPzAbt653]

Hi Brett. I've been working on the same situation, the issues also extend to the Sep-Nov period for the Allies. I've been using a 'color code' rule based on the indicator light on each unit. If a unit is red, no movement or combat, yellow or orange units can move but cannot attack, green units have no restrictions.

In addition to what you have already done, you can reduce Allied Transport Assets in each unit in order to reduce movement allowances a little. I've been pretty harsh with this and eventually the Allies end up with some units that can only move 1 hex, which greatly reduces their ability to plan and execute deep penetrations. And no Transport Asset Replacements until after the Allies capture Cherbourg.

The West Front is certainly interesting. Not only is supply a challenge to model, but the Allies over-cautiousness and reluctance to make properly concentrated attacks (until Goodwood and Cobra) are difficult to model. As a player, I have no such reluctance to grouping armor divisions into a strong corp to cause some havoc. On the other side of the lines, I haven't figured a way to emulate German defensive tactics, but I guess this isn't possible in an operational game anyway.

[Brett Turner]

sPzAbt653, I like the "color code" rule but there is no way to hard code this into the game, right? You have to rely on voluntary enforcement by two human players?

I may try limiting movement, but the bigger problem is that the German just don't hold up under sustained attacks. This is entirely historical but it is happening too fast, because the Allies can attack with much more intensity that their actual supply situation permitted.

A "minimum supply to attack" setting could also model commander behavior. A cautious leader would attack only on green, while a bolder leader would attack on yellow or even orange.

[sPzAbt653]

I like the "color code" rule but there is no way to hard code this into the game, right? You have to rely on voluntary enforcement by two human players?

Yes, no way to hard code it.

... but the bigger problem is that the German just don't hold up under sustained attacks.

Have you tried creeping the Attrition Divider higher ? Raising it will reduce battle casualties, and with less casualites the Germans may not retreat so easily. I got the AD up to 30 before I got acceptable results. Then with the lessened casualties I had to reduce replacements, but I also gave the Germans a bunch of stuff 'On Hand' so they could hold on better for the initial period.

... the Allies can attack with much more intensity that their actual supply situation permitted

.

I especially have trouble with the British. They perform much better in game than historically.

[Brett Turner]

Yes, I have played around with the attrition divider. 20 seems to be the sweet spot for some reason, the Germans do worse if it is either higher or lower.

Re the British, if it was just British vs. Germans you could make the British very loss intolerant (lots of German VPs for British losses) and that might force caution. But we can't have different loss tolerances for different *parts* of a force---another thing I wish we had.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Brett Turner

Yes, I have played around with the attrition divider. 20 seems to be the sweet spot for some reason, the Germans do worse if it is either higher or lower.

Re the British, if it was just British vs. Germans you could make the British very loss intolerant (lots of German VPs for British losses) and that might force caution. But we can't have different loss tolerances for different *parts* of a force---another thing I wish we had.

You can give the British formations lower formation proficiencies. That will tend to cause combat reorganizations of the British formations if they are used excessively. I did that in my France 1944.

And it's historically realistic: While the British unit proficiencies should be high (modeling the excellent skill & commitment of their individual soldiers), low formation proficiencies model the low British political willingness to incur high losses at that point in the war among their upper leadership.

[Brett Turner]

Interesting and thank you. I will try that.