The Ant Unit Problem

[vahauser]

Colin,
 
There isn't much point to marking Ants if Ants aren't treated any differently from any other TOAW unit.
 
However, if Ants are treated differently from default, non-Ant TOAW units (and I described some possibilities in my posts in this thread), then marking them becomes relevant.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Can't -- or won't. I am indeed one of those people without Word.

Try this: http://www.openoffice.org/index.html

Otherwise, Wordpad (included in every Windows installation) should be able to open the wishlist.doc

[Fungwu]

Here is an idea: make the same check that determines whether a unit retreats before combat, except make it a check by the defender against the attacker, if the check is failed the attacked qualifies as an ant.

Right now the game already distinguishes the relative strengths of units, if you attack an ant with a big unit it knows enough to run away, just use this same check when the ant attacks, it won't retreat but it won't count as a fullscale attack or whatever.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

Here is an idea: make the same check that determines whether a unit retreats before combat, except make it a check by the defender against the attacker, if the check is failed the attacked qualifies as an ant.

Yeah, that's not bad. Certainly simple, and scaled to the capabilities of the defender (a high recon defender will be able to identify a weak attacker and act accordingly).

The downside to this is that the RBC check works against one attacker. So this might be inadequate for ant attacks against a stack of nine mid-sized units.

[Fungwu]

"Yeah, that's not bad. Certainly simple, and scaled to the capabilities of the defender (a high recon defender will be able to identify a weak attacker and act accordingly).

The downside to this is that the RBC check works against one attacker. So this might be inadequate for ant attacks against a stack of nine mid-sized units"

Well I don't really know how the RBC check works, but maybe you could use the stats of the whole stack when making the calculations rather than one unit, or just test for each unit until you fail or pass.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Can't -- or won't. I am indeed one of those people without Word.

Then get the free word reader. The link to it is in the same post as the wishlist.

[vahauser]

Ants are problematic in other ways besides combat. 
 
The reason I suggested that Ants be compared primarily to the scale/density of the scenario (rather than in terms of combat) is because of other issues like zones of control, gaining control of hexes, gaining control of adjacent hexes, blocking retreats, etc.
 
I was recently playing Operation Bagration, and I was troubled by companies (yes, companies) gaining control of 20km hexes, exerting zones of control into adjacent 20km hexes, cutting supply lines, blocking retreats, etc.
 
These are not trivial concerns because Ants can cause problems in a myriad of ways.  Since Ants cannot be prohibited, due to the way TOAW's game engine operates (e.g., units being divided into small components when retreating, etc.), then some other means of dealing with the reality of Ants seems appropriate.  And addressing only the combat aspects of Ants, as important as those are, is only part of the issue.
 
 

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Ants are problematic in other ways besides combat. 

The reason I suggested that Ants be compared primarily to the scale/density of the scenario (rather than in terms of combat) is because of other issues like zones of control, gaining control of hexes, gaining control of adjacent hexes, blocking retreats, etc.

I was recently playing Operation Bagration, and I was troubled by companies (yes, companies) gaining control of 20km hexes, exerting zones of control into adjacent 20km hexes, cutting supply lines, blocking retreats, etc.

These are not trivial concerns because Ants can cause problems in a myriad of ways.  Since Ants cannot be prohibited, due to the way TOAW's game engine operates (e.g., units being divided into small components when retreating, etc.), then some other means of dealing with the reality of Ants seems appropriate.  And addressing only the combat aspects of Ants, as important as those are, is only part of the issue.

I suppose I should have named this thread "The Ant Unit Attack Problem", instead, as that was all I was addressing. The other issues have been addressed through items 7.7, 7.18, & 7.19.

And the system can't just look at the unit itself and determine if it's going to be considered an "ant". It has to be in context with the enemy units that it's interacting with. If the defenders are a powerful stack, some very significant units can be considered "ants". If the defenders are tiny themselves, very tiny units may not be considered to be "ants", etc.

[vahauser]

Curtis,
 
From my perspective, the game-engine is fully capable of recognizing Ants based solely on the scale of the scenario. 
 
The game-engine is already capable of assigning unit densities in a hex.  It uses the aggregate equipment total of the unit(s) to do so.  For example, as of today the "allowed equipment density" of a TOAW III 20km hex is "850".  In a hex that exceeds the "allowed equipment density" of 850 (for a 20km hex), the unit(s) within that hex are marked with the appropriate colored dot depending on how much the "allowed equipment density" of the hex has been exceeded.
 
Therefore, it seems reasonable that if a unit has an "equipment density" of only a small fraction, let's say 10% to get the conversation started, of a hex's "allowed equipment density", then that unit would be treated as an Ant for all purposes, including combat.  Seems easy and simple enough to me.
 
 

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Curtis,

From my perspective, the game-engine is fully capable of recognizing Ants based solely on the scale of the scenario. 

The game-engine is already capable of assigning unit densities in a hex.  It uses the aggregate equipment total of the unit(s) to do so.  For example, as of today the "allowed equipment density" of a TOAW III 20km hex is "850".  In a hex that exceeds the "allowed equipment density" of 850 (for a 20km hex), the unit(s) within that hex are marked with the appropriate colored dot depending on how much the "allowed equipment density" of the hex has been exceeded.

Therefore, it seems reasonable that if a unit has an "equipment density" of only a small fraction, let's say 10% to get the conversation started, of a hex's "allowed equipment density", then that unit would be treated as an Ant for all purposes, including combat.  Seems easy and simple enough to me.

And it would be wrong. A small unit attacking another small unit would be wrongly penalized. And a relatively large unit attacking an enormous stack would be wrongly unpenalized. The context has to be considered.

[Fungwu]

Right now when you select a unit and right click on an enemy unit the game makes some sort of calculation to determine if the enemy retreats.

It must look something like unitA= strength 100 unitB= stength 1, if UnitA/UnitB > 50 Unit B retreats

Right now a penalty falls on the defender if the relative strength of the attacked exceeds a certain ratio, what if you used the same calculation, but switched it so a penalty falls on the attacker if he only has a certain fraction of the defenders strength?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I was recently playing Operation Bagration, and I was troubled by companies (yes, companies) gaining control of 20km hexes, exerting zones of control into adjacent 20km hexes, cutting supply lines, blocking retreats, etc.

At this extreme, that really is a design problem. Battalions at that scale should be made indivisible, and independent companies can generally be rolled up into larger units.

[vahauser]

Curtis,
 
Okay.  Instead of 1 parameter (that of game-scale alone), have 2 parameters: 
Parameter1 = game-scale comparison
Parameter2 = relative unit/battle-size comparison
 
Indeed, both parameters are needed (Parameter2 for combat purposes and Parameter1 for everything else). 

[vahauser]

golden delicious,
 
Granted that the Ants in the Operation Bagration scenario are an extreme case.  But the Operation Bagration scenario is part of the standard TOAW III scenario package.  And as others have pointed out in this thread, Ants are causing problems in pretty much every TOAW III scenario, hence this thread.
 
My biggest desire at this point is for Ants to be somehow dealt with by the game engine in all their aspects, and not just the combat aspects.  Curtis says that the non-combat issues of Ants have already been addressed in his wishlist.  I'm not sure of that.  I'm going to re-read the wishlist.
 
In any event, Curtis wants to focus on Ant combat issues in this thread, so I won't belabor the non-combat issues regarding Ants any more in this thread, but to me those non-combat issues are equally, if not more, important than the combat issues.  Enough said about that for now.
 
 

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

golden delicious,

Granted that the Ants in the Operation Bagration scenario are an extreme case.  But the Operation Bagration scenario is part of the standard TOAW III scenario package.  And as others have pointed out in this thread, Ants are causing problems in pretty much every TOAW III scenario, hence this thread.

My biggest desire at this point is for Ants to be somehow dealt with by the game engine in all their aspects, and not just the combat aspects.  Curtis says that the non-combat issues of Ants have already been addressed in his wishlist.  I'm not sure of that.  I'm going to re-read the wishlist.

In any event, Curtis wants to focus on Ant combat issues in this thread, so I won't belabor the non-combat issues regarding Ants any more in this thread, but to me those non-combat issues are equally, if not more, important than the combat issues.  Enough said about that for now.

Just start a different thread regarding the problems outside of combat. After you've re-read the relevant parts of the wishlist.

[a white rabbit]

..and the earlier thread on the damn things..

[vahauser]

a white rabbit,
 
Can you link me to that other Ant thread please?
 
--V

[a white rabbit]

..i wish i could, but me and the search don't get on..

..it boiled down to those who think that ants are a designer problem, pure and simple, and those who reckon toaw should some how punish the ant-units and those who use them should be branded on the forehead with an H and have their noses slit (first offence)..

[a white rabbit]

..ant-units are a valid tool. Without them how do you do a realistic Brits vs Italians 1939/40 (bits of recon units running amock behind Italian units); France 40. Germans vs French +  a satisfactory differentiation between 1st class and 2nd class French infantry; Russia 41, Germans vs Russians; Russia 43, Russians vs Rumanians; Malaya 41/2, Japanese vs Empire ; Finland 39, Finns vs Russians to name but a few wars..
 
..if you must fiddle then it should be an optional extra to remove any attack bonuses, not something hard-wired into the engine..

[vahauser]

a white rabbit,
 
I think that John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism is correct in this case:  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  By this I mean that the negative abuses in which Ants are employed far outweigh any "positive benefits" that Ants might possess.
 
Further, I stipulate that the body of evidence against Ants is overwhelmingly strong.  Many games suffer from problems with Ants, not just TOAW, and the complaints against them are voiced in unison.  If ever there were a consensus among the global gaming community, across the spectrum of "operational wargames" in existence today (both boardgames and computer games), it is that Ants are a problem and not a solution.
 
Further, I claim that in every single example you cited above where you state that Ants are “a valid tool”, I claim that each of those cases could be resolved more favorably (in terms of both scenario enjoyment and historical realism) if the scenario designer could remove them from the game altogether.  Ants are, and always have been, a product and side effect of the game scale.  For example, if I want to design a "Lawrence of Arabia" (or an OSS in Indochina) scenario, then it is my responsibility as the scenario designer to choose the scale of the scenario correctly.
 
Further, you claim that Ants should be an option.  The reality is that Ants are NOT an option, at least not in TOAW III.  They are a byproduct of the game engine itself.  Players and designers are stuck with them whether they want them or not.  And the overwhelming consensus is that they do not want them.
 
And since we in the TOAW III community are stuck with Ants whether we want them or not, then the consensus of that community is that Ants be proscribed to the maximum extent allowed by the TOAW III game engine.  This means that you will still get your Ants, it is impossible to prevent them in TOAW III, but the fervent wishes of the many are that the pernicious effects of Ants, and Ants themselves, be eliminated wherever possible.
 
--V
[font="times new roman"] [/font]