Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

ORIGINAL: phoenix

A propos of landing new bases to supply the lost jeeps, navwarcol (and it's not meant to be realistic, Jim, it's meant to be a fix for a part of the game that isn't realistic) ....

Good to hear.. and yes, it is really just a temporary workaround idea, not meant as a realistic end-all solution to the problem. I for one love the longer scenarios, but the destroyed supplies make them impossible after a couple of days.

If it's not meant to be "realistic" then it ought not to be called Market-Garden.

The historical record is that units were dropped at various distances along a single long supply line with the intent that the ground forces were tough enough to break through German resistance and secure a supply line before the isolated force on hand stock and the limited replenishment were overcome by the German forces defending against them.

It accepted the risk that despite sufficient air resources to both deploy and sustain three-plus divisions of air dropped forces behind enemy lines, surprise and the subsequent shock to the German forces being struck by the attack would keep those German forces from reacting effectively before the heavy ground units racing along the lone supply route could reach the air deployed forces.

Bottom line is if a human commander goes into the standard battle without understanding the constraints already faced by his force in terms of supply (he never gets more than 80-percent of what's "required" because of the strategic supply line issues), and ignores addressing those constraints within the bounds of his command responsibilities (be aggressive, but don't use up all your on hand bullets to be so!), he's going to lose sooner than the Allies did in the "real life" battle. If he addresses those constraints effectively (by avoiding the historical mistakes), then he will last at least as long, or perhaps exceed the duration the isolated units lasted in the original battle.

Fighting the battle with airborne "balls to the wall" will result in a failure. Fighting it with some thoughtful tactics to mitigate known issues facing friendly troops, the battle can result in a draw, or perhaps a victory, as the scenario designer intended.

If the constraints of history are too great, then perhaps the alternatives of altering or constraining the Allied / German supply distribution, reinforcement schedule, weather, and orders delay will help balance the game for the human player, just as the scenario designer intended.

Fighting the battle with airborne "balls to the wall" will result in a failure. Fighting it with some thoughtful tactics to mitigate known issues facing friendly troops, the battle can result in a draw, or perhaps a victory, as the scenario designer intended.

Show us, Jim!! AAR please. Without which I would have to be somewhat sceptical, having played this scenario many times.

And Navwarcol was talking about modding the stock scenario - which has been done in various ways - all of which are 'what if' scenarios. Not sure what you mean by it ought not to be called Market Garden. It isn't.

But like I said - I myself, and I'm sure many others, would benefit greatly from a good detailed AAR showing how you can properly fight and win the long, stock From the Meuse to the Rhine scenario, putting into effect all your real world experience from the logistics world. Do it! I'm serious. It would count a lot more than all your general high level advice, which on these supply matters doesn't really help me much, as too general to be of real assistance. I'm not saying I don't believe you can do it - I'm saying I would love to see how you do it.

This is true... we know how the real action ended already.. so my interest never has been in just replaying the roles... the entire reason , for myself, that I play any of these games, is the "what if" factor.. "what would it have taken for the Germans to actually pull off the Bulge" is one of my favorites, actually... and this game is good at showing how close they came, in some areas (and how unlikely it was, in others).
But the particular edit I was talking about above, is to fix something that is NOT realistic, by using a ***slightly*** unrealistic, but TEMPORARY, fix (as I believe I have seen even that Dave considers this needs fixing). Without this, longer scenarios are not playable. With the current style, even if you do everything right, even if you clear the supply lines behind you, your supply will still be 100% interdicted within a couple of days, and there is no other way (as historically there WAS) to get supplies to the frontline units.. I know that in reality, units at the front line will almost always find ways to get what they need. The "ingenuity born of desperation" has always amazed me.

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

This is true... we know how the real action ended already.. so my interest never has been in just replaying the roles... the entire reason , for myself, that I play any of these games, is the "what if" factor.. "what would it have taken for the Germans to actually pull off the Bulge" is one of my favorites, actually... and this game is good at showing how close they came, in some areas (and how unlikely it was, in others).
But the particular edit I was talking about above, is to fix something that is NOT realistic, by using a ***slightly*** unrealistic, but TEMPORARY, fix (as I believe I have seen even that Dave considers this needs fixing). Without this, longer scenarios are not playable. With the current style, even if you do everything right, even if you clear the supply lines behind you, your supply will still be 100% interdicted within a couple of days, and there is no other way (as historically there WAS) to get supplies to the frontline units.. I know that in reality, units at the front line will almost always find ways to get what they need. The "ingenuity born of desperation" has always amazed me.

I'm with you.

The supply operation shouldn't stop when all the vehicles in a base are defeated by fire (I'd like to see a maintenance component to restore some mobility, and perhaps some "foot troop" retrieval).

Plus, it's interesting to see what "could have worked."

Fact is, I recall that you said you liked the mod I created to provide the potential the 17th Airborne Division entered the operation rather than it being held in reserve.

My concern is when history showed that the Allies couldn't maintain an efficient supply operation for the air dropped / isolated troops, and human players experience the same issue(s) when they play the historical scenario, it becomes "the engine" that caused the human players to lose rather than the plan or a reluctance to vary from the tactics the allies used.

Hi,

Just on the topic of modding the reinforcements, I've always hoped the engine would be enhanced so as to allow the players to activate conditional reinforcements (perhaps at a cost in VP's) to either exploit that breakthrough or shore up the defences etc. It could even be tweaked to allow for the release of strategic/theatre type reserves upon the achievemment of certain objectives /goals by the player, rewarding success and punishing failure etc.

Rob.[:)]

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

Hi,

Just on the topic of modding the reinforcements, I've always hoped the engine would be enhanced so as to allow the players to activate conditional reinforcements (perhaps at a cost in VP's) to either exploit that breakthrough or shore up the defences etc. It could even be tweaked to allow for the release of strategic/theatre type reserves upon the achievemment of certain objectives /goals by the player, rewarding success and punishing failure etc.

Rob.[:)]

Interesting idea.

Do you have any ideas on what friendly force activity(s) could / should be used to trigger a conditional event?

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

I'm with you.

The supply operation shouldn't stop when all the vehicles in a base are defeated by fire (I'd like to see a maintenance component to restore some mobility, and perhaps some "foot troop" retrieval).

Plus, it's interesting to see what "could have worked."

Fact is, I recall that you said you liked the mod I created to provide the potential the 17th Airborne Division entered the operation rather than it being held in reserve.

My concern is when history showed that the Allies couldn't maintain an efficient supply operation for the air dropped / isolated troops, and human players experience the same issue(s) when they play the historical scenario, it becomes "the engine" that caused the human players to lose rather than the plan or a reluctance to vary from the tactics the allies used.

Yes, I hear what you are saying here as well. Truth be told, that scenario should be a very hard one to win for the allies. I just think it should not be impossible (spoken here as one who usually plays this as the Axis side lol)
And yes, I very much liked your 17th Airborne mod.[:D]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

Hi,

Just on the topic of modding the reinforcements, I've always hoped the engine would be enhanced so as to allow the players to activate conditional reinforcements (perhaps at a cost in VP's) to either exploit that breakthrough or shore up the defences etc. It could even be tweaked to allow for the release of strategic/theatre type reserves upon the achievemment of certain objectives /goals by the player, rewarding success and punishing failure etc.

Rob.[:)]

Interesting idea.

Do you have any ideas on what friendly force activity(s) could / should be used to trigger a conditional event?

Hi,

I'll admit I haven't put any serious thought into it but here's some off the cuff brainstorming:

1/ The early capture and retention of yet to be activated VP locations, singly or in combinations, or a mixture of active and yet to be active VP locations is something that could work for both sides. Also applies in reverse ie. the early loss of the above VP locations.

2/If SEPS could be isolated/cut off somehow that should trigger some kind of offmap(?) reinforcement.

3/Some scenarios favour attrition type battles so perhaps conditional reinforcements could also be tied to losses.

4/ When 1 side is contemplating surrender perhaps additional units could be purchased so to speak by VP's to help stave off total defeat.

5/ Tie conditional reinforcements to the victory meter at various times throughout the game. Too high too low for this point in the game would work for both sides.

That's all I can think of for now.

Rob.

I'm waiting for the AI artillery use to be fixed. Right now I have no reason to play since I always end up destroying enemy artillery with my artillery and then completely wrecking the enemy forces thanks to artillery supremacy.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

I'm waiting for the AI artillery use to be fixed. Right now I have no reason to play since I always end up destroying enemy artillery with my artillery and then completely wrecking the enemy forces thanks to artillery supremacy.

So you can win the stock long 'Meuse to the Rhine' scenario as the allies? If so, I would love to see how you do it, even if you used your artillery system.

I agree with that you are saying, as you can nail the AI artillery, and give yourself a huge advantage, but you don't "have to do it".
You can always treat it as just another difficulty option, and leave your artillery under AI command.
No game to date has a perfect AI that can't be exploited in some way, to give you an advantage once you know how to do it.

What I'm saying is, if you can resist the temptation not to use it, you can still have an enjoyable, and challenging game session in Command Ops.

It's not really a game breaker, in my books. Just another difficulty setting.

I'm really interested in how you locate all the enemy artillery, in the bigger scenarios, especially. Take Race to Bastogne, for example - without memorising it by playing as axis and taking illegal note!, how do you locate the masses of arty the Axis has available. And you really think you can then neutralise it with the - at least initially - very few allied arty assets? I guess you weren't talking about all scenarios? Maybe just the little ones, no?

I always leave my artillery under AI command, so it never bothers me.

After thinking about it, how can it be 'fixed'? Unless the AI immediately starts doing this itself (ie: construct an artillery 'division' and go hunting for your artillery) there will always be such a loophole. Perhaps tightening up HQ rules regarding such use of assets?

That's very true. How could it be 'fixed'? Except by enforcing AI control of arty - and, as you say sapper, you can do that yourself.

I do too..all I do is at the start of a scenario separate them and give them defend orders..and as the battle moves beyond range I move them forward. (however I will take control on the odd occasion if I want a high rate of fire on some target, but it's rare.) Sometimes I think micromanaging takes something away from the game..why have leader stats etc if the player takes control anyway pushing units to the max possible outcome.


@Perturabo..why not just leave the Arty, as sapper and myself do, to the AI..there by creating an even playing field and keeping inline with the core gameplay.

ORIGINAL: SapperAstro

I always leave my artillery under AI command, so it never bothers me.

After thinking about it, how can it be 'fixed'? Unless the AI immediately starts doing this itself (ie: construct an artillery 'division' and go hunting for your artillery) there will always be such a loophole. Perhaps tightening up HQ rules regarding such use of assets?

ORIGINAL: SapperAstro

I always leave my artillery under AI command, so it never bothers me.

After thinking about it, how can it be 'fixed'? Unless the AI immediately starts doing this itself (ie: construct an artillery 'division' and go hunting for your artillery) there will always be such a loophole. Perhaps tightening up HQ rules regarding such use of assets?

There's no "loophole".
If AI would treat player artillery as a high priority target, then "arty-hunting" missions would devolve into an artillery duel involving most of artillery on board where almost every arty bn would be both suppressed and busy firing at another arty bn.

Which would eliminate most of spotted artillery from doing fire support missions and would reduce the speed of destruction of targeted arty units (because they would be fired at by suppressed units).

ORIGINAL: wodin

@Perturabo..why not just leave the Arty, as sapper and myself do, to the AI..there by creating an even playing field and keeping inline with the core gameplay.

Letting the AI keep its artillery isn't a solution because the enemy artillery will fire at my units, spoiling my plans. Counter-battery fire was a normal part of tactics. With the main problem with using it being knowing the location of enemy artillery units.

ORIGINAL: SapperAstro

So you can win the stock long 'Meuse to the Rhine' scenario as the allies? If so, I would love to see how you do it, even if you used your artillery system.

I never played it. What is its name? Also, what "artillery system"? It's just one of basic military tactics which the AI doesn't use.

ORIGINAL: phoenix

I'm really interested in how you locate all the enemy artillery, in the bigger scenarios, especially. Take Race to Bastogne, for example - without memorising it by playing as axis and taking illegal note!, how do you locate the masses of arty the Axis has available. And you really think you can then neutralise it with the - at least initially - very few allied arty assets? I guess you weren't talking about all scenarios? Maybe just the little ones, no?

I guess I'll have to check it out and takes notes on how the scenario-maker hid the artillery and then do something similar when making my own scenarios.
Obviously, non-symmetrical scenarios make using some tactics more difficult or downright impossible.

I guess it's not that they're hidden, just way back from your front, with not much chance of you having spare units to probe behind lines and spot arty - in those kinds of scenarios, at any rate (Race to Bastogne, for example). In a little scenario like Hofen, where I've played it often enough to know what the Allied arty will look like and where it will show up, it's possible to suppress his arty, sure (he only has 2 arty units on the map)but never destroy it, imho - at least I've not been able to achieve that with intense and sustained indirect fire.

But anyway, Peturabo - I guess I didn't understand your original post - what is the problem that needs fixing? Can you clarify please? Not because I doubt you, but because maybe there's something I missed.

ORIGINAL: phoenix

I guess it's not that they're hidden, just way back from your front, with not much chance of you having spare units to probe behind lines and spot arty - in those kinds of scenarios, at any rate (Race to Bastogne, for example). In a little scenario like Hofen, where I've played it often enough to know what the Allied arty will look like and where it will show up, it's possible to suppress his arty, sure (he only has 2 arty units on the map)but never destroy it, imho - at least I've not been able to achieve that with intense and sustained indirect fire.

Units that don't get destroyed often get suppressed for a long time. Also, arty unit can take very light losses in personnel but still lose a lot of guns.
One of the arty units in Hofen is armoured, so it would probably be rather difficult to destroy.

ORIGINAL: phoenix

But anyway, Peturabo - I guess I didn't understand your original post - what is the problem that needs fixing? Can you clarify please? Not because I doubt you, but because maybe there's something I missed.

My problem is that the AI doesn't do counter-battery missions. Even when not destructive, assigning counter-battery missions drastically reduces the ability of the enemy artillery to let's say stopping your attacking or moving units with a fire mission, disrupting your plans and killing your men.
Now I'm not sure if the enemy saw my artillery, maybe they didn't. But when I see the enemy artillery, my artillery doesn't fire at enemy artillery without my specific orders, so I assume that the AI generally doesn't consider artillery worth firing at.
And generally, I don't see my arty units with tlos on enemy units getting bombarded.

I agree it would be good to have AI scripted C-B fire. Absolutely. But I can't recall whether it's meant already to happen or not. Do I recall Dave saying that the arty should already plan missions against enemy AI?

I think the Ai does do Counter-battery missions. Here's one below.