Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Most modern wars (so from 30s of last century) were based on proper communications through the chain of command. And interventions from CO of Corps or Group of Armies where done in hours. And the CO of divisions and Battalions where reacting within 1-2 hrs.

Sure, if those reactions were pre-planned (in other words, like being in a reserve deployment). But, if they were not pre-planned, (the force was taken by surprise) the chain of command and logistical difficulties were proportional to the size of the forces. We can be sure of this from the evidence: flank attacks and breakthroughs were doable. Reaction times of hours would have made such things impossible.

So only a weekly issuance of orders is absurd.

Actually it works great for a lot of topics. I've got the best working Barbarossa scenario out there to prove it.

Bob we could thrown in examples but I think the discussion is missing the common ground.
How long it took for Hitler to (not) react to Normandy, 6 hours (he was a late sleeper)? Or Soviets to order the full counter offensive in June'41?
I think you are confusing strategic planning with normal reaction to the events, which was happening without much of a delay. Simple example? Dispatchimg paras to Bastogne during the Bulge. You are not able to react that quick with 3.5 days turn on a 5-10km scale. The reality is that the conditions change by the hour not by a week.

And just because someone programmed a scenario with a vision to get a specified result it does not mean that the system works.

Replaying historical events has one major flaw, you know the outcome and have a skewed vision.

If you were given a flexible environment many things would go completely different as they did. A normal Russian winter would not be a major interference for the German army as they were prepered for it.

Should the Germans have decided to proclaim a puppet Ukraine things might have looked completely different. Should the Russians not have been ordered to counterattack on 24 June 1941 the Germans might got stuck much earlier.

There are so many variables. And unfortunately most of the games are disturbed by the absurd idea of achieving historical results. In a long scenario you have exact dates on which reinforcements will arrive. This is so irrational that on its own causes absurdity. Just because historically there was Normandy in June 1944 that does not mean it would always have happened and always on June 1944.

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Bob we could thrown in examples but I think the discussion is missing the common ground.
How long it took for Hitler to (not) react to Normandy, 6 hours (he was a late sleeper)? Or Soviets to order the full counter offensive in June'41?

I also have a France 1944 D-Day scenario at 1/2 week intervals that also works like a charm.

tm.asp?m=1726673

And ordering something is not the same as having the orders carried out.

I think you are confusing strategic planning with normal reaction to the events, which was happening without much of a delay. Simple example? Dispatchimg paras to Bastogne during the Bulge. You are not able to react that quick with 3.5 days turn on a 5-10km scale. The reality is that the conditions change by the hour not by a week.

I actually model that in my Germany 1945 scenario (full week turns). 101st airborne is in reserve and reacts into the German spearhead.

tm.asp?m=1818685

Meanwhile, the rest of the Allied force (including Patton) didn't even react until they had a face-to-face meeting in Reims. That was not until the bulge had enveloped Bastogne and moved far past it. At that point, Monty still wouldn't commit to any reaction, saying he needed "some weeks" before he would be able. Patton's legendary swift reaction is far beyond the exception - it is still so remarkable as to be seen as proof of his genius.

The fact is that it takes time to figure out what is going on, with frontline units shattered or heavily engaged so that they are hard to contact - or they may not even know what is going on themselves. Then it takes time to plan the reaction, shift supplies, etc..

And just because someone programmed a scenario with a vision to get a specified result it does not mean that the system works.

That's not what I did. I modeled the historical conditions only. The scenario can go in any number of non-historical directions if non-historical moves are opted. But, if the historical moves are opted, it produces very historical results.

tm.asp?m=1893814

Bob,
What are you doing in boardgames (for simplicity the TAOW falls under the category)? You are moving chits.
From top of the Chain of Command to the very bottom. Has Patton been issuing orders to every of his battalions and companies. That by itself would take more than a day. But this is what gamers are doing in boardgames: moving chits. There is no chain of command. There is no distortion in executing orders. There is very limited unpredictability, you move the chit personally (that's what i mean by being in a god-mode).
In reality the CO of the unit was making decisions. A commander od a Division was not waiting on Monty's permission to withdraw or counterattack, he just did.

In boardgames I've played and some digital games there was posibility to react per engagement which is lacking in TAOW.

Whatever you might think there is not much of human element simulated in TAOW. Sometimes the personal differences between the commanders had crucial effects. And many times the personality of CO was decisive factor on how the orders were carried out.

Unfortunately the Elmer does a very poor job and there is not an option to simulate the operational command (so giving orders only to one level below).

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Bob,
What are you doing in boardgames (for simplicity the TAOW falls under the category)? You are moving chits.
From top of the Chain of Command to the very bottom. Has Patton been issuing orders to every of his battalions and companies. That by itself would take more than a day. But this is what gamers are doing in boardgames: moving chits. There is no chain of command. There is no distortion in executing orders. There is very limited unpredictability, you move the chit personally (that's what i mean by being in a god-mode).

For the nth time: formations can be in reorganization. They won't carry out your orders at all in that mode. Averaged over the course of multiple turns, it has much the same effect as any other method of distorting the execution of orders.

In reality the CO of the unit was making decisions. A commander od a Division was not waiting on Monty's permission to withdraw or counterattack, he just did.

In boardgames I've played and some digital games there was posibility to react per engagement which is lacking in TAOW.

Whatever you might think there is not much of human element simulated in TAOW. Sometimes the personal differences between the commanders had crucial effects. And many times the personality of CO was decisive factor on how the orders were carried out.

Shock effects can simulate poor command coordination.

Unfortunately the Elmer does a very poor job and there is not an option to simulate the operational command (so giving orders only to one level below).

Did you see those three AARs? You would think they were produced by the History Channel, not some wargame.

Experimental evidence trumps theory. And the evidence says that TOAW can be made to work very, very well.