Very limited land unit stacking

[Michael T]

If this game engine model is successful then future editions will allow for such things as it will be based on divisions inside a corp counter.

Really you should be making this a key feature of your initial release. It solves the lack of stacking issue and a flexible breakdown system with one stone.

[AlvaroSousa]

I will put it on the list of considerations during Beta testing.

[Michael T]

Thanks for considering that suggestion.

[Hairog]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I’m seeing unit combining/splitting is planned? This sort of allows stacking of sub-units, so looks fine. Also seeing multiple hex attacks, assumed for odds-based CRT combat resolution? Again, looks fine. Good potential.

Is all this still the case? Is the design combat odds-based CRT combat resolution? Is there multiple hex attacks?

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: fuzzypup

So say you are defending Leningrad. What can you do as the defender.

#1 put a unit with a tank destroyer specialty in the city.
#2 entrench it to the maximum.
#3 place a HQ with a high tenacity near it which lowers the chance of surrender.
#4 place air superiority groups near by

Air power is important in WarPlan in reducing the effectiveness and movement of units a lot more than doing physical damage. Which matches the reality of the situation in WW2 air interdiction missions.

You would need on the order of 20 good air units to have a chance to actually cripple the health of a land unit in a clear terrain.

The game mechanics allow for creativity.

So take this example. Say your army in Leningrad gets reduced in effectiveness to 40%. You can split the army into two small armies. Move one away. Merge the group with a fresh small army without losing entrenchment.

For other Western countries it would be detaching and replacing divisions.

WTF
"You would need on the order of 20 good air units to have a chance to actually cripple the health of a land unit in a clear terrain."

Ok this statement completely flies in the face of the realities of the effects of air power on the eastern front. Yes, air power was not available in the same concentrations as in the Germany's western campaigns, but on many occasions when the Germans were able to concentrate their air power in 41 - 42 (less in 43 --> Kursk) it was decisive. You might want to read up on some recent books about combat on the eastern front, you will understand how important air power was and how much it hurt the Ostheer with the decline of the Luftwaffe and the resurgence of the Red Air Force. I've read over 150 books on this conflict and from the lower ranks on up, it's always air power that was feared and could be very devastating when concentrated.

If this is an example of how the game engine tries to emulate combat in WW2, I'm out. Also, as a developer, I'm not sure why having the ability to stack multiple land units in a hex is so complicated and so undervalued a feature. SSI was designing combat games with this feature in 1980's. You should serious consider adding that feature to your combat engine, if you expect it to last the test of time plus sales.

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

You are kidding? Infantry can break down but not Panzer?

You may not realize the Panzer Corp were the most highly trained and flexible formations of the whole German army. I think you need to step away from claims of an operational feel. Clearly it is not an operational game design.

Yes complete agree, this is Nutz! Did some sort of budget run out here? Feature to be added later in a patch?

[welk]

ORIGINAL: fuzzypup

I will put it on the list of considerations during Beta testing.

If there are some technical difficulties (in programming work) to set the "scale" of the detached unit as division (detached unit from a Pz corps), perhaps could you take this medium solution (tip) : a pz corps may divise itself in 2 "half Pz corps". Each "half pz corps" will keep the corps status (not division status), but with half force of initial total force of the concerned corps

with this solution, each of the 2 half corps will be considered to receive half of Pz forces and half of the support units (mot/mech inf, mot arty, mot engineers, etc)

In this way, your initial programmation system/work will be keep and we could have splitting for pz corps(it would be a "special" splitting, different from infantry units splitting : to split a pz corps will give 2 half pz corps in all cases, without division status. And later, these 2 halfcorps would be able to merge again (Together or/and with another half pz half corps)

[Plainian]

Cool the beans folks. Why don't we wait and see how it plays before jumping in with the takety boots.The screenshots of Poland and France appear to show the correct number of Panzer units. I'm sure we can add reduced Panzer Corps units into scenarios if we think the Germans are not superhuman enough.

Ian from 'bonnie' Dundee

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

ORIGINAL: fuzzypup

So say you are defending Leningrad. What can you do as the defender.

#1 put a unit with a tank destroyer specialty in the city.
#2 entrench it to the maximum.
#3 place a HQ with a high tenacity near it which lowers the chance of surrender.
#4 place air superiority groups near by

Air power is important in WarPlan in reducing the effectiveness and movement of units a lot more than doing physical damage. Which matches the reality of the situation in WW2 air interdiction missions.

You would need on the order of 20 good air units to have a chance to actually cripple the health of a land unit in a clear terrain.

The game mechanics allow for creativity.

So take this example. Say your army in Leningrad gets reduced in effectiveness to 40%. You can split the army into two small armies. Move one away. Merge the group with a fresh small army without losing entrenchment.

For other Western countries it would be detaching and replacing divisions.

WTF
"You would need on the order of 20 good air units to have a chance to actually cripple the health of a land unit in a clear terrain."

Ok this statement completely flies in the face of the realities of the effects of air power on the eastern front. Yes, air power was not available in the same concentrations as in the Germany's western campaigns, but on many occasions when the Germans were able to concentrate their air power in 41 - 42 (less in 43 --> Kursk) it was decisive. You might want to read up on some recent books about combat on the eastern front, you will understand how important air power was and how much it hurt the Ostheer with the decline of the Luftwaffe and the resurgence of the Red Air Force. I've read over 150 books on this conflict and from the lower ranks on up, it's always air power that was feared and could be very devastating when concentrated.

If this is an example of how the game engine tries to emulate combat in WW2, I'm out. Also, as a developer, I'm not sure why having the ability to stack multiple land units in a hex is so complicated and so undervalued a feature. SSI was designing combat games with this feature in 1980's. You should serious consider adding that feature to your combat engine, if you expect it to last the test of time plus sales.

On the other hand, I am always disappointed when I see, in a game, that a corps (yes a corps) can be removed from the map by the single action of air power. Air power is important but you do not gain terrain just by its action.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

You are kidding? Infantry can break down but not Panzer?

You may not realize the Panzer Corp were the most highly trained and flexible formations of the whole German army. I think you need to step away from claims of an operational feel. Clearly it is not an operational game design.

This is always the frontier that is hard to define between tactical, strategic and operational. I prefer operational with strategic aspects but that is my personal taste.

[Simulacra53]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
On the other hand, I am always disappointed when I see, in a game, that a corps (yes a corps) can be removed from the map by the single action of air power. Air power is important but you do not gain terrain just by its action.

Good point - one that deserves attention.
Too many games allow large ground forces, division - corps - army level - to be destroyed by air power (or finished) and that should be quite impossible, even on the regimental level. Impact fighting power, supplies etc, but actual destruction?

[Hairog]

There is an important distinction to be made here. In defense of a well loved strategic game system currently being used by many... Units aren't destroyed, they are temporarily made non-functional or disorganized and the cost to pull them out of the frontline, reinforce and reorganize them, is a fraction of both the time and cost of building a replacement, literally a fraction depending upon the scenario.

If you recall the term is "shattered", they are not destroyed. I too was under the impression that they were destroyed until I investigated further, (read the manual).

[AlvaroSousa]

The impact of air power affects effectiveness, some health, and movement. If you play Unity of Command you see something similar if I remember.

Read about the effects about air power during Operation Cobra and air strikes vs Panzer Lehr Division if I remember. The pilots greatly exaggerated their kills after sending a large number of bombers at the unit. Could be in Brute Force by Ellis 3rd part if I remember.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: fuzzypup
The impact of air power affects effectiveness, some health, and movement. If you play Unity of Command you see something similar if I remember.

But SC and UoC use single unit move/attack. WarPlan uses multi-unit/multi-hex attacks. So I assume air power attack factors and other modifiers are added to the combat? Something like the old Third Reich rules prohibiting air-only attacks on ground units and restricting their use to no more than 3x the ground attack factors could work well. Perhaps a separate thread describing land, air, and naval combats would be helpful to better understand the proposed game mechanics.

[Michael T]

oh, how I wish we could have a PC version of A3R/AWAW.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

oh, how I wish we could have a PC version of A3R/AWAW.

Do not forget Empire of the Rising Sun. [:D]

[Michael T]

Pacific theater is included in AWAW. Rising Sun naval rules sucked. But the naval rules in AWAW are the best strategic level naval rules I have encountered.

Still I have high hopes for this game. I would say though, the further this new game is from Strategic Command the happier I will be.

[Simulacra53]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: fuzzypup
The impact of air power affects effectiveness, some health, and movement. If you play Unity of Command you see something similar if I remember.

But SC and UoC use single unit move/attack. WarPlan uses multi-unit/multi-hex attacks. So I assume air power attack factors and other modifiers are added to the combat? Something like the old Third Reich rules prohibiting air-only attacks on ground units and restricting their use to no more than 3x the ground attack factors could work well. Perhaps a separate thread describing land, air, and naval combats would be helpful to better understand the proposed game mechanics.

Tactical interdiction had limited effect against armored vehicles - as in direct kills, although it certainly hampered movement and the supplies.
Strategic interdiction, targeting the road, rail and other infrastructure and specifically logistics had communications had a major impact on operational effectiveness.

How the game handles interdiction is still unknown.
You attack a ground unit and its effects will be what Fuzzypup explained, or you have the ability to go beyond direct targeting..

[Hairog]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


But SC and UoC use single unit move/attack. WarPlan uses multi-unit/multi-hex attacks.

You sure about this?

[AlvaroSousa]

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

Tactical interdiction had limited effect against armored vehicles - as in direct kills, although it certainly hampered movement and the supplies.
Strategic interdiction, targeting the road, rail and other infrastructure and specifically logistics had communications had a major impact on operational effectiveness.

How the game handles interdiction is still unknown.
You attack a ground unit and its effects will be what Fuzzypup explained, or you have the ability to go beyond direct targeting..

Bombing rail was actually on the board for play but it would be very difficult to implement. So the current model is you air strike a target, it loses effectiveness (supply, damage to units though functional, and reduce movement).

A prime example of the difficulties in applying a bomb rail action is Italy. The Allies bombed the crap out of the Italian railways. They destroyed 90% of the railway function. The Axis still got supplies and men through. In Europe there are just too many rail ways to destroy. So putting a task that tedious in which the results on this scale are not dramatically impacting over a game turn of 2 weeks doesn't play well.