Pre Combat Air Strikes

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

When operating in an environment where enemy airstrikes are likely, one can take precautions: move in dispersed order, use secondary routes, avoid crossing open areas at high noon, etc.

Fine -- but it will take time. One is 'not using all of ones movement allowance.'

Alternatively, one can simply disregard all considerations of risk -- use all of ones' movement allowance. Fine -- but the chances that you'll get hit increase geometrically.

So the chances of getting hit by interdiction should increase exponentially as one uses a greater proportion of one's movement allowance. If I'm prepared to confine myself to using 25% or so, I should be able to carry out a move in relative safety in almost any environment this side of 'Desert Storm.' If I want to use 100%, I should figure I'm pretty likely to get hit pretty hard.

...and in fact, heavy interdiction had exactly this effect. Rommel wanted to put the panzers close to the beaches because he knew they would face a Hobson's choice if they had to move a long way under conditions of Allied air supremacy. When SS Panzer units were transferred to the East in 1945, others noted that they were viscerally reluctant to move fast in close order in broad daylight. They were, in fact, infernally slow.

The interdiction 'hit' mechanism has a number of flaws. One of these flaws -- and one of the more fixable -- is that the risk should climb disproportionately as one uses more of one's movement allowance. That, largely, is precisely what has happened historically.

Sorry, but I don't see any basis for this other than the impact of night movement. All else being equal, a unit that moves 25% as far as another should face 25% the risk of detection, and therefore 25% the risk of interdiction. And that's exactly how it works now. For sure it's hexes moved not MPs expended that counts. We just need to model night movement effects for day-length turns or longer.

Noo...because a unit that moves only 25% of its movement allowance has the opportunity -- which such units usually took advantage of -- to move in dispersed order, off main roads, etc.

So such units can -- and did -- reduce their exposure to interdiction.

For some reason, you are fastening on night movement as the one and only measure to avoid interdiction. That's really not especially valid. In general, using less of one's movement allowance disproportionately reduces ones exposure to interdiction.

For Chrissakes, Bob. Think about it.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

To be fair, TOAW's focus is ground combat. What we want for aerial warfare is something that reflects its impact on the ground combat: reduced supplies, units delayed in transit, etc. I don't want to wind up literally flying air missions.

Not that your objections aren't valid -- I think they are. It's just that we want to correct the abstraction rather than starting to have to plot specific missions.

I get to agree with you, Colin.

It's bound to happen occasionally. Like winning the Lotto.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama

Eplain this to me. How can 42 Ju88 make 22 sorties in 84 hours from Riga to Brest? 20 interdiction and 2 airstrikes (dropping their unused ordinance?). That's one sortie every 3.81 hours. An exceptional and super human feat not only by the sleepless air crews but also by the ground crews.

Okay, maybe they made more than one interdiction attack per sortie. If so, why do they have ordinance left?

What I don't like about this 'feature' is that it smacks of placation with a quick and easy fix. There is a lack of logic underlying this that needs to be addressed. Why, if an air crew is flying interdiction from point A to point B, would they drop their ordinance at point B and not have anything left to drop on any interdiction targets on the way back? That's the only way airstrikes 600 km to the enemy's rear can make sense. Wouldn't they hang on to their ammo for the patrol on the way back?

Furthermore, aren't you getting strategic bombing confused with tactical air ops? Ordinance dumping was something strategic bombers did when all of their targets, primary, secondary, etc., were obscured. They made a practice of dropping them in the ocean too, not on land if it could be helped. Interdiction is operational in nature and tactical in implementation. You also didn't perform ground attacks against units near your own front lines because you run a very good risk of bombing your own troops since you have no spotters on the ground.

Also, shouldn't enemy units be spotted for your air units to be able to perform airstrikes against them? I've run tests and airstrikes are being made on unspotted units (recon set to zero).

This is something that should be left to the scenario designer and it shouldn't be foisted on players as something that is realistic in nature when it is not.

Cheers [;)]

To be fair, TOAW's focus is ground combat. What we want for aerial warfare is something that reflects its impact on the ground combat: reduced supplies, units delayed in transit, etc. I don't want to wind up literally flying air missions.

Not that your objections aren't valid -- I think they are. It's just that we want to correct the abstraction rather than starting to have to plot specific missions.

Yeah, I understand TOAW is focused on ground combat and by necessity the air war is an abstraction. If I had to plot every air mission I would have gone bonkers. I'm just saying that some things are being taken out of the hands of both players and scenario designers that shouldn't be.

What's worse is that, after looking at it closer, it's flawed in some basic ways:

The spotting problem really surprised me. You should know where your target is before you can attack it, right?

Air units making air strikes suffered extremely low casualties, about 1.3 aircraft per airstrike. I didn't take the time to see what would be a normal casualty rate when manually planning air strikes but I would hope it would be higher. The same if an air unit were on a manually plotted air support mission perhaps.

One air unit, when on interdiction, can make interdiction and air strikes in one combat round in points 500km apart. True, this one covers several issues and probably transcends the spirit of the game. Maybe it shouldn't even be considered.

In any event, I do hope someone takes a serious look at random airstrikes that have become a part of interdiction. One should not be part of the other.

[ColinWright]

Look. I'm a German infantry regiment in Normandy.

Now, it's not too much of a leap to see that if I'm to redeploy 50 km away, I can considerably reduce my losses to interdiction if I take three days to make the shift instead of just having everyone pile in trucks as soon as the order is received and set off down the main road in one solid column of three hundred trucks.

We don't need to frig around with 'night movement' and other such considerations that really belong more to the tactical level of things. At the operational level, what it boils down to is that interdiction strikes should occur disproportionately as units begin attempting to consume all of their movement allowance. It's precisely the full-speed, bumper-to-bumper, daylight move -- the one that presumably would occur at some point if the units' full movement allowance is used -- that should be hit.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama

Eplain this to me. How can 42 Ju88 make 22 sorties in 84 hours from Riga to Brest? 20 interdiction and 2 airstrikes (dropping their unused ordinance?). That's one sortie every 3.81 hours. An exceptional and super human feat not only by the sleepless air crews but also by the ground crews.

Okay, maybe they made more than one interdiction attack per sortie. If so, why do they have ordinance left?

What I don't like about this 'feature' is that it smacks of placation with a quick and easy fix. There is a lack of logic underlying this that needs to be addressed. Why, if an air crew is flying interdiction from point A to point B, would they drop their ordinance at point B and not have anything left to drop on any interdiction targets on the way back? That's the only way airstrikes 600 km to the enemy's rear can make sense. Wouldn't they hang on to their ammo for the patrol on the way back?

Furthermore, aren't you getting strategic bombing confused with tactical air ops? Ordinance dumping was something strategic bombers did when all of their targets, primary, secondary, etc., were obscured. They made a practice of dropping them in the ocean too, not on land if it could be helped. Interdiction is operational in nature and tactical in implementation. You also didn't perform ground attacks against units near your own front lines because you run a very good risk of bombing your own troops since you have no spotters on the ground.

Also, shouldn't enemy units be spotted for your air units to be able to perform airstrikes against them? I've run tests and airstrikes are being made on unspotted units (recon set to zero).

This is something that should be left to the scenario designer and it shouldn't be foisted on players as something that is realistic in nature when it is not.

Cheers [;)]

To be fair, TOAW's focus is ground combat. What we want for aerial warfare is something that reflects its impact on the ground combat: reduced supplies, units delayed in transit, etc. I don't want to wind up literally flying air missions.

Not that your objections aren't valid -- I think they are. It's just that we want to correct the abstraction rather than starting to have to plot specific missions.

Yeah, I understand TOAW is focused on ground combat and by necessity the air war is an abstraction. If I had to plot every air mission I would have gone bonkers. I'm just saying that some things are being taken out of the hands of both players and scenario designers that shouldn't be.

What's worse is that, after looking at it closer, it's flawed in some basic ways:

The spotting problem really surprised me. You should know where your target is before you can attack it, right?

Air units making air strikes suffered extremely low casualties, about 1.3 aircraft per airstrike. I didn't take the time to see what would be a normal casualty rate when manually planning air strikes but I would hope it would be higher. The same if an air unit were on a manually plotted air support mission perhaps.

One air unit, when on interdiction, can make interdiction and air strikes in one combat round in points 500km apart. True, this one covers several issues and probably transcends the spirit of the game. Maybe it shouldn't even be considered.

In any event, I do hope someone takes a serious look at random airstrikes that have become a part of interdiction. One should not be part of the other.

Yeah -- but this starts to segue into the larger problems with air war in OPART.

Like, losses shouldn't be the only thing that affects interdiction. In general, what AA does is not shoot down attackers so much as render their strikes radically less effective. That's not modelled at all: instead, we get a choice between no deterrent at all and absurdly high aircraft losses on specific strikes.

Put a battery of 2 cm flak guns at a bridge and they may not shoot down a single plane -- but that bridge's chances of survival just increased dramatically.

Anyway, I don't mind the random strike aspect of interdiction so much. In fact, it can work rather well, and the way it inhibits rail movement is especially satisfactory.

I would like to see (a) a way of restricting the area interdiction is applied in, and (b) see it disproportionately affect units attempting to move at full speed. The bomber should be able to say 'I want to interdict traffic in this area' and the bombee should be able to say, 'I will slow down, spread out, and get through without getting hammered.'

Now, targeting the interdiction poses some problems. However, I see little difficulty with rendering it especially effective against attempts to move at full speed.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Anyway, I don't mind the random strike aspect of interdiction so much. In fact, it can work rather well, and the way it inhibits rail movement is especially satisfactory.

Never had a problem with interdiction. It works fine. Patrol transportation nets. Blow up trains. Shoot up columns on roads. Interdict supply. All very nice and historical. Don't have a problem with people planning air attacks on anything whether it's bridges, ships, airfields or ground units. It's the airstrikes that the game makes randomly against spotted and unspotted units before each combat round is initiated that doesn't sit well with me.

[sPzAbt653]

That's what I'm talking about, Jack! Although Curtis Lemay did give a possible explanation in post #39.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Anyway, I don't mind the random strike aspect of interdiction so much. In fact, it can work rather well, and the way it inhibits rail movement is especially satisfactory.

Never had a problem with interdiction. It works fine. Patrol transportation nets. Blow up trains. Shoot up columns on roads. Interdict supply. All very nice and historical. Don't have a problem with people planning air attacks on anything whether it's bridges, ships, airfields or ground units. It's the airstrikes that the game makes randomly against spotted and unspotted units before each combat round is initiated that doesn't sit well with me.

If you're talking about those strikes against units that haven't moved, I don't have any use for those myself. After all, given my arguments for increasing movement disproportionately increasing the risk of interdiction strikes, it would at least be a step in the right direction if interdiction strikes against units that haven't moved at all were eliminated.

I'd like to see interdiction strikes happen only as units are moving, and become disproportionately more likely as the unit expends a greater portion of its movement allowance. That would more accurately mirror historical experience than the current system.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

But, what about the idea that it reflects the costs of interdicting the enemy logistics?

That's a good one, yes. But I think this occurs during bookkeeping, as when the turn starts there are some air casualties, some units in reorg, and the interdiction effect on supply level is already calculated. Just guessing though.

There is only AS vs AS done then. I don't think units set to Interdiction get involved. For sure there is no Flak.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Noo...because a unit that moves only 25% of its movement allowance has the opportunity -- which such units usually took advantage of -- to move in dispersed order, off main roads, etc.

The cumulative exposure is the same regardless of how long it takes to get from A to B. Every man & vehicle still has to move the distance required. While moving, they're exposed. Therefore the cumulative risk of triggering interdiction should be the same - assuming all else is equal. For the last time, the effect of moving off main roads is already modeled. What is not modeled (for turn-intervals longer than half-day) is the impact of moving at night. We just need to add that.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Noo...because a unit that moves only 25% of its movement allowance has the opportunity -- which such units usually took advantage of -- to move in dispersed order, off main roads, etc.

The cumulative exposure is the same regardless of how long it takes to get from A to B. Every man & vehicle still has to move the distance required. While moving, they're exposed. Therefore the cumulative risk of triggering interdiction should be the same - assuming all else is equal. For the last time, the effect of moving off main roads is already modeled. What is not modeled (for turn-intervals longer than half-day) is the impact of moving at night. We just need to add that.

I can just see General LeMay handling the movement of a Panzer division from Le Mans to Caen.

'The culminative exposure will be just the same. I expect the division to complete the move in the next three hours.'

You'd be a real war-winner.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I can just see General LeMay handling the movement of a Panzer division from Le Mans to Caen.

'The culminative exposure will be just the same. I expect the division to complete the move in the next three hours.'

You'd be a real war-winner.

I'd move them by night.

I still see no basis for this, but, let's think of a mechanism for the list. Supose there were a movement option called "Very Careful Movement". When moving under it movement costs would be tripled and chances of interdiction would be ... ?? ... quartered?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I can just see General LeMay handling the movement of a Panzer division from Le Mans to Caen.

'The culminative exposure will be just the same. I expect the division to complete the move in the next three hours.'

You'd be a real war-winner.

I'd move them by night.

Okay -- and at the scale most OPART scenarios operate at, 'moving by night' boils down to not using all the units' MP's. It's an operational level game -- 'moving by night,' 'using side roads,' and 'moving in dispersed order' all boil down to the same thing -- accepting less movement in exchange for greater safety.

I still see no basis for this, but, let's think of a mechanism for the list. Supose there were a movement option called "Very Careful Movement". When moving under it movement costs would be tripled and chances of interdiction would be ... ?? ... quartered?

That's just it. For the player, there would be no mechanism at all. One's exposure to an interdiction strike would just climb disproportionately as one's remaining MP's dwindled.

Right now, the computer presumably has a set likelihood of an interdiction strike for any given hex that might be entered and checks to see if a strike occurs whenever a unit enters that hex.

Well, fine. It would do the same thing -- except that it would insert a factor based on the ratio between movement already used and movement remaining. Like we have a unit which has burned 1 MP that enters a hex and will have 13 MP's remaining. The likelihood of it being struck is multiplied by 1/13. A unit burns 1 MP to enter a hex and will have one MP remaining. The likelihood of it being struck is multiplied by 1.

Something like that -- sounds like we need to stick a 'four' in there somewhere. In essence, though, it's simple, elegant, and mirrors reality. You want to be relatively safe? Don't use all your MP's. Want to use all your MP's? Go for it -- but you're very likely to catch any interdiction that's flying around.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Okay -- and at the scale most OPART scenarios operate at, 'moving by night' boils down to not using all the units' MP's. It's an operational level game -- 'moving by night,' 'using side roads,' and 'moving in dispersed order' all boil down to the same thing -- accepting less movement in exchange for greater safety.

They're not remotely the same. We need an option to allow players to choose "night movement only" in the longer turn intervals. That's clear. The impact of using side roads or off-road is already modeled in the game (as I've repeated over and over). But, moving in daylight with all else being equal, there's no basis (certainly none you've provided) for your claim that slower movement over the same distance accrues any benefit at all (let alone attaching any number to that benefit).

That's just it. For the player, there would be no mechanism at all. One's exposure to an interdiction strike would just climb disproportionately as one's remaining MP's dwindled.

Right now, the computer presumably has a set likelihood of an interdiction strike for any given hex that might be entered and checks to see if a strike occurs whenever a unit enters that hex.

Well, fine. It would do the same thing -- except that it would insert a factor based on the ratio between movement already used and movement remaining. Like we have a unit which has burned 1 MP that enters a hex and will have 13 MP's remaining. The likelihood of it being struck is multiplied by 1/13. A unit burns 1 MP to enter a hex and will have one MP remaining. The likelihood of it being struck is multiplied by 1.

Something like that -- sounds like we need to stick a 'four' in there somewhere. In essence, though, it's simple, elegant, and mirrors reality. You want to be relatively safe? Don't use all your MP's. Want to use all your MP's? Go for it -- but you're very likely to catch any interdiction that's flying around.

The number of MPs a unit has remaining tells nothing about how far it has traveled (do I really need to explain this to you?). Units lose MPs just sitting on their thumbs as the combat rounds expire. And a bunch of MPs get used moving one hex through swamps, while only 1 MP is expended moving one hex on a road. Furthermore, it allows units to move freely at the start of the turn - getting to that first combat in a jiffy - even though they were supposedly moving slowly all along in order to reap the benefits. So, it's not elegant at all - it's moronic. If you want to model units moving slowly, then the "elegant" way to do so is to crank up their movement costs, like I said. And since you're pulling all your numbers straight out of your a**, how can we know it actually does "mirror reality"?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...But, moving in daylight with all else being equal, there's no basis (certainly none you've provided) for your claim that slower movement over the same distance accrues any benefit at all (let alone attaching any number to that benefit).

Germans moving under conditions of Allied air supremacy felt differently. But what did they know?

That's just it. For the player, there would be no mechanism at all. One's exposure to an interdiction strike would just climb disproportionately as one's remaining MP's dwindled.

Right now, the computer presumably has a set likelihood of an interdiction strike for any given hex that might be entered and checks to see if a strike occurs whenever a unit enters that hex.

Well, fine. It would do the same thing -- except that it would insert a factor based on the ratio between movement already used and movement remaining. Like we have a unit which has burned 1 MP that enters a hex and will have 13 MP's remaining. The likelihood of it being struck is multiplied by 1/13. A unit burns 1 MP to enter a hex and will have one MP remaining. The likelihood of it being struck is multiplied by 1.

Something like that -- sounds like we need to stick a 'four' in there somewhere. In essence, though, it's simple, elegant, and mirrors reality. You want to be relatively safe? Don't use all your MP's. Want to use all your MP's? Go for it -- but you're very likely to catch any interdiction that's flying around.

The number of MPs a unit has remaining tells nothing about how far it has traveled (do I really need to explain this to you?). Units lose MPs just sitting on their thumbs as the combat rounds expire.

Nu? So players wanting to avoid air strikes would need to carry out their moves in the first round. Slow,pre-planned moves carried out in dispersed order, using side roads, and yes, night (which for some reason you fixate on as the only protective measure available).

Sounds great. Want to dash down that road to take advantage of that hole your attack just opened up? Great -- but it's Mortain counterattack time. You'll have to accept that it's very likely the fighter-bombers will be on your ass. I think it's just fine if the only way to minimize the risk of interdiction is to move in the first round, use only part of your MP's, and then stop. It'd be a heck of an improvement over the current system.

And a bunch of MPs get used moving one hex through swamps, while only 1 MP is expended moving one hex on a road. Furthermore, it allows units to move freely at the start of the turn - getting to that first combat in a jiffy - even though they were supposedly moving slowly all along in order to reap the benefits. So, it's not elegant at all - it's moronic. If you want to model units moving slowly, then the "elegant" way to do so is to crank up their movement costs, like I said. And since you're pulling all your numbers straight out of your a**, how can we know it actually does "mirror reality"?

Your objection here is valid -- however, 'moronic' is your usual pointlessly provocative hyperbole. Indeed, your use of the word 'moronic' makes for the usual maddening irony. I'm advocating what is a substantial improvement: viewing the world as round rather than flat. You triumphantly seize on the fact that it's actually slightly pear-shaped -- and somehow find in this evidence that your notion that it is flat is a better way of looking at it.

Even without the problem of higher movement costs for what would be more protective terrain being addressed, what I propose would still be a marked improvement over the current situation. Interdiction should become a more severe problem as units consume more of their assigned MP's. Units that only use some portion of them obviously can afford to take more protective measures -- like moving at night, among other things.

If you want, work out some elaborate formula involving actual hexes moved. I have no problem with that. However, better some improvement than none at all. The fact of the matter is that your 'night movement' 'idea' arbitrarily seizes on only one possible element, unnecessarily constrains the player as to the precise degree of risk he wishes to take, and isn't going to work particularly well in any case. If it's the third round and you want to advance through a hole, you can't agree to take double movement costs to do it -- slowly or quickly, you have to move now. You can't wait until nightfall to do it.

[Panama]

Isn't the real issue not one of movement points but instead of formation disposition? Road movement being in columns to reduce movement point expenditure opposed to deployed formation to take advantage of cover?

Units in columns moving on roads move much faster but are vastly more vulnerable to interdiction. Units moving deployed are slower cuz they are all spread out off the road but are somewhat protected from airstrikes because they are spread out. Which is another thing that bothers me about the way this game administers airstrikes but I won't go there.

Oh, what the heck. Airstrikes should have minimal impact on infantry type squads and instead should have a larger impact on transport and large assets. I see too much X number of squads eliminated and too little of X number of trucks blowed up. Pilots did tend to target the large stuff since it's kinda hard to see the little stuff at over 200 mph. Can we fix that one too? It's not like every infantry squad in a division is all bunched up playing cards. [:D]

Egads, is this getting too Grognardy?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Isn't the real issue not one of movement points but instead of formation disposition? Road movement being in columns to reduce movement point expenditure opposed to deployed formation to take advantage of cover?

Units in columns moving on roads move much faster but are vastly more vulnerable to interdiction. Units moving deployed are slower cuz they are all spread out off the road but are somewhat protected from airstrikes because they are spread out. Which is another thing that bothers me about the way this game administers airstrikes but I won't go there.

Oh, what the heck. Airstrikes should have minimal impact on infantry type squads and instead should have a larger impact on transport and large assets. I see too much X number of squads eliminated and too little of X number of trucks blowed up. Pilots did tend to target the large stuff since it's kinda hard to see the little stuff at over 200 mph. Can we fix that one too? It's not like every infantry squad in a division is all bunched up playing cards. [:D]

Egads, is this getting too Grognardy?

A more elaborate mechanism might offer a better simulation of the relationship between what a unit is doing and it's exposure to interdiction.

However, simply looking at the MP's remaining appeals to me for several reasons.

1. It would be easy to program.

2. It asks little of the player. If you use fewer of your MP's, you are disproportionately less likely to get hit. Not too hard to remember...

3. It simulates the most important variable in the equation. After all, most of the counter-measures a ground unit can take involve sacrificing speed for safety. If others wish to further complicate matters, I have no objection -- for one thing, it would be great if the amount of flak the unit contains (or the units it ends the move with, or whatever) could be factored in.

However, and for right now, what I propose would offer a lot of improvement for little cost. Indeed, I suspect it would simulate matters about as well and be less susceptible to abuse than considerably more complex alternatives. Indeed, given the variability from one situation to another, it's probably about as good as we're going to do. It would certainly be an improvement over the current situation. At the end of the day, a unit that takes a week to move a given distance should be better able to avoid interdiction strikes than a unit that tries to do it in one day.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Germans moving under conditions of Allied air supremacy felt differently. But what did they know?

Maybe they did - it's human nature. But where is your evidence that it provided any cumulative benefit (never mind evidence that would actually show what magnitude that benefit was). Civil War battalions marching into the teeth of artillery fire tended to lean forward like they were facing a severe wind. Didn't do them any good, though.

Nu? So players wanting to avoid air strikes would need to carry out their moves in the first round. Slow,pre-planned moves carried out in dispersed order, using side roads, and yes, night (which for some reason you fixate on as the only protective measure available).

Sounds great. Want to dash down that road to take advantage of that hole your attack just opened up? Great -- but it's Mortain counterattack time. You'll have to accept that it's very likely the fighter-bombers will be on your ass. I think it's just fine if the only way to minimize the risk of interdiction is to move in the first round, use only part of your MP's, and then stop. It'd be a heck of an improvement over the current system.

Let's just focus on the mechanics. What you're suggesting doesn't do what you want. It won't be an improvement - it will be nonsense. Movement at the start of the turn will be safe and fast. Waiting till the end of the turn will be really dangerous - regardless of how far a unit had moved previously. Movement down a road will be much safer than movement through a swamp. If this is going to get done let's at least get the mechanics right. Why are you objecting to that?!

Your objection here is valid -- however, 'moronic' is your usual pointlessly provocative hyperbole. Indeed, your use of the word 'moronic' makes for the usual maddening irony.

Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger. You wrote it.

If you want, work out some elaborate formula involving actual hexes moved. I have no problem with that.

I already posted the correct mechanism. It doesn't require anything elaborate. There would be a pop-up option to choose to move by this method. If opted, the unit would pay triple MPs for each hex entered and receive in return a quartered risk of interdiction for that hex. Then, it doesn't matter where or when the method is used, the benefits and costs will apply uniformly - and it will be at the discretion of the player. Players could choose to run the gauntlet if they wanted, or play it safe and slow.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Germans moving under conditions of Allied air supremacy felt differently. But what did they know?

Maybe they did - it's human nature. But where is your evidence that it provided any cumulative benefit (never mind evidence that would actually show what magnitude that benefit was). Civil War battalions marching into the teeth of artillery fire tended to lean forward like they were facing a severe wind. Didn't do them any good, though.

! So we can safely ignore the historical reaction to interdiction. It was irrational and futile. General LeMay knows better.

Nu? So players wanting to avoid air strikes would need to carry out their moves in the first round. Slow,pre-planned moves carried out in dispersed order, using side roads, and yes, night (which for some reason you fixate on as the only protective measure available).

Sounds great. Want to dash down that road to take advantage of that hole your attack just opened up? Great -- but it's Mortain counterattack time. You'll have to accept that it's very likely the fighter-bombers will be on your ass. I think it's just fine if the only way to minimize the risk of interdiction is to move in the first round, use only part of your MP's, and then stop. It'd be a heck of an improvement over the current system.

Let's just focus on the mechanics. What you're suggesting doesn't do what you want. It won't be an improvement - it will be nonsense. Movement at the start of the turn will be safe and fast. Waiting till the end of the turn will be really dangerous - regardless of how far a unit had moved previously. Movement down a road will be much safer than movement through a swamp. If this is going to get done let's at least get the mechanics right. Why are you objecting to that?!

You could read my post. Although you actually quote it, you manage to completely ignore what I wrote. Then too, how your 'night movement' idea would reflect the greater danger of road movement escapes me.

Your objection here is valid -- however, 'moronic' is your usual pointlessly provocative hyperbole. Indeed, your use of the word 'moronic' makes for the usual maddening irony.

Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger. You wrote it.

I think your argument is homosexual. Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger. You wrote it.

If you want, work out some elaborate formula involving actual hexes moved. I have no problem with that.

I already posted the correct mechanism. It doesn't require anything elaborate. There would be a pop-up option to choose to move by this method. If opted, the unit would pay triple MPs for each hex entered and receive in return a quartered risk of interdiction for that hex. Then, it doesn't matter where or when the method is used, the benefits and costs will apply uniformly - and it will be at the discretion of the player. Players could choose to run the gauntlet if they wanted, or play it safe and slow.

Ah yes. Curtis' (1) clumsy, (2) arbitrarily fixed, and (3) rather artificial 'night movement' idea. It has exactly one thing to be said for it. Since you yourself proposed it, you're hardly likely to dig in your heels and deny it has any merit at all.

It's a pity you're in a position to influence the development of TOAW. Aside from everything else, you're (once again) managing to frame what could be a useful conversation in terms that pretty much guarantee no forward progress will be made at all. 'The correct mechanism.' I love that. History, reality, the multiplicity of factors involved -- all is ignored. A pop-up window offering 'night movement' is the one right answer. Curtis has spoken.

[ColinWright]

Given his position in the design of this game, it's a bit like trying to ignore the presence of a fifty-ton boulder in the middle of the road, but let me ignore the usual trench warfare with 'Curtis LeMay' to discuss what comes to mind about my idea.

First off, what it is.  The idea is that the probability of being hit by an interdiction strike be modified by a factor inverely proportional to the movement remaining to a unit.  This would lead to units being disproportionately exposed to interdiction strikes as they attempted to expend all of their available MP's.

1.  This should be very easy to implement for the designer.

2.  For the player, it would pose no burden at all.  If he isn't already taking the feature into consideration as he executes his moves, he'll very quickly learn to.

3.  Given the actual behavior of units subjected to heavy interdiction, it would seem to model what happened in reality rather nicely. 

4.  The objection that it would interfere unduly with movement on the second round and thereafter is interesting -- but not necessarily valid.  Post-first round moves are reactions to tactical developments, and as a rule, such reactions need to occur quickly and immediately.  Units seeking to promptly exploit a breakthrough or whatever don't have the luxury of conducting their move slowly, in dispersed order, etc.  They may not be moving a long way, but they are going to have to display the same indifference to exposure that units using all their movement allowance would.  As a rule, a slow, carefully timed and dispersed move calculated to minimize exposure to air strikes is a first-round move.

5.  The terrain objection has some validity.  I'm all ears if anyone has a good way to account for that.  However, note that the mechanism I propose doesn't reflect terrain difficulties at all per se.  It doesn't care what you've done with your MP's -- it just knows you've burnt them, and so you must not be permitting efforts to avoid exposure to airstrikes to slow you down.  Looked at in this way, the relationship between airstrikes and terrain isn't as clear-cut as it might be.  If one is moving slowly, the hex may contain a road -- but you may be taking good care to stay off it.  Conversely, if one is moving quickly, the hex may be swampy --but you probably aren't wading through the reeds.  Indeed, since you aren't wasting time, you may be even more bunched-up than usual as you crowd onto the causeway or whatever.  Rough terrain doesn't imply a complete absence of roads -- it implies fewer of them, and so a greater exposure to airstrikes if quick movement is the goal.  Admittedly, you can now dive into the trees, and so I'll grant this is a weak point -- but how is it to be addressed?  I have yet to hear how. 

6.  To some extent, the mechanism is suspiciously simple.  However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's invalid.  Moreover, it also means it should be both easy for the designer to implement and for the player to incorporate into his thought process.  It also has the virtue of perfect flexibility.  A player can choose any level of protection against interdiction that he wishes -- just use more or fewer of the available MP's.

7.  Finally, TOAW is designed to cover a range of historical and operational situations.  We might be able to come up with a mechanism that more perfectly mirrored the factors affecting exposure to interdiction for NVA troops moving down the Ho Chi Minh trail in 1968 -- but such fine-tuning might merely make the mechanism less accurate when it came to French tanks attempting to form up to counterattack at Sedan in 1940.  A simple mechanism that reflects in broad strokes the most general effect of interdiction -- forcing slower movement by making faster movement disproportionately dangerous -- is probably best.

Anyway, I'd certainly like to talk about any possible improvements.  I would prefer not to deal with assertions that it makes no difference how quickly one attempts to move, or that historical reactions to airpower were futile and irrational, or that 'night movement' was the only available response to enemy air power.