Comprehensive Wishlist

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Would like to see an assault class of ships added. Unlike the purely cargo class, the assault class would be able to disembark (land) troops on the same turn that it arrived in a coastal hex. Landing, of course, would require that a minimum amount of movement points be available to conduct the maneuver. There might also be limitations on the terrain and troops that can conduct such an assault.

See item 9.7. Also item 6.14.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I was just thinking about a way of simulating minefields -- won't work, but it could easily be made to work.

The genesis of the idea came from my observations of the effects of 'contaminated' hexes. There's a huge movement penalty, and units will supposedly lose readiness if they sit in the hexes.

So...one could 'lay mines' by having a nuclear attack on vacant hexes.

The problem, of course, is that the effect is permanent, and randomly affects nearby hexes. Also, it would be nice if engineer units could 'lay' the mines rather than having some specialized bomber unit governed by house rules flying about to do the job. Then too, one wants engineers to be able to clean them up, or if one wants to reduce the bookkeeping, just have them evaporate once no unit is adjacent or within some given radius. Probably the latter, as minefields that aren't supported by defenders lose most of their military value. Not necessarily desireable to have your combat engineers diligently tidying up minefields long after the war has moved on.

However, the main point is that it strikes me that much of the programming must already be in place to permit 'minefields' if they are approached in this way.

See item 2.11

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: fogger

[font="times new roman"]Some ideas for future updates[/font]

[font="times new roman"]The ability to assign air units to a recon role and the ability to assign an area for that unit to recon.[/font]

See items 8.28 and 8.1

[font="times new roman"]Air units to be able to bomb an empty hex or airfield. (I think that there is an enemy unit hiding there) [/font]

You can bomb the empty airfield now (but only if there is a hidden air unit in it - that's a fog-of-war leak). Just bombing an empty hex might be ok provided there was no combat report (to preserve fog-of-war).

[font="times new roman"]The ability to assign artillery units to counter battery fire only.  [/font][/ol]

See item 8.8.

[Jo van der Pluym]

Now is only one briefing by start, a end briefing for: side 1 lost/side 2 win or side 1 win/side 2 lost or draw and this is for both sides.

I do like to see a briefing by start and end of the scenario specific for a side.

Example: A World War III scenario between Nato and Warsawpact. The player who's play Nato has a briefing by start that only he can read with orders/ oob reinforcements etc And the Warsawpact player receives another briefing.

And this also by the end of the scenario.

[fogger]

Sorry for appearing stupid, but when you say see items 8.1, 8.28 & 8.8 they do not relate to my copy of the game manual so I am unsure where you want me to look.
Thanks for your help to date.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: fogger

Sorry for appearing stupid, but when you say see items 8.1, 8.28 & 8.8 they do not relate to my copy of the game manual so I am unsure where you want me to look.
Thanks for your help to date.

I'm referring to the "Comprehensive Wishlist". See post #1 of this thread.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: fogger

Sorry for appearing stupid, but when you say see items 8.1, 8.28 & 8.8 they do not relate to my copy of the game manual so I am unsure where you want me to look.
Thanks for your help to date.

I'm referring to the "Comprehensive Wishlist". See post #1 of this thread.

Also item 13.2 on page 6.

[desert]

You can bomb the empty airfield now (but only if there is a hidden air unit in it - that's a fog-of-war leak). Just bombing an empty hex might be ok provided there was no combat report (to preserve fog-of-war).

 
Actually, there should be a combat report. At least for the side sending the planes if not the side being bombed. That way the player will know if they lose some planes, which would indicate that there is an enemy unit in the hex. Also, these attacks should have a chance of spotting the hex involved.
 
As an aside, you could use this feature and the event engine to simulate strategic bombing.

[rhinobones]

Would like to see a designer setting for “Retreat” and “Reorganization”. The existing propensity to retreat or go into reorganization would a default value of 5 and it would be adjustable by the designer from “1” all the time, to “10” never. The setting mechanics would be similar to what we already have for Attrition Divider.

Regards, RhinoBones

[damezzi]

I would really like to see the dig in feature being dependent on the time scale and strongly dependent on the amount of movement points left. As it is, I can move until 1MP left on a half-day scenario and still have the chance to get entrenched. That would mean getting entrenched in 2 or 3 hours.

HQ influence based on distance would be nice also and the cancellation of movement penalty adjacent to enemy units when the size of a SPOTTED unit is very small in relation to the moving unit.

I imagine that those aren't very difficult features to implement and they could greatly improve gameplay and allow a different feel for different scenario scales.

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: damezzi

I would really like to see the dig in feature being dependent on the time scale and strongly dependent on the amount of movement points left. As it is, I can move until 1MP left on a half-day scenario and still have the chance to get entrenched. That would mean getting entrenched in 2 or 3 hours.

From Ralph's blog, for 3.4 :

The chance of engineering and rail repair are now modified by the movement left.

Maybe that's one thing you are looking for. Maybe some others are there too, I only remembered this one. But in a one week turn, with 30 movement points, that would be 7 days by 24 hours = 168 hours, divided by 30 = 5.6 hours for each 1 movement point. That seems reasonable to dig in.

http://www.operationalwarfare.com

[damezzi]

ORIGINAL:  sPzAbt653

From Ralph's blog, for 3.4 :

The chance of engineering and rail repair are now modified by the movement left.

Maybe that's one thing you are looking for. Maybe some others are there too, I only remembered this one. But in a one week turn, with 30 movement points, that would be 7 days by 24 hours = 168 hours, divided by 30 = 5.6 hours for each 1 movement point. That seems reasonable to dig in.

I hope that this chance of engineering will apply to 'dig in' too.

For a one week scenario I agree, but even so, sometimes you'll attain an entrenched deployment with the 1 MP left, even if the hex is 0% in entrenchment level. That seems too much even for a one week scenario. But it really seems absurd in a half day scenario, after having moved almost all the way to face the enemy, to get an entrenched level with the 1MP left. Let's remember that an entrenched level barely correspond to dense urban terrain in terms of modifiers. Ok, dense urban will still have the advantage of not losing this condition after a bombardment/attack.

Anyway, having a better chance with each MP spared would make players use MPs more wisely. Let's hope that will be the case with the new patch.

[ColinWright]

The complaints about digging in gave me an idea.

Shouldn't leaving fortified/entrenched/defending status cost something?

After all, it's one thing to resume marching the next day if everyone just found a suitable peasant hut and got some zzz's -- it's another if the regiment spread itself out over 10 km, set up all its machine guns, unlimbered its artillery, etc.

Obviously, the cost shouldn't be as great to leave a defensive deployment as it cost to get into it -- but if it cost 10-25% of the unit's MP's the next turn to get back on the road again, people would only dig in units that they seriously expected to come under attack in their opponent's turn. Units that were really just interested in going from point A to point B or that were standing by as a fire brigade would remain in 'mobile' deployement -- which in the real world is where they would be.

Aside from everything else, this would help to avoid the 'instantaneous spring' effect in OPART, where (unlike as in the real world) it makes no difference whether a unit is standing by to make a move or not -- it alertly leaps up and marches off at full speed with no delay at all. Opart has other flaws in this area -- like armies really can't reverse the direction of their movement without complications in reality -- but the change I suggest might at least improve matters.

[sPzAbt653]

I hope that this chance of engineering will apply to 'dig in' too.

I'm guessing it does because digging in is considered engineering??

I think that normally a unit cannot go from 'D' to 'E' to 'F' in the same turn. If a unit moves then digs in and gets to E or F right away, it is either because they are stacked with an engineer unit, occupy a hex that has an existing entrenchment level, or the unit itself has a bunch of engineers in it.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: damezzi

I would really like to see the dig in feature being dependent on the time scale and strongly dependent on the amount of movement points left. As it is, I can move until 1MP left on a half-day scenario and still have the chance to get entrenched. That would mean getting entrenched in 2 or 3 hours.

I'm not sure whether it isn't already somewhat time-scale dependent, but, regardless, it doesn't seem to be dependent enough. And, it needs to be period dependent too. What Ralph is trying to do now is implement 12.25.4 so that designers can set the scenario entrenchment rate themselves.

Making it dependent on remaining movement is item 7.4.

HQ influence based on distance would be nice...

Too vague. What do you mean?

...also and the cancellation of movement penalty adjacent to enemy units when the size of a SPOTTED unit is very small in relation to the moving unit.

See item 7.7.

I imagine that those aren't very difficult features to implement...

You'd be surprised.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I hope that this chance of engineering will apply to 'dig in' too.

I'm guessing it does because digging in is considered engineering??

Assuming that "digging-in" assistance is dependent upon the engineering level, then it should be. You can see the unit Engineering Level decrease as the unit moves.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The complaints about digging in gave me an idea.

Shouldn't leaving fortified/entrenched/defending status cost something?

After all, it's one thing to resume marching the next day if everyone just found a suitable peasant hut and got some zzz's -- it's another if the regiment spread itself out over 10 km, set up all its machine guns, unlimbered its artillery, etc.

But if you're at the front in Mobile deployment, you're still assumed to have spread out and etc. Otherwise, there would be severe penalties for getting attacked while in Mobile deployment - perhaps flanking-type penalties. And note that units are automatically in mobile deployment during and after an attack. They're out of their trenches, but they're still spread out in a combat deployment (and they paid a hex conversion cost to remain so).

Obviously, the cost shouldn't be as great to leave a defensive deployment as it cost to get into it -- but if it cost 10-25% of the unit's MP's the next turn to get back on the road again, people would only dig in units that they seriously expected to come under attack in their opponent's turn. Units that were really just interested in going from point A to point B or that were standing by as a fire brigade would remain in 'mobile' deployement -- which in the real world is where they would be.

Aside from everything else, this would help to avoid the 'instantaneous spring' effect in OPART, where (unlike as in the real world) it makes no difference whether a unit is standing by to make a move or not -- it alertly leaps up and marches off at full speed with no delay at all.

I think TOAW handles this via the hex conversion charges. Units in the rear move much more efficiently than units moving through enemy territory.

Opart has other flaws in this area -- like armies really can't reverse the direction of their movement without complications in reality -- but the change I suggest might at least improve matters.

For logistical reasons - and TOAW somewhat represents that via the supply penalty for units that have moved.

[damezzi]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: damezzi

I would really like to see the dig in feature being dependent on the time scale and strongly dependent on the amount of movement points left. As it is, I can move until 1MP left on a half-day scenario and still have the chance to get entrenched. That would mean getting entrenched in 2 or 3 hours.

I'm not sure whether it isn't already somewhat time-scale dependent, but, regardless, it doesn't seem to be dependent enough. And, it needs to be period dependent too. What Ralph is trying to do now is implement 12.25.4 so that designers can set the scenario entrenchment rate themselves.

Making it dependent on remaining movement is item 7.4.

I had a look at this item. I like both sub items.

HQ influence based on distance would be nice...

Too vague. What do you mean?

A zone of influence, so that in scenarios with small distance hexes, the supply bonus could have a radio with decreasing benefit.

In fact, even if this isn't exactly a negative characteristic of the game, I think that it would be better if some concepts weren't based in hexes adjacency, but in real distance. One example I think is really illustrative is intelligence in open terrain. A unit in flat arid terrain, for example, should be able to sight enemy much further than 2.5km (not to mention naval units in open seas), but, as it is, in a 2.5 km hex scenario one can come across a unit in flat open terrain by surprise. The chance of spotting should be based on distance, in which case terrain influence should be greater, after all, one can be surprised by units much nearer than 2.5 km in the jungle; that would make terrain more important for the surprise element.

...also and the cancellation of movement penalty adjacent to enemy units when the size of a SPOTTED unit is very small in relation to the moving unit.

See item 7.7.

Exactly, but also applying to the penalties for moving from an adjacent hex to another.

I imagine that those aren't very difficult features to implement...

You'd be surprised.

My intention wasn't to undervalue the amount of work put in this kind of things. We can see it by those changes proposed by the new path and how much work seems to be involved. I only wanted to mean that it could be object of a patch and not a complete rethinking of the engine.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: damezzi

A zone of influence, so that in scenarios with small distance hexes, the supply bonus could have a radio with decreasing benefit.

Ok, just the supply, as opposed to command (see 4.14). That's what wasn't clear.

I'm not sure that the above will amount to much. Usually, the benefit to the unit for being adjacent to the HQ is only a couple of points. Trying to effect an exponential decay radiation of that may be close to pointless. And those scenarios with small-scale hexes are supposed to have small-scale HQs to go with it. In other words, at 2.5km, the HQs are battalion scale, whereas at 50km they're army-group scale, etc. (That was the theory, anyway).

In fact, even if this isn't exactly a negative characteristic of the game, I think that it would be better if some concepts weren't based in hexes adjacency, but in real distance. One example I think is really illustrative is intelligence in open terrain. A unit in flat arid terrain, for example, should be able to sight enemy much further than 2.5km...

I think this is a misconception about open terrain. It isn't a billiard table. It just isn't hilly or wooded enough to rate a hill or forest tile. You still can't detect properly cammo'ed defenders dug into it. And we don't want to get into line-of-sight issues. (However, see item 2.6 "Steppe").

...(not to mention naval units in open seas),

Now, here I agree. In fact, see item 9.18 (item 9.17 applies to this issue, too).

Exactly, but also applying to the penalties for moving from an adjacent hex to another.

It says that. ("Leaving/crossing").

My intention wasn't to undervalue the amount of work put in this kind of things. We can see it by those changes proposed by the new path and how much work seems to be involved. I only wanted to mean that it could be object of a patch and not a complete rethinking of the engine.

I only meant that the development team itself has been surprised by how difficult some very simple changes turn out to be. It just isn't as easy as people think (including us).

[damezzi]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: damezzi

A zone of influence, so that in scenarios with small distance hexes, the supply bonus could have a radio with decreasing benefit.

Ok, just the supply, as opposed to command (see 4.14). That's what wasn't clear.

I'm not sure that the above will amount to much. Usually, the benefit to the unit for being adjacent to the HQ is only a couple of points. Trying to effect an exponential decay radiation of that may be close to pointless. And those scenarios with small-scale hexes are supposed to have small-scale HQs to go with it. In other words, at 2.5km, the HQs are battalion scale, whereas at 50km they're army-group scale, etc. (That was the theory, anyway).

Your argument makes sense to a certain degree, but I think that independently of the size of the HQ, distribution over a 50 km radio should be much more difficult than on a 2.5 km radio. Perhaps a two step decay, at least.

In fact, even if this isn't exactly a negative characteristic of the game, I think that it would be better if some concepts weren't based in hexes adjacency, but in real distance. One example I think is really illustrative is intelligence in open terrain. A unit in flat arid terrain, for example, should be able to sight enemy much further than 2.5km...

I think this is a misconception about open terrain. It isn't a billiard table. It just isn't hilly or wooded enough to rate a hill or forest tile. You still can't detect properly cammo'ed defenders dug into it. And we don't want to get into line-of-sight issues. (However, see item 2.6 "Steppe").

That`s why I used the word flat. Ok, open terrain in the game is generic, so we can`t know how exactly the topography is, but for sure units were able to spot other units once in a while in distances much greater than 2.5 km, even in hilly terrain, mainly when moving, and in the game, even when moving, those units won`t be seen by the enemy. You just can move around back and forth in a desert plain and don`t be spotted.
Perhaps a simplified line of sight... not cumulative, using only the most obstructive terrain type on the path between units. And, if that is expensive in computational terms, just give the player the option to check for enemies using a specific unit and some MPs (for detachments going to the higher spots, etc). Ok, this seems too complicated for a patch, but maybe there is another solution. The fact is that it`s weird to come suddenly across a unit in a desert plain, mainly when this unit has recently moved to a near position.

Exactly, but also applying to the penalties for moving from an adjacent hex to another.

It says that. ("Leaving/crossing").

Ok, my fault.