Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Drop me your email by PM and I'll send you pdf version.

You're able to convert Word to PDF? If so, your services may be required - for King & Country (for King, read Ralph; for Country, read TOAW).

FYI The word program in the free Open Office can also create PDF's

That's precisely what I use, Open Office.

You can also use works and Primo PDF for example...

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Nothing received though...

First time I sent it to your 'e-mail.' This time I used the actual 'pm' button.

Got. Thanks.

My...

I want to read through this and comment -- should create the potential for many, many happy hours chatting with Curtis -- but 44 pages?

The next time I have insomnia, I guess.

ORIGINAL: Silvanski
FYI The word program in the free Open Office can also create PDF's

Huh! So it does! Nice catch, Sil!

For a number of years I've used "CutePDF" for printing Microsoft Word documents to PDF. It installs as a Windows Printer Driver.
 
OpenOffice, of course, works great too but if you've already got Microsoft Office installed, you might as well use the above. Also I've had a number of formatting issues switching documents from one to the other.
 
 

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Drop me your email by PM and I'll send you pdf version.

You're able to convert Word to PDF? If so, your services may be required - for King & Country (for King, read Ralph; for Country, read TOAW).

I have an Acrobat Pro. Why is it required?

"5.2.5 And if Ratio < 0.1, then further chance the attack will be treated as no more than a bombardment – with no artillery bonus, no defender supply cost, and counterbattery fire enabled. In this case, if the assault was supported, then the ground assault doesn’t even take place."

Reading this it seems to say it will be possible for the defender to fire artillery without using ammo? Is this correct or am I misunderstanding something?

ORIGINAL: Panama

"5.2.5 And if Ratio < 0.1, then further chance the attack will be treated as no more than a bombardment – with no artillery bonus, no defender supply cost, and counterbattery fire enabled. In this case, if the assault was supported, then the ground assault doesn’t even take place."

Reading this it seems to say it will be possible for the defender to fire artillery without using ammo? Is this correct or am I misunderstanding something?

The attack would be converted into a bombardment and would function just like a bombardment works now: There would be no ground assault - rather, the attacker's directly assigned supporting artillery would just bombard the defender. The defender would not pay supply unless it was a ranged unit - then it may fire counterbattery at the bombarding attackers. If so, it would pay the same 10 supply as counterbattery costs now.

Now, if the attack didn't have any directly assigned supporting artillery, it can't be converted into a bombardment, so it gets treated a little differently. The assault still takes place but, because it is so small and weak, the defender still pays no supply costs.

Remember, the purpose of this feature is to make the use of ant unit assaults useless.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

"5.2.5 And if Ratio < 0.1, then further chance the attack will be treated as no more than a bombardment – with no artillery bonus, no defender supply cost, and counterbattery fire enabled. In this case, if the assault was supported, then the ground assault doesn’t even take place."

Reading this it seems to say it will be possible for the defender to fire artillery without using ammo? Is this correct or am I misunderstanding something?

The attack would be converted into a bombardment and would function just like a bombardment works now: There would be no ground assault - rather, the attacker's directly assigned supporting artillery would just bombard the defender. The defender would not pay supply unless it was a ranged unit - then it may fire counterbattery at the bombarding attackers. If so, it would pay the same 10 supply as counterbattery costs now.

Now, if the attack didn't have any directly assigned supporting artillery, it can't be converted into a bombardment, so it gets treated a little differently. The assault still takes place but, because it is so small and weak, the defender still pays no supply costs.

Remember, the purpose of this feature is to make the use of ant unit assaults useless.

Well, good. Assuming the ratios turn out to be about right, then that's another house rule I can delete.

I gotta say, the more I think about how this would work when measured against historical situations, the more I like it.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Now, if the attack didn't have any directly assigned supporting artillery, it can't be converted into a bombardment

What about range 1 artillery? Usually it shouldn't be used in direct support.

Or most probably I'm not getting what you meant at all...

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Now, if the attack didn't have any directly assigned supporting artillery, it can't be converted into a bombardment

What about range 1 artillery? Usually it shouldn't be used in direct support.

Or most probably I'm not getting what you meant at all...

Range 1 artillery now bombards instead of assaults (assuming it really consists of mostly artillery). So, it figures into the above the same as artillery directly assigned at other ranges.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Now, if the attack didn't have any directly assigned supporting artillery, it can't be converted into a bombardment

What about range 1 artillery? Usually it shouldn't be used in direct support.

Or most probably I'm not getting what you meant at all...

Range 1 artillery now bombards instead of assaults (assuming it really consists of mostly artillery). So, it figures into the above the same as artillery directly assigned at other ranges.

Understood. Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Now, if the attack didn't have any directly assigned supporting artillery, it can't be converted into a bombardment

What about range 1 artillery? Usually it shouldn't be used in direct support.

Or most probably I'm not getting what you meant at all...

Range 1 artillery now bombards instead of assaults (assuming it really consists of mostly artillery). So, it figures into the above the same as artillery directly assigned at other ranges.

What happens if you use range two (or longer) artillery to attack an adjacent unit?

The situation was admittedly unusual, but in the account of the 1942 Phillippine campaign I read, the heavily-American officered artillery often not only bombarded, but literally led counterattacks. It was the only way to get the less heavily-American officered Filipino infantry to go.

Point is, the artillery is definitely attacking, not bombarding.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What happens if you use range two (or longer) artillery to attack an adjacent unit?

The situation was admittedly unusual, but in the account of the 1942 Phillippine campaign I read, the heavily-American officered artillery often not only bombarded, but literally led counterattacks. It was the only way to get the less heavily-American officered Filipino infantry to go.

Point is, the artillery is definitely attacking, not bombarding.

I would suggest in this case, the unit should have a generous helping of light rifle squads. This should "stiffen" the unit in a realistic fashion- and hopefully avoid triggering the automatic bombard in the case you're describing.

Anyway, definitely better than not having the rule. As it is, my Russians can't paste the enemy with masses of artillery before an offensive if the map scale is 20km/hex.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What happens if you use range two (or longer) artillery to attack an adjacent unit?

The situation was admittedly unusual, but in the account of the 1942 Phillippine campaign I read, the heavily-American officered artillery often not only bombarded, but literally led counterattacks. It was the only way to get the less heavily-American officered Filipino infantry to go.

Point is, the artillery is definitely attacking, not bombarding.

I would suggest in this case, the unit should have a generous helping of light rifle squads. This should "stiffen" the unit in a realistic fashion- and hopefully avoid triggering the automatic bombard in the case you're describing.

Anyway, definitely better than not having the rule. As it is, my Russians can't paste the enemy with masses of artillery before an offensive if the map scale is 20km/hex.

Yeah, I agree. It just came to mind.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What happens if you use range two (or longer) artillery to attack an adjacent unit?

Again, like range-1 artillery, it will bombard if more than half its attack strength is from ranged equipment.

The situation was admittedly unusual, but in the account of the 1942 Phillippine campaign I read, the heavily-American officered artillery often not only bombarded, but literally led counterattacks. It was the only way to get the less heavily-American officered Filipino infantry to go.

Point is, the artillery is definitely attacking, not bombarding.

It would have been nice if we could have implemented a popup choice to cover that situation, but Ralph said that was too complicated a change for now. Clearly, this is an improvement over the way it was, where adjacent artillery always assaulted and never bombarded.

Maybe there's something here I haven't considered, but...

I was mapping Eastern Anatolia, and getting mildly annoyed because, on the one hand, rivers cost movement points in OPART, but on the other hand, in reality, river valleys are usually the main avenues of movement -- even when there aren't roads.

Of course, generally, what costs movement isn't moving along the river, but crossing the river.

Wouldn't it work better overall if the movement penalty was charged for exiting the river hex rather than entering it?&nbsp; Pros, cons, and special cases of course, but it seems to me that this would still exact the cost for crossing the river without exacting a penalty for moving along it.

And while I'm on the subject...

How about treating wadi and river in a similar way? They do, after all, pose similar military problems -- yet one benefits from being on the wadi if one is the defender, while in the case of rivers, one benefits if the attacker is on the river.

I'll add that in many cases, the wadi is the usual avenue of movement. As with rivers, it seems to me if the movement cost would occur when one exits the wadi for a non-wadi hex rather than when one enters the wadi hex. It might or might not be a programming challenge -- but it does seem it would be preferable.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Maybe there's something here I haven't considered, but...

I was mapping Eastern Anatolia, and getting mildly annoyed because, on the one hand, rivers cost movement points in OPART, but on the other hand, in reality, river valleys are usually the main avenues of movement -- even when there aren't roads.

Of course, generally, what costs movement isn't moving along the river, but crossing the river.

I don't see how moving along a river should be as cost free as moving along an open, flat plain. The river meanders, it has side tributaries, it cuts out gorges that may even need tunneling, etc. Think of the difficulty of putting in a road through a mountain gorge vs. through Kansas. The real reason the river is the avenue of movement in those cases isn't because it's so easy to move along the valley, but because it's so difficult or impossible to move by any other path. That needs to be effected by judicious use of alpine, escarpments, etc.

Wouldn't it work better overall if the movement penalty was charged for exiting the river hex rather than entering it?  Pros, cons, and special cases of course, but it seems to me that this would still exact the cost for crossing the river without exacting a penalty for moving along it.

That, in and of itself, wouldn't accomplish anything. The cost of moving along the valley would be the same. Only if the game handled all the permutations of how the river hexes could be configured and associated together could what you want be effected. And that would be a huge task. It would even have to consider which side of the river the unit was moving on - the side with the branch or the side without.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

And while I'm on the subject...

How about treating wadi and river in a similar way? They do, after all, pose similar military problems -- yet one benefits from being on the wadi if one is the defender, while in the case of rivers, one benefits if the attacker is on the river.

The wadi functions like a trench. The river functions like a barrier. Nevertheless, see item 2.2 in the Wishlist.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Maybe there's something here I haven't considered, but...

I was mapping Eastern Anatolia, and getting mildly annoyed because, on the one hand, rivers cost movement points in OPART, but on the other hand, in reality, river valleys are usually the main avenues of movement -- even when there aren't roads.

Of course, generally, what costs movement isn't moving along the river, but crossing the river.

I don't see how moving along a river should be as cost free as moving along an open, flat plain. The river meanders, it has side tributaries, it cuts out gorges that may even need tunneling, etc. Think of the difficulty of putting in a road through a mountain gorge vs. through Kansas. The real reason the river is the avenue of movement in those cases isn't because it's so easy to move along the valley, but because it's so difficult or impossible to move by any other path. That needs to be effected by judicious use of alpine, escarpments, etc.

The thing is, the comparison usually isn't with Kansas. The fact remains: while the route of travel in real life is more often right along the river than not, in OPART that river constitutes an added barrier at every hex.

Wouldn't it work better overall if the movement penalty was charged for exiting the river hex rather than entering it?  Pros, cons, and special cases of course, but it seems to me that this would still exact the cost for crossing the river without exacting a penalty for moving along it.

That, in and of itself, wouldn't accomplish anything. The cost of moving along the valley would be the same. Only if the game handled all the permutations of how the river hexes could be configured and associated together could what you want be effected. And that would be a huge task. It would even have to consider which side of the river the unit was moving on - the side with the branch or the side without.

I didn't make it clear what I was proposing. There wouldn't be any cost for entering a river hex, or for leaving a river hex for another river hex; only for leaving the river hex for a non-river hex. It seems to me that this still imposes a cost for crossing the river without imposing one for moving along it.

...however, yeah, the branches do pose a problem. In fact, that's actually a pretty good counterargument.