Comprehensive Wishlist

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

'tiny defense factor,' and 'rare cases' particularly stand out.

Exactly, the river is not as serious a defense factor as hills or escarpments, or worse.

It's really very simple: Do all river hexes benefit from the river bonus? Of course. Do all river banks have heights or escarpments by them? Of course not. The vast majority do not. I only need a single counter example, and I have a limitless number.

Are you parodying yourself?

No. Are you?

Given this theory (which is remarkable even by your standards), how do you explain the fact that wadis double the strength of defending infantry?

The sheltering effect of its depression - similar (but not fully equal to) a trench. That's the only benefit it can possibly provide. The same simple facts apply as above. Do all wadi hexes get the defensive benefit? Yes. Do all wadi banks have heights or escarpments by them? No. The vast majority do not. For both rivers and wadis, those are features that have to be added separately.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

the river's tiny defense factor.

Hmm? Doesn't a river multiply the attacker's strength by 0.7? That's pretty serious.

The weakest defense bonus of all. Weaker than a hill or an escarpment.

Anyway, go to Google Images and put in "Wadi". One or two of them look like trenches. The rest look like rivers without the water (but still with nice clear fields of fire).

It's not equal to a trench (then the bonus would be x8), just similar.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

'tiny defense factor,' and 'rare cases' particularly stand out.

Exactly, the river is not as serious a defense factor as hills or escarpments, or worse.

It's really very simple: Do all river hexes benefit from the river bonus? Of course. Do all river banks have heights or escarpments by them? Of course not. The vast majority do not. I only need a single counter example, and I have a limitless number.

Are you parodying yourself?

No. Are you?

Given this theory (which is remarkable even by your standards), how do you explain the fact that wadis double the strength of defending infantry?

The sheltering effect of its depression - similar (but not fully equal to) a trench. That's the only benefit it can possibly provide. The same simple facts apply as above. Do all wadi hexes get the defensive benefit? Yes. Do all wadi banks have heights or escarpments by them? No. The vast majority do not. For both rivers and wadis, those are features that have to be added separately.

You've moved to the point where in your attempt to prevail in any and all arguments, you will simply ignore both geographical reality and the way military units behave.

All these discussions follow the same pattern. I point out something in OPART with obvious deficiencies: how supply is modeled, how flak is handled, how interdiction works, the switch in how the program treats rivers and wadis. I propose what seems to me to be a workable remedy.

You then compulsively insist everything is more or less fine as is. In pursuit of this, you will assert literally anything: that troops treat wadis as trenches and primarily use them to 'shelter in,' for example. That the riverine defense bonus is 'tiny.'

There is no rational point to discussing anything with you. It's a pity you're allowed to interfere in the development of TOAW.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The weakest defense bonus of all. Weaker than a hill or an escarpment.

Hills and so on multiply the strengths of defending units. Rivers are the only thing which reduces the strength of the attacker.

Anyway, go to Google Images and put in "Wadi". One or two of them look like trenches. The rest look like rivers without the water (but still with nice clear fields of fire).

It's not equal to a trench (then the bonus would be x8), just similar.

Oh my god. I'm talking about the real world: nine wadis in ten are not comparable to trenches. They are comparable to rivers.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The weakest defense bonus of all. Weaker than a hill or an escarpment.

Hills and so on multiply the strengths of defending units. Rivers are the only thing which reduces the strength of the attacker.

Anyway, go to Google Images and put in "Wadi". One or two of them look like trenches. The rest look like rivers without the water (but still with nice clear fields of fire).

It's not equal to a trench (then the bonus would be x8), just similar.

Oh my god. I'm talking about the real world: nine wadis in ten are not comparable to trenches. They are comparable to rivers.

Any wadi that was comparable to a trench wouldn't be represented in TOAW in the first place. If one did that, one would have to use the 'fill to border' function for much of the globe.

I'll also point out that the fortified status (Curtis' x8) represents considerably more than a simple trench.

[ColinWright]

And another thing...

Here's another aspect of the continuing problem with ant units.  The thread below starts out as a review of a scenario -- but quickly segues into a discussion of small but immovable StG units and what to do about them.

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/ ... 55&start=0

Things get going about half-way down the first page. The gist of my position is that defending forces below a certain density -- I picked 10 weapons per linear kilometer -- should be prone to RBC.  It should be possible to brush them out of the way even absent overwhelming force.

[Panama]

A very large portion of the forces of most armies by the end of the war was comprised of these 'ant' units. They provided flexibility and, when attached to another unit, provided support that was not organic to that unit. Heck, the Germans and Soviets had hordes of them by 1942. So you can't simply ignore them since you would be amputating large portions of either nation's army. The Soviets had over 2000 separate artillery units alone.

When one is designing a scenario what should be done with them and still retain the flexibility they provided?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

A very large portion of the forces of most armies by the end of the war was comprised of these 'ant' units. They provided flexibility and, when attached to another unit, provided support that was not organic to that unit. Heck, the Germans and Soviets had hordes of them by 1942. So you can't simply ignore them since you would be amputating large portions of either nation's army. The Soviets had over 2000 separate artillery units alone.

When one is designing a scenario what should be done with them and still retain the flexibility they provided?

One has to combine them and/or incorporate them into larger formations as much as possible. AT guns can often be broken up among the infantry units, for example. If the flak served in ground combat, put it with the recon -- a lot of the time, it went there, since it was almost invariably truck-borne. If the army didn't use it in ground combat, omit it.

Anyway, partially that's the reason for a more effective solution to ant units. They are damned hard to avoid. One doesn't want the whole infantry brigade immobilized because one wants to fix a bridge -- but if one has the engineer company as a separate unit, it can run off and effectively block 10 km of front -- which is absurd. At least it could -- there's hope this is going to be addressed.

However, even aside from this, combining units when the loss in functionality won't be too severe is often a good idea: too many scenarios suffer from bumping into the stacking limit. If stacks of nine units are chronically appearing, then some very gamey combat results occur when units no longer have a place to retreat to in the course of a turn. I remember one scenario where I eliminated a whole stack of my opponent's units because the hex behind them (representing approximately 100 square kilometers) was 'filled' with units I had already retreated that amounted to perhaps three thousand men. Picture Manhattan with three thousand people on it. 'Nope -- sorry. All full up.'

[BigDuke66]

Isn't the ant problem solved in the next patch?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Isn't the ant problem solved in the next patch?

It's been addressed...that's not necessarily the same as being solved. From what I heard, the change seems likely to improve matters but not likely to make the issue go away entirely. It's actually one of the trickier problems out there.

[ColinWright]

On another issue I have...flak:

AA does not work by shooting down planes.  I was reading a bit on the fall of Tobruk in 1942.  This would be an area either one hex at 20 km/hex or perhaps two hexes at 10 km per hex.  In that area there were eighteen 3.7 inch AA guns and (apparently) twenty four 40 mm Bofors.  This doesn't count the AA firepower TOAW would accord the six-plus Commonwealth infantry battalions.

The Axis flew 850 ground support sorties on May 20th.  Zero (0) aircraft were shot down by AA.

Try to get that result in TOAW.  I note that having been raised to try to make AA meaningfully effective, the effectiveness is now being lowered again.

It won't work.  AA does not work by shooting down planes.  It reduces their effectiveness -- but not, primarily, by shooting them down. 

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You've moved to the point where in your attempt to prevail in any and all arguments, you will simply ignore both geographical reality and the way military units behave.

I'm prevailing because I'm right. You're the one ignoring reality. Let's just review. Who issued this stinker:

Substantially, the Rapahannock could have been a wadi. Lee would have defended it exactly the same way.

That would be you. Your own ignorant example was used to skewer your silly position. The technical term is "hoist on your own petard".

Since it was a river, Lee manned the banks of the Rapahannock to slaughter the Union bridging engineers. Had it been a wadi, well, Colin Wright might have remained there, but not Lee.

All these discussions follow the same pattern. I point out something in OPART with obvious deficiencies: how supply is modeled, how flak is handled, how interdiction works, the switch in how the program treats rivers and wadis. I propose what seems to me to be a workable remedy.

You're a legend in your own mind.

You then compulsively insist everything is more or less fine as is. In pursuit of this, you will assert literally anything:

Not true. My positions are always reasoned. That generally puts them over your head, though.

that troops treat wadis as trenches and primarily use them to 'shelter in,' for example. That the riverine defense bonus is 'tiny.'

Both true.

There is no rational point to discussing anything with you. It's a pity you're allowed to interfere in the development of TOAW.

Obstructing bad ideas is a good thing.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Many or most of the tributaries are better portrayed as wadis. It's damned odd to have the nature of the terrain reverse itself once the tributary joins the mainstem. You did want to be on the hex. Now you want to be behind it. It makes no sense at all.

This is actually modeling a very real problem real commanders have to deal with.

"I wanted to defend behind the river, but at this point it runs dry. What do I do now?"

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Hills and so on multiply the strengths of defending units. Rivers are the only thing which reduces the strength of the attacker.

So what? Only the overall ratio matters. It's still the weakest defense modifier. The important point is that it's weaker than the bonus for defending on a hill. Even if you make the absurd claim that all river banks are backed by hills, how can the bonus be smaller than a hill by itself, if that's what it's supposed to be based on?

Clearly, the river bonus is attributable to something else. Something that is universal to all rivers: the requirement to cross a body of water and the consequences that entails.

Oh my god. I'm talking about the real world: nine wadis in ten are not comparable to trenches. They are comparable to rivers.

I'm talking about the real world too. Think of a desert. It's flat, featureless, open. Mirages are shimmering in the distance. Units are exposed - except those sheltering in the wadi. The wadi is a desert feature. That is just the situation it's supposed to be used in.

It's not comparable to a river - it doesn't have any water in it. (See the Rapahannock example above).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

On another issue I have...flak:

AA does not work by shooting down planes.  I was reading a bit on the fall of Tobruk in 1942.  This would be an area either one hex at 20 km/hex or perhaps two hexes at 10 km per hex.  In that area there were eighteen 3.7 inch AA guns and (apparently) twenty four 40 mm Bofors.  This doesn't count the AA firepower TOAW would accord the six-plus Commonwealth infantry battalions.

The Axis flew 850 ground support sorties on May 20th.  Zero (0) aircraft were shot down by AA.

Try to get that result in TOAW.  I note that having been raised to try to make AA meaningfully effective, the effectiveness is now being lowered again.

It won't work.  AA does not work by shooting down planes.  It reduces their effectiveness -- but not, primarily, by shooting them down. 

Oh, let's go over this again for the 10th time.

AAA shoots down planes. Bombs cause damage. If we've got it so that the right number of planes get shot down and the right amount of damage gets inflicted by the bombs, then it's right. Period.

There is no reason to believe that bombing accuracy is proportionate to AAA strength. Rather, there are bombing techniques that can be used in the total absence of AAA that can't be used otherwise. Perhaps there should be a bonus for the (very) rare case where the defenders have no AAA at all.

In the example you site, we don't even know if the Axis planes were operating at low altitude or not. Nor did you do any tests to see how TOAW would actually handle it.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

On another issue I have...flak:

AA does not work by shooting down planes.  I was reading a bit on the fall of Tobruk in 1942.  This would be an area either one hex at 20 km/hex or perhaps two hexes at 10 km per hex.  In that area there were eighteen 3.7 inch AA guns and (apparently) twenty four 40 mm Bofors.  This doesn't count the AA firepower TOAW would accord the six-plus Commonwealth infantry battalions.

The Axis flew 850 ground support sorties on May 20th.  Zero (0) aircraft were shot down by AA.

Try to get that result in TOAW.  I note that having been raised to try to make AA meaningfully effective, the effectiveness is now being lowered again.

It won't work.  AA does not work by shooting down planes.  It reduces their effectiveness -- but not, primarily, by shooting them down. 

Oh, let's go over this again for the 10th time.

AAA shoots down planes. Bombs cause damage. If we've got it so that the right number of planes get shot down and the right amount of damage gets inflicted by the bombs, then it's right. Period.

There is no reason to believe that bombing accuracy is proportionate to AAA strength. Rather, there are bombing techniques that can be used in the total absence of AAA that can't be used otherwise. Perhaps there should be a bonus for the (very) rare case where the defenders have no AAA at all.

In the example you site, we don't even know if the Axis planes were operating at low altitude or not. Nor did you do any tests to see how TOAW would actually handle it.

I'd be very surprised if you said anything else. Never mind the factual nature of warfare. Curtis is just going to go his own way with TOAW. What else is new?

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
... The wadi is a desert feature. That is just the situation it's supposed to be used in.

It's not comparable to a river - it doesn't have any water in it. (See the Rapahannock example above).

Hmmm... No wanting to become involved in the bickering, but it's a bit pointless to be debating what a Wadi is. It's not an abstract feature, it's a real world geological feature, well defined. A wadi is indeed not a river, but that is hardly the gist of the discussion, since that is obvious from the start, a wadi is 'A stream valley in an arid region that is dry except during the rainy season.' As a stream valley they came in many sizes and shapes, and if some are trench size, I would debate that some , like Wadi Rum, could be thought as being a trench. In fact, if we think how we would defend a wadi and how we would defend a significant river valley crossing, we would still defend at the opposite bank. Examples of defending at the banks like in :

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/wadi.htm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yfpo ... di&f=false

Now, should a wadi be treated the same as a river? Hardly. Crossing a river poses a series of problems that a wadi does not (water being one of them... some wadis are wide enough for tanks to manoeuvre...) , but if a river is .7 to the attacker, seriously crippling the attacker, short of having 'major and minor wadis', the wadis should still, obviously, add some encumbrance to an attacker. TOAW has:

11.9.3 Additional Land Movement Costs

- Wadi: Mountain units no effect, Motorized and Mixed movement +2, all others +1

13.9.4 Defensive Strengths of Infantry

- Forest, Jungle, Hills, or Wadi (any Deployment), or Defending Deployment (any terrain): x2.0

13.9.5 Defensive Strengths of Static Equipment

- Urban, Urban Ruin, Forest, Jungle, Hills, Bocage, or Wadi (any Deployment), or Defending Deployment (any terrain): x1.5

And for the rivers:

11.9.4 River Movement Costs

Rivers and Canals (as opposed to super rivers or Suez Canal) normally add 2 to the cost of entering a location. ...

13.9.6 Unit Strengths in Water Assaults

Land units attacking from River, Super River, Canal, Suez Canal, or Deep Water (Amphibious Assaults) have all Strengths multiplied by 0.7.

So, in resume, Wadis benefit the defender (as we saw before, defender gets benefit from being at a bank, attacker may potentially have plenty of room to maneuvre at the wadi base), whilst a river creates an encumbrance (obvious) on the attacker.

Conclusions? Each to his own. Given that we only have one type of wadi, and no hex-border rivers , I think the engine actually is correct WITHIN it's own assumptions and limitations. Just my 2p.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You've moved to the point where in your attempt to prevail in any and all arguments, you will simply ignore both geographical reality and the way military units behave.

I'm prevailing because I'm right. You're the one ignoring reality. Let's just review. Who issued this stinker:

Substantially, the Rapahannock could have been a wadi. Lee would have defended it exactly the same way.

Okay -- suppose the Rapahannock had been a wadi. How would Lee have defended it?

He would have deployed on the heights.

How did he deploy? He deployed on the heights.

And yet you feel this is a 'stinker.'

That would be you. Your own ignorant example was used to skewer your silly position. The technical term is "hoist on your own petard".

Since it was a river, Lee manned the banks of the Rapahannock to slaughter the Union bridging engineers. Had it been a wadi, well, Colin Wright might have remained there, but not Lee.

You are willfully ignoring the history of the battle. Lee deployed roughly 1% of his men to interfere with the crossing. They successfully delayed the crossing, fell back as planned, and the next day the actual battle took place. It was a preliminary -- and minor -- skirmish.

And you have the gall to describe me as 'ignorant.'

All these discussions follow the same pattern. I point out something in OPART with obvious deficiencies: how supply is modeled, how flak is handled, how interdiction works, the switch in how the program treats rivers and wadis. I propose what seems to me to be a workable remedy.

You're a legend in your own mind.

You then compulsively insist everything is more or less fine as is. In pursuit of this, you will assert literally anything:

Not true. My positions are always reasoned. That generally puts them over your head, though.

If I wasn't so sure of the actual relationship, I might find this insulting.

that troops treat wadis as trenches and primarily use them to 'shelter in,' for example. That the riverine defense bonus is 'tiny.'

Both true.

No -- the hill defense bonus, for example, can quickly be gained by entrenching. The riverine attack penalty is unalterable. It's one of the stronger terrain effects in the game.

Even it wasn't, it does penalize the attacker by 30%. And yet you describe this as 'tiny.' And you then are capable of seriously defending this proposition. Let's put it this way: why don't you donate a 'tiny' proportion of your net assets to Haiti relief? Surely that's not too much to ask.

There is no rational point to discussing anything with you. It's a pity you're allowed to interfere in the development of TOAW.

Obstructing bad ideas is a good thing.

Obstructing all ideas isn't. That -- for all intents and purposes -- appears to be all you do. That is, unless the ideas are your own. What is depressing is reflecting on the understanding of warfare and the general quality of the thought process lying behind such ideas. I have heard you propound so many transparently foolish and even demonstrably false assertions. It would not surprise me at all to hear you insist that two and two make five. You're perfectly capable of it.

You know, it is perfectly possible to disagree about something in a manner that elucidates the matter at hand and helps to refine the understanding of all parties. See, for example, the discussion 'Golden Delicious' and I had about ant units that I linked to yesterday or the day before.

But this never happens with you. You just dogmatically make some utterly asinine assertion and stick to it come hell or high water. It's like trying to reason with a mule.

And the worst of it is, this particular mule appears to lack all understanding of military reality and is gifted with a position of influence in the development of TOAW.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Hills and so on multiply the strengths of defending units. Rivers are the only thing which reduces the strength of the attacker.

So what? Only the overall ratio matters. It's still the weakest defense modifier. The important point is that it's weaker than the bonus for defending on a hill. Even if you make the absurd claim that all river banks are backed by hills, how can the bonus be smaller than a hill by itself, if that's what it's supposed to be based on?

Clearly, the river bonus is attributable to something else. Something that is universal to all rivers: the requirement to cross a body of water and the consequences that entails.

Oh my god. I'm talking about the real world: nine wadis in ten are not comparable to trenches. They are comparable to rivers.

I'm talking about the real world too. Think of a desert. It's flat, featureless, open. Mirages are shimmering in the distance. Units are exposed - except those sheltering in the wadi. The wadi is a desert feature. That is just the situation it's supposed to be used in.

It's not comparable to a river - it doesn't have any water in it. (See the Rapahannock example above).

This is so fantastic. I wonder if there is one example of a unit defending by 'sheltering in the wadi.'

I suppose that had the Rapahannock been a wadi, Lee would have 'sheltered in it.' The Union artillery would then have deployed on Stafford heights, slaughtered the army of Northern Virginia, and that would have been that.

Sadly for the Union of course, General LeMay wasn't in command of the Army of Northern Virginia.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

So what? Only the overall ratio matters.

This isn't an Avalon Hill game. Everything matters.

I'm talking about the real world too. Think of a desert. It's flat, featureless, open. Mirages are shimmering in the distance. Units are exposed - except those sheltering in the wadi.

Since you've obviously not been to Google Images like I told you, let's educate a little. The first few results;



Who do you think has the advantage here? The troops on the heights or the troops in the valley?



How is this going to be used as a trench? I suppose if you hid you could fire at the bridge the attacker has laid across the top.



How much shelter would you say this wadi offers?



Check out those indefensible heights. Better set up our machine gun nests right at the bottom.