Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Not quite - they had information that elements of 2 Panzer divisions rewere refitting in the area, but they dismissed it - they didn't "decide to drop anyways" - they decided the intell was wrong.

And the differance between deciding to drop anyways, and deciding that the intel was wrong are...what? Cause to me they look pretty uch the same.

They sure are if you're one of the people dropping!!

But not in terms of what you said - you said they knew there were panzers in the area - by which I'm taking "panzers" to mean the 2 divisions and not jsut a few stray tanks that they did "know" about.

In fact what they knew was that there were REPORTS of panzer divisions in the area - the disregarded them as inaccurate and therefore they actually thought there were not panzer divisions in the area.

Exactly. No member of Monty's intel staff walked into his office and told him that the official position of the intel staff was that there were Panzer divisions in Arnhem. From his perspective (and that would be the perspective represented in TOAW) there were no panzer divisions spotted in Arnhem. Spotting some tanks is not the same as spotting a panzer division.

I've proposed that paradrops be executed as a combat action in the combat phase, rather than movement. As such, units landing on an enemy unit would not require a RBC to survive. Rather, they would engage in full combat (under serious debilitation, of course), giving them much better chances of survival, but without the gamey ability to reschedule other drops on the intel gathered from earlier drops.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Veers


And the differance between deciding to drop anyways, and deciding that the intel was wrong are...what? Cause to me they look pretty uch the same.

They sure are if you're one of the people dropping!!

But not in terms of what you said - you said they knew there were panzers in the area - by which I'm taking "panzers" to mean the 2 divisions and not jsut a few stray tanks that they did "know" about.

In fact what they knew was that there were REPORTS of panzer divisions in the area - the disregarded them as inaccurate and therefore they actually thought there were not panzer divisions in the area.

Exactly. No member of Monty's intel staff walked into his office and told him that the official position of the intel staff was that there were Panzer divisions in Arnhem. From his perspective (and that would be the perspective represented in TOAW) there were no panzer divisions spotted in Arnhem. Spotting some tanks is not the same as spotting a panzer division.

I've proposed that paradrops be executed as a combat action in the combat phase, rather than movement. As such, units landing on an enemy unit would not require a RBC to survive. Rather, they would engage in full combat (under serious debilitation, of course), giving them much better chances of survival, but without the gamey ability to reschedule other drops on the intel gathered from earlier drops.

Good points, lads.

However, I still think that until we geta more realistic system where reconnaisance assets can be concentrated on an area (Which was done at Arnhem, though it failed), and give us right or wrong itelligence, the only way to do any reconnaisance of the area is through the 'gamey' technique of landing 1/3 at a time.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Veers
Heh heh heh. Recon is currently totally random, which is bullshit. The Soviets may have chosen not, or been unable, to recon properly, but, if you recal, the Allies famously knew that there were tanks at Arnhem, and decided to drop anyways.

Not quite - they had information that elements of 2 Panzer divisions rewere refitting in the area, but they dismissed it - they didn't "decide to drop anyways" - they decided the intell was wrong. That's not somethign you get from recon in ToaW - if you get intel it is always 100% correct....it may not be complete but you know that whatever yoo do get is accurate.

Now if you could factor in false intel you'd have a good point.

But until then you are still wrong [8D]

So I must teach history here... Ok.

Allies did know that in vicinity of Arnhem were two panzer divisions. 9th SS and 10th SS.

You forget on thing. Those two divisions got a very BLOODY NOSE in Normandy and were REFITTING near Arnhem.

For example 9th SS had all personell at 2500!

Do you call that complete divisions?

So Allies choosed to deploy paras because they knew that those two divisions were understregth. They didn't reckoned with Model good improvisation and speedy response. And Germans did much with even those two divisions that were weak.

Also, British XXX corps. didn't advanced so fast and suffered I think of weak flanks and very narrow breaktrough corridor which was cut many times by Germans...

I was thinking that you knew that. c-c-c-c...


Mario

In regard to wether to allow para during movement, I suppose something is to be said for scale.. in a gmae for ww2 certainly intellon a drop the next day or two is reallistic, in modern times almost instantanious so I do take exceiption to the comment re dropping during combat.

Allies did know that in vicinity of Arnhem were two panzer divisions. 9th SS and 10th SS.

I'm not one hundred percent sure on this. And, in fact, from what I've read, the Allies did not, in fact, know for certain that they were there.

You forget on thing. Those two divisions got a very BLOODY NOSE in Normandy and were REFITTING near Arnhem.

No, we (well, I, anyways, and I'm sure SMK and Bob also did not forget) did not forget that. It was irrelevant to the discussion, so it was not brought up.

Also, British XXX corps. didn't advanced so fast and suffered I think of weak flanks and very narrow breaktrough corridor which was cut many times by Germans...

This one is common knowledge, spelling this one out to people is likely to just make them think you're tryign to insult their intelligence, Mario.

I was thinking that you knew that. c-c-c-c...

Well, you were right about this, at least. 

ORIGINAL: freeboy

In regard to wether to allow para during movement, I suppose something is to be said for scale.. in a gmae for ww2 certainly intellon a drop the next day or two is reallistic, in modern times almost instantanious so I do take exceiption to the comment re dropping during combat.

Good point. When I speak, I speak in regards to large scale scenarios (Div up), because those are what I play.

I'm not one hundred percent sure on this. And, in fact, from what I've read, the Allies did not, in fact, know for certain that they were there.

Yes, confusion is that one source tells that they didn't know but later research showed that Dutch resistance did in fact send them info about those two divisions. But combat strenght of both were more like kampfgruppe.

If XXX corps. was faster then paras would not be butchered there. Anyway whole operation was big fiasco and based on many what if's. The biggest fantasy was that it would bring war to the end. That was in fact real fantasy. Maybe next goal would be paras jump on Berlin?


Mario

I'm not one hundred percent sure on this. And, in fact, from what I've read, the Allies did not, in fact, know for certain that they were there.

Yes, confusion is that one source tells that they didn't know but later research showed that Dutch resistance did in fact send them info about those two divisions. But combat strenght of both were more like kampfgruppe.

Not debating that there was intelligence (aerial and Dutch underground), but just because there is intelligence, doesn't mean you know there is or is not something there. I mean, I could have phoned up Bush and told him going into Iraq would just result in a massive cluster-****, doesn't mean he'd believe me. [:D]

If XXX corps. was faster then paras would not be butchered there.

True. But this has nothing to do with how recon and paras work in TOAW.

This one is common knowledge, spelling this one out to people is likely to just make them think you're tryign to insult their intelligence, Mario.

What's this a rebellion? [:D] Are you here for a fight with me? Haha
Relax a bit. Nobody is trying to insult anybody's intelligence.

I am just telling that 2500 men division is more kampfgruppe and on many boards people say divisions. Division is something 10000+.

I suspect that Allies knew that there were some elements of panzer divisions that's why they jumped there. War is also a risk and a chance.

They would never made a jump if they would have been suspicious that they didn't had enough forces to deal with threat on the ground. And forces that were landed were not so small. So they just miscalculated. I am also suspicious that Allies fabricated lies about not knowing about 2ss corps to mask they not glorious defeat there after the war.

My 2 euro cents



Mario

Not debating that there was intelligence (aerial and Dutch underground), but just because there is intelligence, doesn't mean you know there is or is not something there. I mean, I could have phoned up Bush and told him going into Iraq would just result in a massive cluster-****, doesn't mean he'd believe me. [:D]

I have no problem with that. So there was just partial intelligence.

"Die Geister die ich rief.." - The ghosts that i evoked....

I like Bob's idea of conducting Para drops in the combat execution phase.

That Arnhem stuff takes us nowhere btw.

ORIGINAL: Telumar

"Die Geister die ich rief.." - The ghosts that i evoked....

I like Bob's idea of conducting Para drops in the combat execution phase.

That Arnhem stuff takes us nowhere btw.

I agree.

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

So I must teach history here... Ok.

<snip>


I was thinking that you knew that. c-c-c-c...

And I was thinking that everyone knew it so I didn't have to repeat all the detail and just gave a brief outline.....looks like we were both wrong.......

ok, In a patch or in the next comming of TOAW3, when a unit is destroyed the enemy that destroys it should get a small percentage of equipment if unit is in supply.

If unit is not in supply, ie surrounded, then a very large percentage of equipment should be added to the attacker.

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, In a patch or in the next comming of TOAW3, when a unit is destroyed the enemy that destroys it should get a small percentage of equipment if unit is in supply.

If unit is not in supply, ie surrounded, then a very large percentage of equipment should be added to the attacker.

This is a very complex issue. Some inclusion of the principal of the thought should be included, however.

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, In a patch or in the next comming of TOAW3, when a unit is destroyed the enemy that destroys it should get a small percentage of equipment if unit is in supply.

If unit is not in supply, ie surrounded, then a very large percentage of equipment should be added to the attacker.

but what if the attacker uses completeley different equipment? would you suggest the enemy equipment should appear in the attacking unit as something extra, additionally to what has been officially assigned?

ORIGINAL: m5000.2006

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, In a patch or in the next comming of TOAW3, when a unit is destroyed the enemy that destroys it should get a small percentage of equipment if unit is in supply.

If unit is not in supply, ie surrounded, then a very large percentage of equipment should be added to the attacker.

but what if the attacker uses completeley different equipment? would you suggest the enemy equipment should appear in the attacking unit as something extra, additionally to what has been officially assigned?

Hence why it's a very complex issue.

Haha imagine a german security battalion with T34's! Not to mention modern conflicts..there is probably not much that a US Marine Bn can use from surrendering Irakis....maybe some Khouzi and Rice..bon appetit! [:'(]

Another thing is supply (and to a certain degree ammunition) - Rommel lived quite well from british supply on a few occasions..

Maybe this should be something that the scenario designer should set up (or let it out). Captured equipment could go to the pools and be used as a substitute for a 'national' equipment (7.62mm Russian AT Gun instead of the 75mm PAK40 i.e.). Which equipment could be used to substitute certain own systems/equipment pieces in which units could be set up by the designer.
On the other hand transport assets could be used immediately by the capturing unit to a certain degree (i think mainly of trucks, halftracks, scout cars, jeeps, tractors and such light stuff)

As Wyatt says, this is a complicated issue.

ORIGINAL: Telumar
Maybe this should be something that the scenario designer should set up (or let it out). Captured equipment could go to the pools and be used as a substitute for a 'national' equipment (7.62mm Russian AT Gun instead of the 75mm PAK40 i.e.). Which equipment could be used to substitute certain own systems/equipment pieces in which units could be set up by the designer.

The problem here being that it could take many, many events to set something like this up, if it can be done at all. As well, the designer cannot forsee everythign that could possibly happen in a scenario, making it very hard to do events for every possibility.

ORIGINAL: Telumar
As Wyatt says, this is a complicated issue.

As well it has been discussed before, with well thought out points. Maybe some links to the discussions over at GS and TDG could be posted, (I would, but I can't seem to find them) for people's reading.

I also don't remember where it was discussed, someone who is interested might go through the various disputes between Bob Cross and Colin Wright over at the tdg.

It wouldn't take events, btw, this could be something that can be regulated by the replacement system. All in all i don't regard this as that important, it would ne a nice extra gift but nothing ultimatively neccessary.