Dynamic Formations

[samba_liten]

Would this also require a possibility of having units which are not part of a formation? It might be useful, especially for reinforcements.

Also, if div hq's control regiments, you might have an ability to control,for example, 5 battalions for free, to simulate directly attached units.

[sPzAbt653]

More examples -
Division HQ's can have a number of battalions attached determined by the number of command squads. Corps HQ's can have a number of Division HQ's plus a number of Corps battalion attachments. If Corps HQ has 4 command squads, thats 3 division HQ's plus 3 battalions of possible Corps attachments, or 2 divisions plus 6 battalions, etc.

Army HQ's with 3 command squads can have 2 Corps plus 3 battalion attachments (or battalion equivalents).

Army Group HQ's with 5 command squads can have 4 Armies plus 3 battalion attachments, or 3 Armies plus 6 battalion attachments, etc.

It's all fairly simple, lol.

[sPzAbt653]

Would this also require a possibility of having units which are not part of a formation?

I think there is a hypothetical higher HQ off map that can handle that possibility. A unit could then be attached to an on map HQ, or stay attached to the off map HQ.

We can make anything up, or reference the original system to find a solution. [:D]

[samba_liten]

As for the supply discussion, i think it would be fairly easy to solve the issue of supply "having to pass across Ike's desk",at least from a logical point of view. I don't know about coding though.

  Simply say that the supreme HQ gets its supply from the nearest/ strongest supply source. Scenario designers would then have to think about where supply came from. In the Normandy example used above that would seem to mean that the supply points should be placed in southern England. It then follows that Ike ought to stay in England, so as to get supply and organize its passing on to the bridgeheads. This all means that we would need supply to be able to traverse deep water hexes as well. Possibly something that could be set by the designer. I.e supply has an ability to traverse X hexes of deep water in this scenario. We might want to have supply more vulnerable to interdiction if it traverses deep water hexes.

[samba_liten]

Another interesting aspect is how the supreme HQ would distribute the supply to the lower HQ's. Think Monty or Patton in France '44. Broad front, or schwerpunkt? AGC or AGS?

Would it be possible to have the player choose at least to some degree how the supply is passed on?

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Grognard

Um ... that's it, that is the only current function of command groups. I'll throw my lot in with Telumar on this one as being a good idea. For any Beta it could be set static, i.e. 1 command group = 1 battalion. A 7 command group HQ can hold 7 battalions, etc.

Yes - I also thought Telumar's idea was good - enhancing the value of command groups. However the size of subordinates would have to vary if we keep the possible subordinate #'s the same. E.g. KG/Regt/Bde HQ's control x Bns - Div. HQ controls x Regts - Corps HQ controls x Divs et cetera et cetera et cetera. Again, x would be adjusted up or down by HQ proficiency. This seems to mirror real life. Also there would be a need to provide for direct unit attachments e.g. GHQ flak or any independant cos/bns. An attachment limit would be determined first by HQ level and then an appropriate # of co/bn/rgt equivalent building blocks so to speak.

Say, for example, a corps HQ of x% proficiency could handle a maximum of 11 Regiment equivalents or even break it down (fine tune) further to Bn or Co equivalents. Plug in 3 Divisions and Corps assets until that limit is reached. I'm thinking Companies as the lowest common denominator.

As long as the scenario designer has complete control of how many units can be controlled by a HQ and units are allowed to switch formations with some time constraint that could be determined by the scenario designer I'd throw my hat in with any of it.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Grognard

Um ... that's it, that is the only current function of command groups. I'll throw my lot in with Telumar on this one as being a good idea. For any Beta it could be set static, i.e. 1 command group = 1 battalion. A 7 command group HQ can hold 7 battalions, etc.

Yes - I also thought Telumar's idea was good - enhancing the value of command groups. However the size of subordinates would have to vary if we keep the possible subordinate #'s the same. E.g. KG/Regt/Bde HQ's control x Bns - Div. HQ controls x Regts - Corps HQ controls x Divs et cetera et cetera et cetera. Again, x would be adjusted up or down by HQ proficiency. This seems to mirror real life. Also there would be a need to provide for direct unit attachments e.g. GHQ flak or any independant cos/bns. An attachment limit would be determined first by HQ level and then an appropriate # of co/bn/rgt equivalent building blocks so to speak.

Say, for example, a corps HQ of x% proficiency could handle a maximum of 11 Regiment equivalents or even break it down (fine tune) further to Bn or Co equivalents. Plug in 3 Divisions and Corps assets until that limit is reached. I'm thinking Companies as the lowest common denominator.

Making the number of subordinated units dependent on HQ proficiency would be easier to code i suppose. As noone wants to see HQs with 40% proficiency the most crucial effects could be set at the proficiency range from 60 to 85.

The command group solution would have the effect that if a HQ is attacked and loses command groups, control of its subordinates will be disrupted which would force players to reattach some of its subordinated units to other HQs. This would further accentuate the importance of HQs.
It would be a double effect if the HQ loses all of its command groups: the current effect (losing formation proficiency, reorg) and the effect that it can't control its subordinates anymore. Either you have both these effects if desired or do away with the old system at all.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Grognard

Um ... that's it, that is the only current function of command groups. I'll throw my lot in with Telumar on this one as being a good idea. For any Beta it could be set static, i.e. 1 command group = 1 battalion. A 7 command group HQ can hold 7 battalions, etc.

Yes - I also thought Telumar's idea was good - enhancing the value of command groups. However the size of subordinates would have to vary if we keep the possible subordinate #'s the same. E.g. KG/Regt/Bde HQ's control x Bns - Div. HQ controls x Regts - Corps HQ controls x Divs et cetera et cetera et cetera. Again, x would be adjusted up or down by HQ proficiency. This seems to mirror real life. Also there would be a need to provide for direct unit attachments e.g. GHQ flak or any independant cos/bns. An attachment limit would be determined first by HQ level and then an appropriate # of co/bn/rgt equivalent building blocks so to speak.

Say, for example, a corps HQ of x% proficiency could handle a maximum of 11 Regiment equivalents or even break it down (fine tune) further to Bn or Co equivalents. Plug in 3 Divisions and Corps assets until that limit is reached. I'm thinking Companies as the lowest common denominator.

As long as the scenario designer has complete control of how many units can be controlled by a HQ and units are allowed to switch formations with some time constraint that could be determined by the scenario designer I'd throw my hat in with any of it.

Seconded!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Note that that doesn't prevent the British from doing just what I listed. British Infantry regiment swaps with a US regiment - no problem.

As mentioned before: House Rules.

I'm not going to go into how inadequate that would be, except for one part of it: a House Rule has to be enforceable. How easy is it to determine enemy organization? I haven't checked recently, but its pretty hard, if not impossible. Certainly impossible if he changes back before the end of the turn.

And what is the objection to making it a designer perogative? Why have any restrictions at all if different color schemes are to be allowed at will? That's the most extreme breach possible.

Can you think of any other update where it required designers to repair an existing scenario by adding a house rule? How many of the scenarios out there still have designers supporting them to make such house rules?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Another point - command groups already have a function in the game, and if you now require them to do something else, their first function will suffer.

Who says their first function would suffer? Then they have two functions. Like engineers (egineering and minor ferrry).

Of course their first function would suffer. Their original purpose was to motivate players to keep their HQs out of the front lines by adding a reorg penalty for loss of all command squads. So, the more command squads the HQ has, the less vulnerable it becomes. And, in practice, any more than one command squad and the HQ is pretty much invulnerable short of total destruction. So, HQs with five command squads or so no longer carry out the first function.

And it's all unnecessary. Leave it entirely up to the designers rather than building in preconceived notions about this into TOAW.

See my next post.

[Curtis Lemay]

Here’s how I would suggest that the designer decisions be handled. There would be five choices to make per formation (made via a dialog):

First there would be four choices about what types of units could be swapped with units already in the formation:

1. Allow different Background Color: Default is NO
2. Allow different Icon Color: Default is NO
3. Allow different Unit Icon: Default is NO
4. Allow different Unit Size: Default is NO

So, the defaults would only allow identical units to be swapped (a US Army infantry regiment could only be swapped with another US Army infantry regiment, etc.). Choice 1 would allow Germans to be swapped with Rumanians, etc. Choice 2 would allow USMC to be swapped with US Army, etc. Choice 3 would allow infantry to be swapped with armor, etc. Choice 4 would allow a division to be swapped with a company, etc. All four set to YES would allow a German infantry division to be swapped with a Rumanian armored company, etc.

Then, for adding additional units to the formation, the amount of additional force allowed would be chosen from a suite of size options as follows:

1. None (Default)
2. Squad
3. Platoon
4. Company
5. Battalion
6. Regiment
7. Brigade
8. Division
9. Corps
10. Army

So, if the choice was “Division”, then the formation could have a single division-sized unit added to it, or two brigade-sized, four regiment-sized, 16 battalion-sized, 64 company-sized, 256 platoon-sized, or 1024 squad-sized – or equivalent combinations (one brigade and two regiments, etc.). Obviously, the limit of a max of 24 units per formation would still apply.

Units added would have to meet the choices in the first four options as well (except for unit size, which would be covered by the fifth choice), based upon the second unit in the formation (assumed to be a normal unit). The first unit in the formation would be assumed to be the HQ and could never be swapped out. (These two assumptions could be made more sophisticated for a price, of course).

Note that the first four options take four bits, and the “additional force” option takes four bits (and could even allow six more levels – but that’s getting ridiculous), so that the total memory for the choices would be one byte. Each formation would have to have that byte added to their definitions.

The default “additional force” would allow swapping only – no adding units to the formation. Designers could deviate from that as far as they wished via the five choices. This doesn’t require any preconceived notions about limits to be built-in to TOAW – that’s left entirely up to the designer.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Grognard

Supply should flow through a unit's (or HQ's) immediately superior HQ. That is a REAL LIFE FACT. Supply should become attenuated by distance from that HQ - another real life fact. So firstly the engine needs to recognize heirarchy (XX down to III eg.). This applies to supply and/or formation dynamics.

Until somebody provides actual evidence for this I remain a skeptic. We know for a fact that it is false for SHAEF. What physical condition requires that an organization's depots all be placed in the physical location of its HQ? Of course the HQ controls how its supplies are distributed, but that doesn't mean that they have to pass through the HQ's location. Certainly there may be some depots near the HQ, if it make sense logistically. But if the HQ was off the beaten path and not in a good location logistically, why would any quartermaster route his supplies through it? Think of the enormous scope of TOAW. Can you seriously say this should be hard coded into that entire scope?

This is far more likely to be nothing more than a convenient mechanism that some wargames employ to penalize scattering. There are far better ways to do that without screwing up the supply system.

A formation has a max # of possible subordinate formations (and a different # for single units), modified +/- by HQ proficiency (command span). Then comes the bookkeeping of cut and paste or somesuch and boy howdy I'm a happy camper. If not for supply, at least reattachment.

Note that this gets us more or less back to where we are now. First we rigidly clamp down on how far a unit can be from its HQ, then we allow reassignment at will. The second act cancels the first, in effect - except for a lot more housekeeping by players.

In fact, you can think of a unit far from its HQ as de facto detached/reassigned. Maybe that's how Norm intended it to be addressed.

[samba_liten]

In fact, you can think of a unit far from its HQ as de facto detached/reassigned. Maybe that's how Norm intended it to be addressed.

Yes, but i am always reluctant to play like that, as i thought there were penalties associated with being too far from the formation HQ. Being able to get around that, and planning better, to me, is the main attraction with this whole idea.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Here’s how I would suggest that the designer decisions be handled. There would be five choices to make per formation (made via a dialog):

First there would be four choices about what types of units could be swapped with units already in the formation:

1. Allow different Background Color: Default is NO
2. Allow different Icon Color: Default is NO
3. Allow different Unit Icon: Default is NO
4. Allow different Unit Size: Default is NO

So, the defaults would only allow identical units to be swapped (a US Army infantry regiment could only be swapped with another US Army infantry regiment, etc.). Choice 1 would allow Germans to be swapped with Rumanians, etc. Choice 2 would allow USMC to be swapped with US Army, etc. Choice 3 would allow infantry to be swapped with armor, etc. Choice 4 would allow a division to be swapped with a company, etc. All four set to YES would allow a German infantry division to be swapped with a Rumanian armored company, etc.

Then, for adding additional units to the formation, the amount of additional force allowed would be chosen from a suite of size options as follows:

1. None (Default)
2. Squad
3. Platoon
4. Company
5. Battalion
6. Regiment
7. Brigade
8. Division
9. Corps
10. Army

So, if the choice was “Division”, then the formation could have a single division-sized unit added to it, or two brigade-sized, four regiment-sized, 16 battalion-sized, 64 company-sized, 256 platoon-sized, or 1024 squad-sized – or equivalent combinations (one brigade and two regiments, etc.). Obviously, the limit of a max of 24 units per formation would still apply.

Units added would have to meet the choices in the first four options as well (except for unit size, which would be covered by the fifth choice), based upon the second unit in the formation (assumed to be a normal unit). The first unit in the formation would be assumed to be the HQ and could never be swapped out. (These two assumptions could be made more sophisticated for a price, of course).

Note that the first four options take four bits, and the “additional force” option takes four bits (and could even allow six more levels – but that’s getting ridiculous), so that the total memory for the choices would be one byte. Each formation would have to have that byte added to their definitions.

The default “additional force” would allow swapping only – no adding units to the formation. Designers could deviate from that as far as they wished via the five choices. This doesn’t require any preconceived notions about limits to be built-in to TOAW – that’s left entirely up to the designer.

Seems ok.

Is this game program reaching a critical mass or is it fairly well organized?

[sPzAbt653]

This all means that we would need supply to be able to traverse deep water hexes as well.

SHAEF would have seaborne supply capability. Just the same as the new supply rules, distances are measured in terms of movement cost. Deep sea hexes have to be counted, but not at the normal 1 mp per hex. Maybe the same as amphiboius assaults, costing 50% of the movement allowance.

Would it be possible to have the player choose at least to some degree how the supply is passed on?

That's an integral part of Dynamic Supply. The player can direct more supply to some HQ's, less to others dependant on availability and needs.

... if a HQ is attacked and loses command groups, control of its subordinates will be disrupted which would force players to reattach some of its subordinated units to other HQs.

It does make sense that subordinates will be disrupted, but I don't know if it should be forced to reattach units due to command group losses (what if there are none available?).

As mentioned before: House Rules.

With regards to switching formations of different nationalities: V4V seems to have a switch in the programming for allowing the designer to allow or not allow units to switch between corp and higher formations. So a corp, army or army group HQ has the ability to not allow its formations to be switched between other corp, army or army group HQ's.

1. Allow different Background Color: Default is NO
2. Allow different Icon Color: Default is NO
3. Allow different Unit Icon: Default is NO
4. Allow different Unit Size: Default is NO

1. None (Default)
2. Squad
3. Platoon
4. Company
5. Battalion
6. Regiment
7. Brigade
8. Division
9. Corps
10. Army

Looks reasonable.

[Grognard]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognard

Supply should flow through a unit's (or HQ's) immediately superior HQ. That is a REAL LIFE FACT. Supply should become attenuated by distance from that HQ - another real life fact. So firstly the engine needs to recognize heirarchy (XX down to III eg.). This applies to supply and/or formation dynamics.

Until somebody provides actual evidence for this I remain a skeptic.

The deuce and a half driver doesn't deliver my beans & bullets directly to my foxhole. His delivery is routed thru the supply officer of my HQ.

Note that this gets us more or less back to where we are now. First we rigidly clamp down on how far a unit can be from its HQ, then we allow reassignment at will. The second act cancels the first, in effect - except for a lot more housekeeping by players.

In fact, you can think of a unit far from its HQ as de facto detached/reassigned. Maybe that's how Norm intended it to be addressed.

If you read all of the post I said supply is attenuated by distance. Nothing rigid about that. Just common sense in real life. And of course we are talking about reassignment at will. That's the subject of this thread!!!! And we ARE the Operational Commanders. Of course we should be able to reassign units. History is rife with command & control issues with distant units. Ike and Montgomery at the north flank of the Bulge come to mind.

And we can also think of our units as de facto 8th level Wizards casting lightning strike upon our enemies. But I prefer the game engine to recognize a unit very distant from its parent HQ as being difficult to supply & control adequately from that HQ and needing to be common sensically re-assigned to a closer HQ.
There are a gazillion examples from history. Game design and game play at its best mirrors real life, history and common sense. If this can be achieved without having to write miles of code and implemented intuitively and relatively hassle free it gets my vote.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Grognard
Game design and game play at its best mirrors real life, history and common sense.

For a game like TOAW, I'd agree with the first two anyway. I'm not sold on the common sense argument [:D]. I've seen too many arguments about that. Gameplay HAS to come first, few first person shooters try to mimic being mobbed by enemies, IEDs, snipers or one shot kills since those aren't much fun.

If this can be achieved without having to write miles of code and implemented intuitively and relatively hassle free it gets my vote.

I don't mind the miles of code, being intuitive and forcing the player to make interesting decisions are the big ones for me. If it's something that the player will always do and doesn't have trade offs, I'd rather automate it. A lot of the arguments I've been seeing sound like allowing the designer to transfer units may make more sense and is simpler to implement since I wouldn't need all the restrictions. If it weren't for the multiplayer, and needing to prevent people gaming the system, it would be simpler.

[Grognard]

A lot of the arguments I've been seeing sound like allowing the designer to transfer units may make more sense and is simpler to implement since I wouldn't need all the restrictions. If it weren't for the multiplayer, and needing to prevent people gaming the system, it would be simpler.

If I'm understanding you correctly, the operative word above is "designer". My concept of "dynamic formations" - and I think (mostly) the other participants of this thread - regards gameplay during the course of a scenario, not a (scenario) design element but integral to the game engine. A designer can currently simply cut and paste a unit(s). But when I entrain the 1. Infanterie Div. from 18. Armee AO and ship it down to Rostov it is still permanently, set in stone, graphically indicated, part of I Korps 1000 km away.

This has been the biggest failing of TOAW from the beginning IMO. How does one "game" the system if this is implemented as discussed above? Unit Proficiencies trump formation proficiencies in combat and for re-org checks one could argue that a poor proficiency unit benefits from being in a formation with better CCC values. The restrictions in re-assignation would simply and only be #'s of units that a HQ of a certain level and proficiency could reasonably control. (and pehaps being able to trace any line of communication to).

This would seem to involve getting the game to recognize "heirarchy" which it currently doesn't. III and X and XXX are now simply pixels on the sceen and an HQ is now simply the same as any other unit with a couple of unique properties i.e. enhanced supply & being able to house working command groups. Sure, there would be fine tuning involved, such as icon colors (good point, Bob), distances, differentiating the HQ's, interface, etc etc et al but it could only make the game better. And more realistic.........

Thanks for your time Ralph.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Then, for adding additional units to the formation, the amount of additional force allowed would be chosen from a suite of size options as follows:

1. None (Default)
2. Squad
3. Platoon
4. Company
5. Battalion
6. Regiment
7. Brigade
8. Division
9. Corps
10. Army

Since there's room for 16 options for this, perhaps a better distribution would be something like this:

1. None (Default)
2. Platoon
3. Company
4. Two Companies
5. Three Companies
6. Battalion
7. Two Battalions
8. Three Battalions
9. Regiment
10. Brigade
11. Three Regiments
12. Division
13. Two Divisions
14. Three Divisions
15. Corps
16. Two Corps

Which would give a little finer control over the scenario "sweet spot".

However, an even better way might be this:

The designer could pre-load unused formation slots with unit parameters, as if a unit had been in the formation and then was dropped out before the start of the game. Then the rules for swapping would apply to each slot so pre-loaded.

So, if the formation had six units assigned to it, then the designer might specify that slot seven was preset for a German Recon Battalion, etc. Then, the players could add a unit to that slot just as if a German Recon Battalion had been detached from it during the game - as per the four YES/NO choices. He could do the same for as many slots as he desired.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Grognard

The deuce and a half driver doesn't deliver my beans & bullets directly to my foxhole. His delivery is routed thru the supply officer of my HQ.

That is not the same as requiring the supplies to literally be routed through the physical location of the HQ. There is no need for all the organization's depots to be in the same location as the HQ. In fact, the location needs for depots and HQs are totally different. The depot needs easy access. The HQ needs security. The best location for a depot is at a transportation hub. That is the most dangerous location for an HQ.

Did the quartermaster of SHAEF control how SHAEF's supplies were routed? Of course. But did all the supplies for the AEF flow through SHAEF's location. Of course not. There are these things called radios, telephones, telex, etc.

In effect, you're saying that quartermasters are idiots and can't figure out the optimum path for supplies, even when optimizing that path may be a win or lose matter, militarily. TOAW, on the otherhand, just assumes that quartermasters operate at max efficiency - units get supply by the best route available. And note that TOAW deals in operational units, not individual soldiers in foxholes.

I understand that everyone wants some sort of check on unit scattering. But that needs to be done via command and control mechanisms, rather that screwing up the supply system.

If you read all of the post I said supply is attenuated by distance. Nothing rigid about that. Just common sense in real life. And of course we are talking about reassignment at will. That's the subject of this thread!!!! And we ARE the Operational Commanders. Of course we should be able to reassign units. History is rife with command & control issues with distant units. Ike and Montgomery at the north flank of the Bulge come to mind.

And we can also think of our units as de facto 8th level Wizards casting lightning strike upon our enemies. But I prefer the game engine to recognize a unit very distant from its parent HQ as being difficult to supply & control adequately from that HQ and needing to be common sensically re-assigned to a closer HQ.
There are a gazillion examples from history. Game design and game play at its best mirrors real life, history and common sense. If this can be achieved without having to write miles of code and implemented intuitively and relatively hassle free it gets my vote.

All I'm saying is that the two effects come close to canceling each other, getting us effectively to about where we are now. The impact, therefore, falls more in the chrome area than game-affecting area. That matters as to where on the priority list they will tend to fall.

[Grognard]

All I'm saying is that the two effects come close to canceling each other, getting us effectively to about where we are now. The impact, therefore, falls more in the chrome area than game-affecting area. That matters as to where on the priority list they will tend to fall.

Per my example above of moving a Div far far away from a parent formation. There should (and was historically - every time) be negative CCC and supply effects. This is NOT chrome.