Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


It's not alright if you're raiding the enemy rear with your cavalry and want to do as much destruction as possible - then later advancing with your main force and want to do as little destruction as possible. That's not minutia - it's operational decisions.

Yeah -- but if one looks at the big picture, somebody wants to do as much destruction as possible -- whether it's player 1 or player 2 is essentially immaterial. If the player taking possession wants it preserved, the other player probably wants it wrecked, and vice-versa.

So it's kind of a moot point who has bad intentions towards the railroad. The change of hands is what puts it in dire peril. We don't really need to fret about whether it is the attacker or the defender who is the one with the gleam in his eye.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

But given the campaign going differently -- say Rommel having taken Tobruk in April 1941 and then having played see-saw between Halfaya and the Nile for the next eighteen months rather than between El Agheila and El Alamein -- wouldn't it start to be damned odd that the Axis can never get this rail line into operation?

Well, that's just one more issue that's hard to simulate as things stand now. It doesn't invalidate the problem I listed.

Indeed, even the campaign having gone slightly differently -- say Rommel having had free reign to decide when to fall back from El Alamein -- wouldn't he have had time to have well and truly wrecked that rail line? Then your problem would be that the rail line is peculiarly impervious to Axis crowbars and dynamite.

If rail "damagers" were modeled similar to the way rail "repairers" are now, that could be handled. (Axis would have just a few). Regardless, the fact is that the rail line changed hands in a mostly undamaged condition a couple of times. That's hard to model without the risk of giving the Axis full supply rail support all the way to Cairo.

That's the thing with these sort of devices: they work for one set of circumstances, and one set of circumstances only. Change the circumstances, and what starts occurring is nonsensical.

How can reality be nonsensical? Forces really did have the ability to damage a specific section of rail. TOAW forces don't. That's sure to crop up ugly in some places. My CFNA example is just a sample of it. Currently we can repair a specfic hex, but not damage a specific hex.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yeah -- but if one looks at the big picture, somebody wants to do as much destruction as possible -- whether it's player 1 or player 2 is essentially immaterial. If the player taking possession wants it preserved, the other player probably wants it wrecked, and vice-versa.

So it's kind of a moot point who has bad intentions towards the railroad. The change of hands is what puts it in dire peril. We don't really need to fret about whether it is the attacker or the defender who is the one with the gleam in his eye.

The current method would work in tandem with the new ability. So, there would be some automatic damage percentage, like before, in addition to more purposeful damage by units.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



How can reality be nonsensical? Forces really did have the ability to damage a specific section of rail. TOAW forces don't. That's sure to crop up ugly in some places. My CFNA example is just a sample of it. Currently we can repair a specfic hex, but not damage a specific hex.

I think that's a bit of a sophism. What forces 'really could' do in reality is somewhat secondary.

A unit sitting still could be on alert -- or everyone could have been sent for a two-week furlough. We can't simulate the difference in TOAW.

Nor do I think we should. The whole point of the game is to isolate those factors that are of critical importance and attempt to simulate them -- while retaining a game that's simple enough to play. Things such as rail destruction are relatively constant -- somebody usually wants to destroy them. It doesn't affect matters much whether it's the attacker or the defender that wants to rip up the tracks. Even in the best case, fighting a modern war in the vicinity is going to affect operations badly. So -- depending on the circumstances and what the rail line is supposed to represent in the first place, we set a percentage chance for rail damage, decide whether to have any rail repair units, etc. Beyond that -- more pressing issues, in my view.

I'm not saying I necessarily object to special rail destroyer units -- as long as the designer can keep units from acquiring such an ability. It's just that in light of the above, I see the change as somewhat beside the point. Like trying to simulate the effect of an increased VD rate among units passing through Paris. Not really all that critical. One will wind up with a game where one can't see the forest for the trees.

As to CFNA, to take your problem, the solution seems fairly obvious. Have the rail line link to a supply point on the Commonwealth end -- but not to a supply point on the Axis end. That'll get you what you want.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yeah -- but if one looks at the big picture, somebody wants to do as much destruction as possible -- whether it's player 1 or player 2 is essentially immaterial. If the player taking possession wants it preserved, the other player probably wants it wrecked, and vice-versa.

So it's kind of a moot point who has bad intentions towards the railroad. The change of hands is what puts it in dire peril. We don't really need to fret about whether it is the attacker or the defender who is the one with the gleam in his eye.

The current method would work in tandem with the new ability. So, there would be some automatic damage percentage, like before, in addition to more purposeful damage by units.

Just so long as the designer can prevent units from having this ability. Else you've taken a step backwards, not forwards.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As to CFNA, to take your problem, the solution seems fairly obvious. Have the rail line link to a supply point on the Commonwealth end -- but not to a supply point on the Axis end. That'll get you what you want.

That kluge is, in fact, what I've done. I was just using the case as an example. I expect other similar cases could crop up. The main beneficary would be 19th Century topics.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As to CFNA, to take your problem, the solution seems fairly obvious. Have the rail line link to a supply point on the Commonwealth end -- but not to a supply point on the Axis end. That'll get you what you want.

That kluge is, in fact, what I've done. I was just using the case as an example. I expect other similar cases could crop up. The main beneficary would be 19th Century topics.

It's worth noting that the 'kludge' is in fact a better simulation than letting the British selectively tear up hexes.

After all, the 'kludge' simulates the central problem. Tobruk didn't work out as a major supply port. Had it been that, no doubt the Germans would have brought in more rolling stock.

For the wishlist have i the following suggestion
Equipment as Trucks/APC etc can only now transport or no Transport.
I like to see these split in

Light Transport for Team or towed light equiment (Jeep)
Medium Transport for Squad or medium equipment as towed 105mm Howitzer (2,5 ton Trucks, APC or IFV)
Heavy Transport for heavy equipment as Towed 203mm Howitzers or 2 squads + Teams
Very Heavy for ARV etc

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

For the wishlist have i the following suggestion
Equipment as Trucks/APC etc can only now transport or no Transport.
I like to see these split in

Light Transport for Team or towed light equiment (Jeep)
Medium Transport for Squad or medium equipment as towed 105mm Howitzer (2,5 ton Trucks, APC or IFV)
Heavy Transport for heavy equipment as Towed 203mm Howitzers or 2 squads + Teams
Very Heavy for ARV etc

This would require quite a rewrite of code. As it stands, transport is transport and can move anything. The reason one truck can make a units movement jump from one to nine is because it is assumed this one truck can run back and forth, pulling one piece of equipment, running back, pulling another piece of equipment, run back, etc. Realism it thrown out the window. (yes again with the trucks [:'(][:D])

I will add that this actually has some historic basis in some instances but no where near to the extent it is done in the game.

If you put in a jeep instead of a truck, same thing. Horse, ditto. Size does not matter. That is why the rewrite would be so difficult even though the realism would be greatly enhanced. Don't hold your breath, there are bigger fish to fry.

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

For the wishlist have i the following suggestion
Equipment as Trucks/APC etc can only now transport or no Transport.
I like to see these split in

Light Transport for Team or towed light equiment (Jeep)
Medium Transport for Squad or medium equipment as towed 105mm Howitzer (2,5 ton Trucks, APC or IFV)
Heavy Transport for heavy equipment as Towed 203mm Howitzers or 2 squads + Teams
Very Heavy for ARV etc

This would require quite a rewrite of code. As it stands, transport is transport and can move anything. The reason one truck can make a units movement jump from one to nine is because it is assumed this one truck can run back and forth, pulling one piece of equipment, running back, pulling another piece of equipment, run back, etc. Realism it thrown out the window. (yes again with the trucks [:'(][:D])

I will add that this actually has some historic basis in some instances but no where near to the extent it is done in the game.

If you put in a jeep instead of a truck, same thing. Horse, ditto. Size does not matter. That is why the rewrite would be so difficult even though the realism would be greatly enhanced. Don't hold your breath, there are bigger fish to fry.

In the editor there are for transport helicopters the flag light (1 ton), medium (3 ton) and heavy (5 ton), also helicopters can also flight a peace of equipment away, and then come back for another piece. I don't know how much code must rewrite that vehicles also can use these flags.

I tend to see all this as worrying about the squeaky door when the roof has fallen in.

As far as it goes, the truck transportation thing is a reasonable abstraction. How about mechanisms to permit the far more common practice of temporarily assigned transport, for example? Or volume-based supply? Or interdiction that becomes more ferocious the faster the unit attempts to move? Or any one of another fifty possible changes that would directly and dramatically improve the validity of TOAW as a simulation of WW2-era warfare?

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I tend to see all this as worrying about the squeaky door when the roof has fallen in.

As far as it goes, the truck transportation thing is a reasonable abstraction. How about mechanisms to permit the far more common practice of temporarily assigned transport, for example? Or volume-based supply? Or interdiction that becomes more ferocious the faster the unit attempts to move? Or any one of another fifty possible changes that would directly and dramatically improve the validity of TOAW as a simulation of WW2-era warfare?

I agree. Bigger fish.

ORIGINAL: Panama

As it stands, transport is transport and can move anything. The reason one truck can make a units movement jump from one to nine is because it is assumed this one truck can run back and forth, pulling one piece of equipment, running back, pulling another piece of equipment, run back, etc. Realism it thrown out the window. (yes again with the trucks [:'(][:D])

I've always viewed Trucks, Jeeps, Horses, et al, not as being single pieces of equipment but as being representative of undefined numbers of hardware pieces. This is the same as the Squad representing something between 5 and 20 soldiers. 1 Squad = X soldiers and 1 Transport = X Transport Capacity.

I have no problem with thinking of 1 Truck as equaling an entire truck company and moving a battalion of artillery, or of 1 porter representing 100 individuals moving 5000 pounds of material.

Maybe Norm was trying to save people from unnecessary rivet counting while concentrating on units that have combat power.

Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Maybe Norm was trying to save people from unnecessary rivet counting while concentrating on units that have combat power.

I think designers LIKE rivet counting [:D]

Norm was also fighting the technology at the time, The memory requirement for Opart 1 was probably something like 32-64 Meg of memory. My phone has more memory than that, and probably has a faster processor!

Ralph

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

For the wishlist have i the following suggestion
Equipment as Trucks/APC etc can only now transport or no Transport.
I like to see these split in

Light Transport for Team or towed light equiment (Jeep)
Medium Transport for Squad or medium equipment as towed 105mm Howitzer (2,5 ton Trucks, APC or IFV)
Heavy Transport for heavy equipment as Towed 203mm Howitzers or 2 squads + Teams
Very Heavy for ARV etc

To some extent you can do this now, provided the equipment is in separate units. So teams would be lifted by light trucks; squads by trucks; heavy guns by tractors, etc.

Also, just as an example, CFNA (the SPI game) had light, medium, and heavy trucks. I just counted each as 1/2, 1, and 2 trucks in the cumulative totals.

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Maybe Norm was trying to save people from unnecessary rivet counting while concentrating on units that have combat power.

I think designers LIKE rivet counting [:D]

Norm was also fighting the technology at the time, The memory requirement for Opart 1 was probably something like 32-64 Meg of memory. My phone has more memory than that, and probably has a faster processor!

Ralph

The original scenario designer for FitE stated that "turns in this scenario can take up to 1.5 hour on even an powerful computer to calculate."

It takes mine a minute or two. So yeah, things were vastly different then. [;)]

The original scenario designer for FitE stated that "turns in this scenario can take up to 1.5 hour on even an powerful computer to calculate."

It takes mine a minute or two. So yeah, things were vastly different then. [;)]

 
What are your specs, if you don't mind my asking?

AMD Athlon 7750 Dual-Core 2.7mhz 64 bit processor (dual core won't matter with TOAW since I don't think it takes advantage of it does it?)
8 gig memory (this probably makes all the difference in the world)
Vista Home Premium 64

As far as how long it takes to fire up the scenario I think the first two are the only two things that matter. Not especially great system but it works ok for me.

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Maybe Norm was trying to save people from unnecessary rivet counting while concentrating on units that have combat power.

I think designers LIKE rivet counting [:D]

Well, that is part of the appeal. However (1), there is too much of a good thing. How many beds in the corps hospital? Shortage of Bronze Stars reduces proficiency?

Then more seriously, (2) there's an illusory objectivity. The impact of a given weapon varies according to the circumstances, the training of its operators, the training of the intended victims, etc. It's all really fairly situation-dependent. One can wind up treating the physical TO&E as more of a starting point than anything else.

Personally I would like to see transport as precisely modeled as tanks are. If something isn't there to pull the artillery it isn't going anywhere. If something isn't there to move the ammo something isn't going to be able to shoot. If something isn't there to move the fuel a tank is just a pillbox. Won't ever happen but it would be nice. [;)]