The Ant Unit Problem
Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky
- Curtis Lemay
- Posts: 14635
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
The Ant Unit Problem
To recap, the problem is as follows:
First, artillery bombarding alone is significantly less effective than bombarding in support of a ground attacker. The factor has been estimated to be about 4 to 1. Second, defenders attacked by ground units lose 10% supply per attack round whereas defenders bombarded alone lose no supply (slang term: “supply sucking”). Finally, use of an assault unit prevents enemy artillery in the target hex from employing counterbattery fire against attacker supporting artillery.
The problem is that players exploit those facts via ant units. The smallest and least valuable units, usually with nothing but passive equipment, are subdivided and employed alone in attacks repeatedly. The attackers thereby receive the above benefits while risking hardly anything. The impact is that powerful, healthy stacks of defenders can be decimated and redlined at little cost if exposed to attacking units. The fact that this is well known by most players and excessively exploited by them gives the game system a big realism hit.
Note that it is a three-part problem. The artillery boost, the supply drain, and counterbattery issues must each be dealt with to end the incentive to employ ant units.
My previous suggestion:
Some of you may recall a proposal to address this that I made on the GS board about two years ago (so old there’s no link to it anymore). I proposed inserting a recon check before each round of combat. If the attacking units passed that check, they would have gotten all the benefits above, just as they do now. But if they failed it, they wouldn’t have, etc. etc.
After much evaluation, the proposal was discovered to be inadequate, because infantry recon levels in TOAW were much lower than I had understood. I concluded that recon would not work as the correct vector.
New proposal:
Chuck Kotroba had suggested active equipment instead. That will be a more difficult revision than recon, since, unlike unit recon strength, unit active equipment strength is not currently an available parameter. It will have to be calculated. I would propose calling it the unit “Assault Strength”. It would be exactly the same calculation as the current unit combat strength, except that only active equipment would contribute to it.
The results of that calculation will need to be displayed in the Attack Planner. It might also be useful to add it to the unit report and even be displayed on the unit counter. In addition, the Attacker Assault Strength Total and the Assault Ratio values shown below would also need to be displayed in the Attack Planner as well (impacted by fog-of-war, of course). All those additions will add to the overhead for this revision, but from there it will actually be easier to effect than the recon suggestion would have been.
The procedure would be as follows:
1. Prior to each round of combat, the assault strengths of all the ground attackers still remaining in the assault are totaled and divided by the defense strengths of all defenders still remaining in the defense. The ratio is then converted to %. A random check is made against that ratio.
2. If the check is passed combat proceeds just as it does now. Ground defenders drop 10% supply. Defender supporting artillery drops 5% supply. All attacker supporting artillery supports at the x4 factor (modified as per whether it is direct or indirect, as now).
3. If the check is failed, however, a second check is made against the same ratio x 10.
4. If that second check is passed, all attacker supporting artillery supports at the regular x1 factor, just as if they were bombarding alone. Furthermore, ground defenders drop only 1% supply and supporting defending artillery drop only 0.5% supply (effected via a random test).
5. If the second check is failed, however, the attack is treated as if it were a stand-alone bombardment. No attacker indirect support is included. Only directly assigned artillery, supporting at the x1 factor, participates. The assault ends after one round. Directly supporting artillery is subject to counterbattery fire from any defending artillery in the target hex. Defender supply doesn’t drop at all, except for any counterbattery firing units, which drop the normal 5% (as now).
6. In either case all ground attackers and attacker supporting artillery drop supply at the same levels they do now (10% if direct, 5% if indirect). And all combat strengths are unaffected.
7. The combat report would reveal whether the checks passed or failed on each round.
Note that this means that if the assault strength is at least equal to the defense strength, the first check is guaranteed to succeed. There might be a designer editable scale factor for this that could change that up or down. Similarly, note that if the assault strength is at least equal to 1/10th of the defense strength, the second check is guaranteed to succeed. Again, there might be a designer editable scale factor for this as well.
Note that when assault ratios exceed 1, the combat will proceed just as it does now. For assault ratios that fall between 0.1 and 1, the defender supply loss will average about proportionate to the assault ratio. For assault ratios that are less than 0.1, there will be a strong chance that the assault will be treated like a bombardment, making the ant unit useless.
And, before anyone gets concerned about math, note that the PC will handle all of it. Players will only have the added consideration of the Assault Ratio (shown in the Attack Planner) to concern themselves with.
First, artillery bombarding alone is significantly less effective than bombarding in support of a ground attacker. The factor has been estimated to be about 4 to 1. Second, defenders attacked by ground units lose 10% supply per attack round whereas defenders bombarded alone lose no supply (slang term: “supply sucking”). Finally, use of an assault unit prevents enemy artillery in the target hex from employing counterbattery fire against attacker supporting artillery.
The problem is that players exploit those facts via ant units. The smallest and least valuable units, usually with nothing but passive equipment, are subdivided and employed alone in attacks repeatedly. The attackers thereby receive the above benefits while risking hardly anything. The impact is that powerful, healthy stacks of defenders can be decimated and redlined at little cost if exposed to attacking units. The fact that this is well known by most players and excessively exploited by them gives the game system a big realism hit.
Note that it is a three-part problem. The artillery boost, the supply drain, and counterbattery issues must each be dealt with to end the incentive to employ ant units.
My previous suggestion:
Some of you may recall a proposal to address this that I made on the GS board about two years ago (so old there’s no link to it anymore). I proposed inserting a recon check before each round of combat. If the attacking units passed that check, they would have gotten all the benefits above, just as they do now. But if they failed it, they wouldn’t have, etc. etc.
After much evaluation, the proposal was discovered to be inadequate, because infantry recon levels in TOAW were much lower than I had understood. I concluded that recon would not work as the correct vector.
New proposal:
Chuck Kotroba had suggested active equipment instead. That will be a more difficult revision than recon, since, unlike unit recon strength, unit active equipment strength is not currently an available parameter. It will have to be calculated. I would propose calling it the unit “Assault Strength”. It would be exactly the same calculation as the current unit combat strength, except that only active equipment would contribute to it.
The results of that calculation will need to be displayed in the Attack Planner. It might also be useful to add it to the unit report and even be displayed on the unit counter. In addition, the Attacker Assault Strength Total and the Assault Ratio values shown below would also need to be displayed in the Attack Planner as well (impacted by fog-of-war, of course). All those additions will add to the overhead for this revision, but from there it will actually be easier to effect than the recon suggestion would have been.
The procedure would be as follows:
1. Prior to each round of combat, the assault strengths of all the ground attackers still remaining in the assault are totaled and divided by the defense strengths of all defenders still remaining in the defense. The ratio is then converted to %. A random check is made against that ratio.
2. If the check is passed combat proceeds just as it does now. Ground defenders drop 10% supply. Defender supporting artillery drops 5% supply. All attacker supporting artillery supports at the x4 factor (modified as per whether it is direct or indirect, as now).
3. If the check is failed, however, a second check is made against the same ratio x 10.
4. If that second check is passed, all attacker supporting artillery supports at the regular x1 factor, just as if they were bombarding alone. Furthermore, ground defenders drop only 1% supply and supporting defending artillery drop only 0.5% supply (effected via a random test).
5. If the second check is failed, however, the attack is treated as if it were a stand-alone bombardment. No attacker indirect support is included. Only directly assigned artillery, supporting at the x1 factor, participates. The assault ends after one round. Directly supporting artillery is subject to counterbattery fire from any defending artillery in the target hex. Defender supply doesn’t drop at all, except for any counterbattery firing units, which drop the normal 5% (as now).
6. In either case all ground attackers and attacker supporting artillery drop supply at the same levels they do now (10% if direct, 5% if indirect). And all combat strengths are unaffected.
7. The combat report would reveal whether the checks passed or failed on each round.
Note that this means that if the assault strength is at least equal to the defense strength, the first check is guaranteed to succeed. There might be a designer editable scale factor for this that could change that up or down. Similarly, note that if the assault strength is at least equal to 1/10th of the defense strength, the second check is guaranteed to succeed. Again, there might be a designer editable scale factor for this as well.
Note that when assault ratios exceed 1, the combat will proceed just as it does now. For assault ratios that fall between 0.1 and 1, the defender supply loss will average about proportionate to the assault ratio. For assault ratios that are less than 0.1, there will be a strong chance that the assault will be treated like a bombardment, making the ant unit useless.
And, before anyone gets concerned about math, note that the PC will handle all of it. Players will only have the added consideration of the Assault Ratio (shown in the Attack Planner) to concern themselves with.
- Curtis Lemay
- Posts: 14635
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
Shown as C++ code:
Shown as C++ code:
To further clarify my suggestion, I’ve converted it to C++ below:
Functions GetTotalAssaultStrength(), GetTotalDefenseStrength; Random(), and the Objects AttackerUnitList, DefenderUnitList, and CombatReport, with its method InsertText(),would be defined elsewhere in the program.
To further clarify my suggestion, I’ve converted it to C++ below:
Code: Select all
attackerAssaultStrength = GetTotalAssaultStrength(AttackerUnitList);
defenderDefenseStrength = GetTotalDefenseStrength(DefenderUnitList);
assaultRatio = attackerAssaultStrength/defenderDefenseStrength * 100 * assaultRatioScalar;
if (Random(100) <= assaultRatio)
{
CombatReport->InsertText(“Attacker assault ratio check passed”);
attackerArtilleryFactor = 4;
defenderSupplyLoss = 10;
defenderSupportSupplyLoss = 5;
attackerIndirectSupport = True;
counterbatterFire = False;
}
else
{
CombatReport->InsertText(“Attacker assault ratio check failed”);
if (Random(100) <= assaultRatio * 10 * assaultRatioFloorScalar)
{
CombatReport->InsertText(“Attacker assault ratio floor check passed”);
attackerArtilleryFactor = 1;
defenderSupplyLoss = 1;
if (Random(100) <= 50)
defenderSupportSupplyLoss = 1;
else
defenderSupportSupplyLoss = 0;
attackerIndirectSupport = True;
counterbatteryFire = False;
}
else
{
CombatReport->InsertText(“Attacker assault ratio floor check failed, too”);
attackerArtilleryFactor = 1;
defenderSupplyLoss = 0;
defenderSupportSupplyLoss = 0;
attackerIndirectSupport = False;
counterbatteryFire = True;
}
};
Functions GetTotalAssaultStrength(), GetTotalDefenseStrength; Random(), and the Objects AttackerUnitList, DefenderUnitList, and CombatReport, with its method InsertText(),would be defined elsewhere in the program.
RE: Shown as C++ code:
The smallest and least valuable units, usually with nothing but passive equipment, are subdivided and employed alone in attacks repeatedly.
I'm trying to get a grip on this, is the above instance the only concern? Or do your ideas also apply to a full division breaking down into three and performing the same action? I also seem to remember that attacking with an ant would cause it to evaporate.
I would think the best answer would be to have no ants designed into a scenario.
I'm trying to get a grip on this, is the above instance the only concern? Or do your ideas also apply to a full division breaking down into three and performing the same action? I also seem to remember that attacking with an ant would cause it to evaporate.
I would think the best answer would be to have no ants designed into a scenario.
RE: Shown as C++ code:
sPzAbt653,
In theory I agree with you regarding designing scenarios without ants. In practice, not so much. Many/most scenarios already have lots of ants. Also, the definition of 'Ant' itself remains ambiguous if left to the discretion of scenario designers.
I'm not certain that Curtis's idea as shown in this thread is the best method to resolving a Final Solution to the Ant Problem. But I do think that Curtis is correct that the game engine should be the level at which such a solution is resolved. That way, the definition of 'Ant' is clearly defined in game-engine terms and somehow dealt with at that level. Even though I'm not sure I agree with Curtis's current game-engine proposal. But I think that the TOAW community can eventually achieve some sort of consensus in this regard. Perhaps in time to make onto the 'wishlist' in time for consideration in TOAW 4.
In theory I agree with you regarding designing scenarios without ants. In practice, not so much. Many/most scenarios already have lots of ants. Also, the definition of 'Ant' itself remains ambiguous if left to the discretion of scenario designers.
I'm not certain that Curtis's idea as shown in this thread is the best method to resolving a Final Solution to the Ant Problem. But I do think that Curtis is correct that the game engine should be the level at which such a solution is resolved. That way, the definition of 'Ant' is clearly defined in game-engine terms and somehow dealt with at that level. Even though I'm not sure I agree with Curtis's current game-engine proposal. But I think that the TOAW community can eventually achieve some sort of consensus in this regard. Perhaps in time to make onto the 'wishlist' in time for consideration in TOAW 4.
-
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm
RE: Shown as C++ code:
ORIGINAL: vahauser
sPzAbt653,
In theory I agree with you regarding designing scenarios without ants. In practice, not so much. Many/most scenarios already have lots of ants. Also, the definition of 'Ant' itself remains ambiguous if left to the discretion of scenario designers.
Yeah. Anyway, one doesn't need 'ants' to get the effect. Lets consider a scenario with battalions and regiments -- hardly an excessive spread of unit sizes.
Three regiments in a hex? Divide up one battalion and hit the stack with one company-sized unit. This can't be prevented by design -- not unless you want to go to extremes.
I'm basically in favor of what I understand to be be 'Curtis LeMay's' latest proposal -- although it strikes me as unnecessarily complex. One could just cancel the supply- and readiness- draining effects of an attack if the units directly participating in the assault (i.e.' exclusive of ranged equipment) have a total strength of less than a third of the defenders. Or some other ratio -- but a third is what I'm currently using as a house rule. Seems okay. One can take advantage of those red lights -- but if and only if one brings a reasonable quantity of actual attacking infantry/armor to bear.
Obviously, further considerations, refinements, etc to be taken into account. However, we might actually be able to reach a consensus pretty clearly on this one. No single AT companies wrecking whole divisions is the basic idea.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
-
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm
RE: Shown as C++ code:
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
ORIGINAL: vahauser
sPzAbt653,
In theory I agree with you regarding designing scenarios without ants. In practice, not so much. Many/most scenarios already have lots of ants. Also, the definition of 'Ant' itself remains ambiguous if left to the discretion of scenario designers.
Yeah. Anyway, one doesn't need 'ants' to get the effect. Lets consider a scenario with battalions and regiments -- hardly an excessive spread of unit sizes.
Three regiments in a hex? Divide up one battalion and hit the stack with one company-sized unit. This can't be prevented by design -- not unless you want to go to extremes.
I'm basically in favor of what I understand to be be 'Curtis LeMay's' latest proposal -- although it strikes me as unnecessarily complex. One could just cancel the supply- and readiness- draining effects of an attack if the units directly participating in the assault (i.e.' exclusive of ranged equipment) have a total strength of less than a third of the defenders. Or some other ratio -- but a third is what I'm currently using as a house rule. Seems okay. One can take advantage of those red lights -- but if and only if one brings a reasonable quantity of actual attacking infantry/armor to bear.
Obviously, further considerations, refinements, etc to be taken into account. However, we might actually be able to reach a consensus pretty clearly on this one. No single AT (or armored car) companies wrecking whole divisions is the basic idea.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
- rhinobones
- Posts: 2149
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 10:00 am
Ant Units
[font=arial]Agree that there is a problem with ant units disproportionately enhancing the effect of bombardment. [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]In some ways I believe this is a scenario design problem. This does not necessarily mean that the scenario is defective; it is mostly that designers insert small units into scenarios and players use any TOAW legally permitted move to improve their position. That would be, using ant units to inflict maximum punishment upon an opponent. After all, that is the purpose of the game.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]To change this behavior, think it would be preferable to change the combat resolution algorithms. Make the math so that the ant unit is turned to ash, the defending units only absorb punishment consistent with bombardment and allow counter battery fire. Think this would be more consistent with the real life consequences of ant unit attacks.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Maybe in this way designers can continue to have ant units and defenders can feast on them too.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Regards, RhinoBones[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]In some ways I believe this is a scenario design problem. This does not necessarily mean that the scenario is defective; it is mostly that designers insert small units into scenarios and players use any TOAW legally permitted move to improve their position. That would be, using ant units to inflict maximum punishment upon an opponent. After all, that is the purpose of the game.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]To change this behavior, think it would be preferable to change the combat resolution algorithms. Make the math so that the ant unit is turned to ash, the defending units only absorb punishment consistent with bombardment and allow counter battery fire. Think this would be more consistent with the real life consequences of ant unit attacks.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Maybe in this way designers can continue to have ant units and defenders can feast on them too.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Regards, RhinoBones[/font]
Colin Wright:
Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil
Post by broccolini » Sun Nov 06, 2022
. . . no-one needs apologize for douchebags acting like douchebags
Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil
Post by broccolini » Sun Nov 06, 2022
. . . no-one needs apologize for douchebags acting like douchebags
-
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm
RE: Ant Units
ORIGINAL: rhinobones
[font=arial]Agree that there is a problem with ant units disproportionately enhancing the effect of bombardment. [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]In some ways I believe this is a scenario design problem. This does not necessarily mean that the scenario is defective; it is mostly that designers insert small units into scenarios and players use any TOAW legally permitted move to improve their position. That would be, using ant units to inflict maximum punishment upon an opponent. After all, that is the purpose of the game.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]To change this behavior, think it would be preferable to change the combat resolution algorithms. Make the math so that the ant unit is turned to ash, the defending units only absorb punishment consistent with bombardment and allow counter battery fire. Think this would be more consistent with the real life consequences of ant unit attacks.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Maybe in this way designers can continue to have ant units and defenders can feast on them too.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Regards, RhinoBones[/font]
Yeah -- ant units can certainly aggravate the problem. However, in almost any scenario, there will be plenty of materiel available to take advantage of the flaw.
It's worth mentioning that ant units create other problems. Even in scenarios with low density, ant units make it possible to create 'artificial' encirclements. You mount preliminary attacks so as to fill up the available retreat route with subdivided junk, then hit the stack you're interested in. All the units in that stack evaporate. Never mind that the available retreat route was ten km wide and held nine units with an average strength of a hundred men: 900 men just totally congested that 100 km. square area. After all, that's a population density approaching that of rural Nebraska. Obviously impossible to make your way through.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
RE: Ant Units
Colin is correct.
I used to work for GR/D, the company that developed the Europa series of mega-boardgames back in the 1980s/90s. Ants were/are a problem in the Europa series as well (25km hexes and bi-weekly turns). One way that we dealt with ants (besides the obvious solution of cutting them from the OOB wherever possible) was to treat ants as basically "too small to matter" at the scale the game was developed at.
For example, ants did not exert a Zone of Control into adjacent hexes. Further, ants did not gain full control of hexes they moved through during the turn. They were considered to control hexes that they occupied at the start of a player turn, but otherwise the hexes they moved through were considered to be "contested" and not controlled by either side. In special cases, such as capturing a bridge or an airfield, ants were allowed to perform such special operations. In combat, ants were considered to be "unsupported" and fought at half strength, thus making them extremely fragile and easy to overrun.
I don't how to directly translate this stuff into TOAW terms, but it occurs to me that if a unit does not meet a "minimum size threshold" compared to the scale of the TOAW scenario, then that unit would be considered an "ant" by that scenario and thus treated differently from "full" units. In other words, ants would not be treated as "full" units and would be not fully capable of doing what "full" units could do. This could apply to a wide variety of conditions and circumstances (hex control, combat, supply, lines of communication, etc.).
I used to work for GR/D, the company that developed the Europa series of mega-boardgames back in the 1980s/90s. Ants were/are a problem in the Europa series as well (25km hexes and bi-weekly turns). One way that we dealt with ants (besides the obvious solution of cutting them from the OOB wherever possible) was to treat ants as basically "too small to matter" at the scale the game was developed at.
For example, ants did not exert a Zone of Control into adjacent hexes. Further, ants did not gain full control of hexes they moved through during the turn. They were considered to control hexes that they occupied at the start of a player turn, but otherwise the hexes they moved through were considered to be "contested" and not controlled by either side. In special cases, such as capturing a bridge or an airfield, ants were allowed to perform such special operations. In combat, ants were considered to be "unsupported" and fought at half strength, thus making them extremely fragile and easy to overrun.
I don't how to directly translate this stuff into TOAW terms, but it occurs to me that if a unit does not meet a "minimum size threshold" compared to the scale of the TOAW scenario, then that unit would be considered an "ant" by that scenario and thus treated differently from "full" units. In other words, ants would not be treated as "full" units and would be not fully capable of doing what "full" units could do. This could apply to a wide variety of conditions and circumstances (hex control, combat, supply, lines of communication, etc.).
- Curtis Lemay
- Posts: 14635
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
RE: Shown as C++ code:
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
I would think the best answer would be to have no ants designed into a scenario.
First, that sort of restriction on a scenario is called a "kluge" - an artifical trick to get around a systemic problem. Why would that be a better answer than actually fixing the problem?
Second, "ant unit attacks" are simply unavoidable. Suppose you designed a scenario in which every unit was exactly the same. And let's even suppose that no unit will ever lose equipment, supply, readiness, or proficiency. They'll either be full strength or evaporated. You can still form a defense of nine full units and attack that defense with 1/3 of a unit at limited losses. That's an attack ratio of 1:54 - an ant unit attack if ever there was one.
Add in the impact of losses and variable unit health, along with the simple fact that scenarios have to have a suite of unit types and sizes if they are to resemble reality in any way, and you have ant-unit attacks galore.
- Curtis Lemay
- Posts: 14635
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
RE: Ant Units
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
It's worth mentioning that ant units create other problems. Even in scenarios with low density, ant units make it possible to create 'artificial' encirclements. You mount preliminary attacks so as to fill up the available retreat route with subdivided junk, then hit the stack you're interested in. All the units in that stack evaporate. Never mind that the available retreat route was ten km wide and held nine units with an average strength of a hundred men: 900 men just totally congested that 100 km. square area. After all, that's a population density approaching that of rural Nebraska. Obviously impossible to make your way through.
See items 7.18 and 7.19 in the wishlist.
- Curtis Lemay
- Posts: 14635
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
RE: Shown as C++ code:
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'm basically in favor of what I understand to be be 'Curtis LeMay's' latest proposal -- although it strikes me as unnecessarily complex. One could just cancel the supply- and readiness- draining effects of an attack if the units directly participating in the assault (i.e.' exclusive of ranged equipment) have a total strength of less than a third of the defenders. Or some other ratio -- but a third is what I'm currently using as a house rule. Seems okay. One can take advantage of those red lights -- but if and only if one brings a reasonable quantity of actual attacking infantry/armor to bear.
Remember that it is a three-part problem and all three need to be addressed. And I think if you actually coded exactly what you're doing above it would be pretty complex looking as well. That can be misleading.
The simple version of my suggestion is:
First: Assault ratio > 1 then works just like assaults do now.
Second: 1 => Assault ratio => 0.1 then defender supply loss is proportional to that ratio & there is no artillery boost.
Third: Assault ratio < 0.1 then will tend to work just like bombardments do now.
It's somewhat complicated to describe, but it wouldn't be that complicated to use.
-
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm
RE: Ant Units
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
It's worth mentioning that ant units create other problems. Even in scenarios with low density, ant units make it possible to create 'artificial' encirclements. You mount preliminary attacks so as to fill up the available retreat route with subdivided junk, then hit the stack you're interested in. All the units in that stack evaporate. Never mind that the available retreat route was ten km wide and held nine units with an average strength of a hundred men: 900 men just totally congested that 100 km. square area. After all, that's a population density approaching that of rural Nebraska. Obviously impossible to make your way through.
See items 7.18 and 7.19 in the wishlist.
Can't -- or won't. I am indeed one of those people without Word.
However, this (remedying the clutter effect of ant units), I do see as a design problem. When it starts happening in Seelowe I don't perceive a need for changes in an engine, I perceive a need for Colin to get a grip on his tendency to put in as a separate unit every little goddamn railroad military police detachment that happened to exist in the historical OOB.
This is all the truer now that TOAW III makes it relatively painless to create indivisible companies and such. Clutter is indeed more of a design problem than an engine problem. If you're getting blocked hexes, you've got too many small units. Sort of like when you start having a problem with the bars not opening until noon. The message is not that the law needs to be changed.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
-
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm
RE: Shown as C++ code:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'm basically in favor of what I understand to be be 'Curtis LeMay's' latest proposal -- although it strikes me as unnecessarily complex. One could just cancel the supply- and readiness- draining effects of an attack if the units directly participating in the assault (i.e.' exclusive of ranged equipment) have a total strength of less than a third of the defenders. Or some other ratio -- but a third is what I'm currently using as a house rule. Seems okay. One can take advantage of those red lights -- but if and only if one brings a reasonable quantity of actual attacking infantry/armor to bear.
Remember that it is a three-part problem and all three need to be addressed. And I think if you actually coded exactly what you're doing above it would be pretty complex looking as well. That can be misleading.
The simple version of my suggestion is:
First: Assault ratio > 1 then works just like assaults do now.
Second: 1 => Assault ratio => 0.1 then defender supply loss is proportional to that ratio & there is no artillery boost.
Third: Assault ratio < 0.1 then will tend to work just like bombardments do now.
It's somewhat complicated to describe, but it wouldn't be that complicated to use.
This sounds pretty good. In the 1 => 0.1 range I'd be inclined to make the artillery boost proportional as well, but even as it stands a definite improvement over the current situation. Obviously, the change should be extensively play tested first (sometimes I wonder if that happens).
I am not Charlie Hebdo
RE: Shown as C++ code:
Thanks for that, I think I might understand it now. I was under the impression that 'ant unit attacks' referred to a problem with the 'ant units', but it is more concerned with the 'attacks'. If I do understand it, working out 'Soaking off' or 'decoy' and 'feint' attacks are the problem that is being looked into here. I can't think of an instance where I've actually done what is being described, and I don't pbem so I haven't had it done to me. If this is common practice, your solution would seem mandatory.
In the beginning there was a dice roll, and a combat resolution table. And any combat with odds of 1-4 or less would result in certain death to the attacker, with no effect to the defender. Seems reasonable.
And to the designers, please stop including ant units, they don't work as desired. Elmer attacks my hex defended by two divisions with a heavy anti-tank battalion, my guys retreat, two divisions in one direction, and the anti-tank battalion splits into three in another direction, and then gets rbc'ed all over the map, effectively destroying my front line. The result of this is to keep the ants far from threats, and that is no fun for the game.
In the beginning there was a dice roll, and a combat resolution table. And any combat with odds of 1-4 or less would result in certain death to the attacker, with no effect to the defender. Seems reasonable.
And to the designers, please stop including ant units, they don't work as desired. Elmer attacks my hex defended by two divisions with a heavy anti-tank battalion, my guys retreat, two divisions in one direction, and the anti-tank battalion splits into three in another direction, and then gets rbc'ed all over the map, effectively destroying my front line. The result of this is to keep the ants far from threats, and that is no fun for the game.
RE: Ant Units
I resolve my problem with the bars not opening until noon by not getting out of bed until 2 p.m. Is that a 'kluge'?
RE: Ant Units
[:D]ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
I resolve my problem with the bars not opening until noon by not getting out of bed until 2 p.m. Is that a 'kluge'?
Not as long as your aunt doesn't mind...[;)]
-
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm
RE: Shown as C++ code:
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
...The result of this is to keep the ants far from threats, and that is no fun for the game.
Yeah. I recall an otherwise fine scenario that suffered from too many separate Geschutz batteries and such. One wound up just piling that stuff by the side of the road someplace so it wouldn't get in the way: one wanted to get nine 'real' units into the roadhead for that critical attack.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
RE: Shown as C++ code:
Here is an idea I had this morning. The upper left corner of each counter is currently unused. Have the game engine determine if a unit is an Ant. If the game engine determines that a unit is an Ant, then put a pink dot in the upper left corner of that unit (using a method similar to the way loss-intensity dots are placed on units). I chose pink because TOAW does not currently use pink as a color (another color like purple, which TOAW currently does not use either, will not show up as brightly as pink).
-
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm
RE: Shown as C++ code:
ORIGINAL: vahauser
Here is an idea I had this morning. The upper left corner of each counter is currently unused. Have the game engine determine if a unit is an Ant. If the game engine determines that a unit is an Ant, then put a pink dot in the upper left corner of that unit (using a method similar to the way loss-intensity dots are placed on units). I chose pink because TOAW does not currently use pink as a color (another color like purple, which TOAW currently does not use either, will not show up as brightly as pink).
What would be the point of that?
I am not Charlie Hebdo