Matrix Games Forums

Transportation Combat Losses

Have you ever noticed that transportation assets do not take casualties when the units they’re transporting are attacked? A force can have X amount of rail capacity, but after embarked units take casualties rail capacity is unscathed and remains at X amount. It doesn’t matter how many troop trains are annihilated total available capacity never takes a hit. Seems reasonable to me that the capacity should be reduced by a value equal to the volume of the equipment/unit(s) lost. Air, ground and naval transport could be listed and edited in the Inventory & Replacement and Replacement Priorities screens along with the Force units. Recovery from transportation losses would then be recoverable up to the maximum value specified in the governing events.

Of course, events can be used to trigger change in transportation capacity, but those changes are heavy handed and seem to work best on a strategic level. I would like to see available transportation tied directly to combat losses. Thoughts?

Regards, RhinoBones

Rather than adding more bells and whistles to these gross abstractions, I would rather give physical transport assets (ships, aircraft, vehicles, and rail) the ability to lift combat units. Then you'd have a transport UNIT that would take losses / receive replacements, etc.

Curtis Lemay wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 3:16 pm Rather than adding more bells and whistles to these gross abstractions, I would rather give physical transport assets (ships, aircraft, vehicles, and rail) the ability to lift combat units. Then you'd have a transport UNIT that would take losses / receive replacements, etc.

I could go for that. Any chance that this is on your plate?

Regards

We need transport ships, aircraft, vehicles, and cho-cho's?? *no-no*

Maybe lock-out the Embarked Value unless Disembarked in the original hex prior to action.

What about a Units' Supply affecting how far it can move by Rail, Sea and Air. Can this make any sense?

Norm abstracted transport, air and naval because this was a game about operational ground combat. Now naval air hierarchy is consuming massive amounts of precious coding time while the main focus of the game is ignored. And the naval portion of the new workup isn't even being done yet. If 'stuff' is continually added we will all be dead and gone and nothing will have been accomplished. Personally I'd rather shit can all the naval and keep the game the way Norm made it, a ground based focus with everything else abstract. Not that anyone cares.

Welcome to the Development Board, folks!

Lobster wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 1:11 pm Norm abstracted transport, air and naval because this was a game about operational ground combat.

The notion that Normand designed TOAW specifically to model the operational level of warfare has been posted numerous times. Do you, or anyone else, have communication from Normand where he states his design intention? As long as I’ve been involved with TOAW the map, time and unit scales have included, or should I say allowed for, tactical and strategic aspects. If Normand had intended to only model the intermediary operational scale there would seem to be little reason for him to expend the calories needed to model the extremes.

Would appreciate seeing some public postings from Normand to support the position that TOAW is designed specifically for operational warfare.

Regards, RhinoBones

rhinobones wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 11:28 pm
The notion that Normand designed TOAW specifically to model the operational level of warfare has been posted numerous times. Do you, or anyone else, have communication from Normand where he states his design intention?

1. TOAW stands for "The Operational Art of War"
2. Norm's definition of Operational warfare is given in the manual (it was originally printed in the Volume I manual). It reads as follows:

If your primary focus is the battlefield, it isn’t strategy. If you can’t smell the smoke, you aren’t really dealing with tactics. Think of the operational level as a view of the battlefield on a scale just exceeding that at which differing ranges of various direct fire weapons are significant.

You're free to use your key as a screwdriver. Don't pretend that it was designed for it.

golden delicious wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 12:30 pm

rhinobones wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 11:28 pm
The notion that Normand designed TOAW specifically to model the operational level of warfare has been posted numerous times. Do you, or anyone else, have communication from Normand where he states his design intention?

1. TOAW stands for "The Operational Art of War"
2. Norm's definition of Operational warfare is given in the manual (it was originally printed in the Volume I manual). It reads as follows:

If your primary focus is the battlefield, it isn’t strategy. If you can’t smell the smoke, you aren’t really dealing with tactics. Think of the operational level as a view of the battlefield on a scale just exceeding that at which differing ranges of various direct fire weapons are significant.

You're free to use your key as a screwdriver. Don't pretend that it was designed for it.

And if they meant for that 88mm AA gun to be used to kill tanks, they would have called it an anti-tank gun!

golden delicious wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 12:30 pm If your primary focus is the battlefield, it isn’t strategy. If you can’t smell the smoke, you aren’t really dealing with tactics. Think of the operational level as a view of the battlefield on a scale just exceeding that at which differing ranges of various direct fire weapons are significant.

You're free to use your key as a screwdriver. Don't pretend that it was designed for it.

Thank you for providing Norman’s personal definition of operational warfare and the clever screwdriver analogy. However, you missed the point and failed to answer the question.

The assertion is that Norman designed TOAW as an operational game exclusive of tactical and strategic levels. My question is looking for a public statement or correspondence from Norman supporting the assertion. A definition poised by Normand does not answer the question regarding game scope and does not connect the dots between assertion and intent. So far all I’ve seen are people attempting to speak for Norman without his endorsement.

If Norman had not used the word “operational” in the title, I wonder whether this conversation would occur.

Regards, RhinoBones

Curtis Lemay wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 2:49 pm And if they meant for that 88mm AA gun to be used to kill tanks, they would have called it an anti-tank gun!

You're being absurd.

1) Yes, Norm explicitly stated that TOAW was designed to cover Operational Warfare. That was Rhinobones' question
2) Your analogy is apt. The 88mm Flak gun as designed had a very high profile and absolutely no protection for the crew, both of which are really serious problems for an anti-tank gun, no matter how good its targeting and penetration characteristics. In point of fact the Germans recognised these problems. Rather than making all kinds of adaptations to the production of their existing anti-aircraft weapons, they designed a new anti-tank gun for that specific role, and kept the Flak gun optimised for shooting at aircraft, since that is what it was designed for

rhinobones wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 3:12 pm
Thank you for providing Norman’s personal definition of operational warfare and the clever screwdriver analogy. However, you missed the point and failed to answer the question.

The assertion is that Norman designed TOAW as an operational game exclusive of tactical and strategic levels.

I think the quote I already provided makes that absolutely clear, but let's go on to the next paragraph:

The Operational Art of War is flexible enough to represent units ranging in size and organiza­tional complexity from a few vehicles to an entire corps. Map and time scales are flexible, with maps ranging from 2.5km to 50km per map location (arranged in an invisible hexagonal grid) and Game Turns ranging from six hours to a full week. Air, land, and sea action are modeled, but the emphasis is on land campaigns so air and naval forces are not treated quite as concretely as land forces

There you really have the whole design intent hammered out.

If Norman had not used the word “operational” in the title, I wonder whether this conversation would occur.

Given that he did, I'm astonished that it has.

golden delicious wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 3:19 pm

Curtis Lemay wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 2:49 pm And if they meant for that 88mm AA gun to be used to kill tanks, they would have called it an anti-tank gun!

You're being absurd.

How am I being absurd? It was actually used to kill tanks to such an extent that it's status as a tank killer is legendary. The British, in contrast, never used their AA guns in an AT role, for just the boneheaded rationale I stated.

Regardless, what ole Norm intended TOAW to be used for in 1998 is no impediment to us in 2022. Software, unlike your house key, is extremely mod-able.

golden delicious wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 3:21 pm
I think the quote I already provided makes that absolutely clear, but let's go on to the next paragraph:

The Operational Art of War is flexible enough to represent units ranging in size and organiza­tional complexity from a few vehicles to an entire corps. Map and time scales are flexible, with maps ranging from 2.5km to 50km per map location (arranged in an invisible hexagonal grid) and Game Turns ranging from six hours to a full week. Air, land, and sea action are modeled, but the emphasis is on land campaigns so air and naval forces are not treated quite as concretely as land forces

There you really have the whole design intent hammered out.

Our understanding of Normans words is considerably different. As I read the quote I see that he explicitly stated that the range of unit size, map scale and time are inclusive of multiple (tactical, operational and strategic) scales. That is what I see as “hammered” out. I see nothing in the quote that precludes tactical and strategic from the design concept.

The Wikipedia definition of Operational Warfare is:
In the field of military theory, the operational level of war (also called operational art, as derived from Russian: оперативное искусство, or operational warfare) represents the level of command that connects the details of tactics with the goals of strategy.

This definition is far different than Norman’s and actually provides a reason why the term operational is used. I like Norman’s definition, but it is definitely intended to add color rather than a definitive description.

Think we can agree that TOAW works best at the operational level. However, there are plenty of excellent tactical and strategic scenarios. In fact, you seem to enjoy Fall Grau which is a scenario I would place in the strategic/campaign pile. That can be argued, but the point is that TOAW has something for everyone and should not be thought of as an “operational” only game engine.

Regards, RhinoBones

rhinobones wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 4:29 pm Our understanding of Normans words is considerably different. As I read the quote I see that he explicitly stated that the range of unit size, map scale and time are inclusive of multiple (tactical, operational and strategic) scales.

Why the devil call the game "Operational" and then proceed to give a detailed definition of the word in the manual? He doesn't trouble to explain what Tactics or Strategy are- since they're not in the intended scope of the game.

The Wikipedia definition of Operational Warfare is:
In the field of military theory, the operational level of war (also called operational art, as derived from Russian: оперативное искусство, or operational warfare) represents the level of command that connects the details of tactics with the goals of strategy.

From the manual:
The title “Operational Art of War” is based on a Soviet era military term meaning, essentially, “the theory and practice of army level combat”. There isn’t really a hard definition of “operational level” scale. The term is generally used to describe anything in the gray area between strategy (overall conduct of a war, including non-combat factors such as industrial production) and tactics (the details of the actions of small units).

They're not identical- but they're pretty similar.

Think we can agree that TOAW works best at the operational level. However, there are plenty of excellent tactical and strategic scenarios. In fact, you seem to enjoy Fall Grau which is a scenario I would place in the strategic/campaign pile. That can be argued, but the point is that TOAW has something for everyone and should not be thought of as an “operational” only game engine.

You only asked me what Norm said. Yes, one can make scenarios at other scales. Your mileage may vary.

Curtis Lemay wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 4:06 pm
How am I being absurd? It was actually used to kill tanks to such an extent that it's status as a tank killer is legendary.

Even towards the end of the war, the Germans produced more 88mm Flak guns than 88mm AT guns, because its primary role was as an anti-aircraft gun, it spent the majority of its time in that role and it was optimised for that role.

I'd say the 88 is legendary as a tank killer because anti-aircraft guns aren't sexy and no-one is going to write an epic account of a heavy AA gun crew firing away at a mass formation of aircraft when they cannot even tell if they're hitting anything.

The British, in contrast, never used their AA guns in an AT role, for just the boneheaded rationale I stated.

Since we're quoting Wikipedia today:
Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns

However 1) the 3.7" AA gun was more specialised for anti-air work and so was less suited to the role, and 2) until mid-1943 the Germans were generally fielding lighter armoured tanks than the Allies, making this sort of ersatz arrangement less relevant. By then the British had- you guessed it- a purpose built heavy anti-tank gun in the form of the 17-pounder.

Regardless, what ole Norm intended TOAW to be used for in 1998 is no impediment to us in 2022. Software, unlike your house key, is extremely mod-able.

I scope modifications to standard software for a living. The further you try to deviate from the core purpose, the more difficult it will be and the more unsatisfactory the results.

golden delicious wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:56 pm
Even towards the end of the war, the Germans produced more 88mm Flak guns than 88mm AT guns, because its primary role was as an anti-aircraft gun, it spent the majority of its time in that role and it was optimised for that role.

Of course because the Germans were under enormous enemy air pressure. They needed both functions. Doesn't change the fact that for years it was also used in an AT role to legendary effectiveness.

I'd say the 88 is legendary as a tank killer because anti-aircraft guns aren't sexy and no-one is going to write an epic account of a heavy AA gun crew firing away at a mass formation of aircraft when they cannot even tell if they're hitting anything.

The legend didn't come from its Axis gun crews. It came from the Allied tank crews - who were terrified of it.

Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack.

Far in the rear. Not at all how the 88s were used. No legend for the 3.7, I'm afraid.

However 1) the 3.7" AA gun was more specialised for anti-air work and so was less suited to the role, and 2) until mid-1943 the Germans were generally fielding lighter armoured tanks than the Allies, making this sort of ersatz arrangement less relevant. By then the British had- you guessed it- a purpose built heavy anti-tank gun in the form of the 17-pounder.

They didn't even get the 6-pounder till Monty. Tanks ruled the battlefield 39-41.

I scope modifications to standard software for a living. The further you try to deviate from the core purpose, the more difficult it will be and the more unsatisfactory the results.

Presumably it's possible to do just about anything starting from scratch (or must every game made from now till the end of eternity have to be constrained by ole Norm's intentions?). If you can do it from scratch, you can mod it as well.

golden delicious wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:49 pm Why the devil call the game "Operational" and then proceed to give a detailed definition of the word in the manual?

First of all I would hardly describe the quoted phrase as a detailed definition. Secondly, this just shows how the thought process is being focused on a single word rather than the entire statement. Also, why call this definition definitive when Norman himself declares that the term "operational level" is elusive.

From the manual:
There isn’t really a hard definition of “operational level” scale. The term is generally used to describe anything in the gray area between . . .

I think he is correct when using the term "gray area" and I find it pointless to say Gray Area = Operational.

Regards, RhinoBones

Keeping with the OP the more that keeps getting added on the to do list the less likely it will be done as in finished.