Future Directions - Features

[altipueri]

The book "Death Traps" is worth reading.

Bit of an eye opener the "hose it out, weld a plate over the hole, give it to a green crew." (The author, Belton Cooper, was a combat/repair engineer).

[Major SNAFU_M]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


It's the repair and repainting I was speaking of when discussing perhaps allowing some equipment to return. Certain types of "kills" on a tank, truck, or a gun don't necessarily destroy the weapon system or harm the crew but make it inoperative and in need of repair (consider a flat tire on a truck as a relatively minor example).

Particularly in the case of penetrating rounds, the repairs are significantly more complicated than "patching and painting" and would take longer to perform.

If a round can kill a crew with the debris from the armor it shatters to penetrate the tank it can also do significant damage to those things inside the tank necessary for it to fight effectively.

The hole on the outside of the area hit is much smaller than the crater on the inside the effective penetration created. In effect a penetrating round turns the inner armor into shrapnel (determined by the weight and velocity of the penetrating projectile and the hardening of the armor), which kills the crew in close proximity and does significant damage to hydraulic lines, communications equipment, controls, sights, and turret, automotive, and gun control mechanisms / motors.

It takes time to evaluate what is necessary to return the platform to some form of operational state (ability to move and shoot as a minimum) and more beyond that to repair / replace components necessary to return it to that state.

If it's a mobility kill, where the track was cut (often the result of damage in a minefield), the time is relatively short so long as enough links of track or a road wheel on hand to repair the a mobility kill (the reason why some tanks have lengths of track and spare wheels hung on their front glacis). The crew can usually return the vehicle to operation in a few hours with immediate track repairs.

More significant damage (suspension, interior, control mechanisms, armor) require more refined skills and as a minimum the transport of technicians, parts, and equipment to the damage site, if a repair is capable of being performed in place.

More time yet is necessary for recovery (towing / restoring minimal movement by crew to drive the vehicle to the rear) and repair at a static repair point.

None of this is currently modeled directly in the game.

Though not explicitly modeled, there's a flavor from the unit effectiveness measures for a combat unit, and the recovery times necessary to restore a unit's combat effectiveness from those situations.

As far as combat replacements (manpower) being added, given the lag time between when a unit suffers a combat loss and the military bureaucracy could respond to that loss, I don't think including it in the game time scales is realistic.

I've seen a suggestion for a "campaign mode" concept to be designed into the CO system. As I recall, it would allow a player to take a unit that had serial battles inside a larger campaign to be taken from the first battle it faced to the last using the results of an earlier battle to define the strengths and weaknesses for the unit when included in a later battle. Replacements would definitely fit into that situation (in effect available at the start of the next scenario in the campaign).

But, there wouldn't be 100-percent replacement (or there'd be no sense seeing how a unit does in the "campaign") and given the time frame between scenarios, there could be a significant lag between the time a replacement is needed and one is available.

Hi Jim,

I think we are mostly in agreement and I see your points. I have only what I read to go upon, rather than actual experience. However, being both a volunteer firefighter and EMT, in addition to many other things, I also know that there is often a huge disparity between "How is should be done" and "How it is done in the heat (literally!) of the moment".

My singular comment here concerns the combat replacements. The issue is that the scenarios being played in this game are small snippets of the overall war. So there should be, just as there would have been, a constant influx of replacements and material coming into the theater. It is not that the HQs involved in the actual scenario would be initiating this process during the time-frame of the scenario. The replacements being received "today" might have been requisitioned weeks or perhaps months ago. So I would suggest that there be the ability to set a size of a replacement pool as part of the scenario design. This pool would be in existence from the very moment the clock starts because what is in the pool at that time was requisitioned before the current scenario existed.

Otherwise, what is being said is that there was no "war machine" is existence and operation prior to the start of the scenario, which, unless you are playing something like Kassarine following Operation Torch would be very unlikely to be the case.

I humbly suggest that very rarely did any commander with solid LOC to supply ever end a significant battle with only exactly the troops and equipment he entered the battle with, if the battle lasted over a day or two and there were replacements available somewhere in the localized theater. Excepting situations like the pacific island battles.

But perhaps I am totally off base, and please let me know if I am as I am always willing to learn something new.

[Major SNAFU_M]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

The book "Death Traps" is worth reading.

Bit of an eye opener the "hose it out, weld a plate over the hole, give it to a green crew." (The author, Belton Cooper, was a combat/repair engineer).

Yeah, and the reason they painted it was because the replacement crews would otherwise be a bit put off by the "remainders". I can't - well I can a bit after pulling some people out of cars, imagine what the remainders looked like.

[wodin]

Reinforcements\replacements would be cool and are needed to make CO more realistic...also yes I've read many accounts of replacements being put straight into the firing line during operations.

[Major SNAFU_M]

ORIGINAL: DanO

Another one: I'd like to be able to change the time on the LOS tools. In other words, rather than just getting LOS for the current time, I'd like to know what it will be at some time I specify. It's a bit of pain to have to make plans based on extrapolating from the current state. I very rarely care about LOS at the current time.

Of course, one might say that the LOS of tool shouldn't exist at all because it's a bit gamey, but it does, so I'd like to have it be a bit more functionally useful. It's either that or allow me to overlay a higher-resolution gradient map, rather than the broader current gradient. Then I'll figure it out like I'm supposed to.

I also agree with this. Even if you could only do it prior to starting the clock.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: Major SNAFU

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


. . .

I've seen a suggestion for a "campaign mode" concept to be designed into the CO system. As I recall, it would allow a player to take a unit that had serial battles inside a larger campaign to be taken from the first battle it faced to the last using the results of an earlier battle to define the strengths and weaknesses for the unit when included in a later battle. Replacements would definitely fit into that situation (in effect available at the start of the next scenario in the campaign).

But, there wouldn't be 100-percent replacement (or there'd be no sense seeing how a unit does in the "campaign") and given the time frame between scenarios, there could be a significant lag between the time a replacement is needed and one is available.

Hi Jim,

I think we are mostly in agreement and I see your points. I have only what I read to go upon, rather than actual experience. However, being both a volunteer firefighter and EMT, in addition to many other things, I also know that there is often a huge disparity between "How is should be done" and "How it is done in the heat (literally!) of the moment".

My singular comment here concerns the combat replacements. The issue is that the scenarios being played in this game are small snippets of the overall war. So there should be, just as there would have been, a constant influx of replacements and material coming into the theater. It is not that the HQs involved in the actual scenario would be initiating this process during the time-frame of the scenario. The replacements being received "today" might have been requisitioned weeks or perhaps months ago. So I would suggest that there be the ability to set a size of a replacement pool as part of the scenario design. This pool would be in existence from the very moment the clock starts because what is in the pool at that time was requisitioned before the current scenario existed.

Otherwise, what is being said is that there was no "war machine" is existence and operation prior to the start of the scenario, which, unless you are playing something like Kassarine following Operation Torch would be very unlikely to be the case.

I humbly suggest that very rarely did any commander with solid LOC to supply ever end a significant battle with only exactly the troops and equipment he entered the battle with, if the battle lasted over a day or two and there were replacements available somewhere in the localized theater. Excepting situations like the pacific island battles.

But perhaps I am totally off base, and please let me know if I am as I am always willing to learn something new.

I think the issue is the length of the specific scenario and mapping out the effects during that time.

I can assure you (since I used to oversee the development of necessary data and procurement of the materials to support them) there were "seasoning" times associated with inserting replacements into an organization which would make the influx of soldiers into new jobs relatively moot for the length of the scenarios modeled in BftB.

Aside from the fact that previously requisitioned and assigned replacements might arrive during a battle, they are shoring up weaknesses caused by former battles (e.g. casualties, promotions, administrative transfers, and the like).

Inserting new people, even "seasoned" veterans into another unit lead to training, experience, cohesion, and perhaps morale impacts on unit capabilities until the "newbies" overcome the learning curve to optimum individual, team, and unit effectiveness.

One way to account for a replacement flow is to globally reduce the actual casualty count by a percentage of the known replacement flow and to globally increase the training, experience, and cohesion penalty factors for the unit slightly more severely than they are addressed now.

You'd nominally replace some of the "lost" bodies, but those replacements would not function as effectively as the original occupants, thus penalizing the unit even if it starts at full strength, remains at full strength because previously requisitioned replacements arrived to replace those lost during combat or shore up a crew that started up short a member at the start of combat and returned to full strength during combat.

Another may be to initiate a discussion among those who have designed scenarios to determine if the unit strength / effectiveness measurements and commander effectiveness measures that can be built into scenario estabs take into account (or could take into account) the replacement issues you cite.

[Alchenar]

When the 'long' scenarios are 5-7 days in length and take place right on the spearheads of operations there's really no point in having a manpower replacement function. I simply don't believe that replacement actually happened in any meaningful way on either side during any of the scenarios that the game currently covers.

If the game is expanded on the Eastern front to have maps 5x the size and 30 day scenarios then maybe that consideration changes.


PS. The sensible way to implement replacements would be to simply have them arrive as a kind of supply and allow units to request reinforcement as part of their resupply.

[Major SNAFU_M]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

When the 'long' scenarios are 5-7 days in length and take place right on the spearheads of operations there's really no point in having a manpower replacement function. I simply don't believe that replacement actually happened in any meaningful way on either side during any of the scenarios that the game currently covers.

If the game is expanded on the Eastern front to have maps 5x the size and 30 day scenarios then maybe that consideration changes.


PS. The sensible way to implement replacements would be to simply have them arrive as a kind of supply and allow units to request reinforcement as part of their resupply.

I was debating about responding to this as I don't want be guilty of ingemination on this topic, but I feel I must share the following:

(BTW the spell checker on this forum is ignorant of the word "ingemination".)


From "Death Traps" by Belton Y. Cooper. I know that this applies to a US armored division, but this game features same and since this is a "future" thread, I feel the game should eventually reflect the particular abilities of each nations logistical abilities. Moreover, to better simulate reality, the game should reflect, as best as is possible, what the actual operational procedures were and not the procedures and doctrines "by the book".

First a short bit on Mr. Cooper's background:

Trained as an Ordnance officer, the additional training at the Armored Force School at Ft. Knox.

Served as a maintenance liaison officer with the 3rd Armored division.

..."In a reinforced heavy armored division, like the 3rd armored division, out of some 17,000 troops we had ordnance maintenance battalion of over 1,000 men... if you count the maintenance soldiers in the maintenance companies of two armored regiments and the armored infantry plus the maintenance of the 3 armored artillery regiment, tank destroyer battalion, anitaircraft battalion ... an additional 1,000 maintenance soldiers. The (3rd Div) had some 4,2000 vehicles... ... out of 17,000 men approximately 10,400 were involved directly or indirectly in maintenance."

"AS the spearhead of the First Army in all of these major operations the 3rd Armored Division destroyed more Germans tanks... .. CCB destroyed more German tanks than any other unit within the division... ... As the maintenance ordnance officer for CCB of the 3rd Armored Division, I believe I have seen more battle damaged American tanks that any other living American."

"Although the vehicles being replaced were actually those that had been destroyed two days before, the fact that we brought fresh vehicles every twenty-five hours enabled Combat Command to maintain a reasonable degree of its combat strength."

"With ever-increasing vehicle casualties, it became obvious that we had to forget the regulations and adopt a radically new procedure. ..."It became immediately obvious to the maintenance people in the field that it would be a disaster to follow the directive not to cannibalize certain tanks. They would have to do so in order to repair others and get them into operation quickly. The maintenance personnel decided to scrap the regulations and get on with the job of repairing the most vehicles in the least possible time and returning the to combat."

..."This was as it should have been, and it worked to the advantage of the entire division."


"Major A.C. Arrington was shocked when he saw the first combat loss report. ..."Cooper, you tell Captain Roquemore to forget the regulations and to cannibalize every vehicle he can to get those in the VCP (Vehicle Collection Point) running. He was glad to hear that the captain was already doing this on his own initiative."

There are examples in the book where a penetrating hole would be patched by taking the spent round, found in the tank, cutting off a piece of the round and welding it into the hole and then grinding it smooth and painting it.

Two further points:

1) We must bear in mind that in the scenarios in the game we are stepping into a continuum of action. The clock of the war does not coincide with the clock of the scenario.
2) I realize that not all Armies of all Nations had the wealth of material that the U.S. Army did, but when we are playing scenarios where we command U.S. Army units, this largess should be accounted for in terms of supplies, reinforcements, etc.



Just food for future thought.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: Major SNAFU

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

When the 'long' scenarios are 5-7 days in length and take place right on the spearheads of operations there's really no point in having a manpower replacement function. I simply don't believe that replacement actually happened in any meaningful way on either side during any of the scenarios that the game currently covers.

If the game is expanded on the Eastern front to have maps 5x the size and 30 day scenarios then maybe that consideration changes.


PS. The sensible way to implement replacements would be to simply have them arrive as a kind of supply and allow units to request reinforcement as part of their resupply.

I was debating about responding to this as I don't want be guilty of ingemination on this topic, but I feel I must share the following:

(BTW the spell checker on this forum is ignorant of the word "ingemination".)


From "Death Traps" by Belton Y. Cooper. I know that this applies to a US armored division, but this game features same and since this is a "future" thread, I feel the game should eventually reflect the particular abilities of each nations logistical abilities. Moreover, to better simulate reality, the game should reflect, as best as is possible, what the actual operational procedures were and not the procedures and doctrines "by the book".

First a short bit on Mr. Cooper's background:

Trained as an Ordnance officer, the additional training at the Armored Force School at Ft. Knox.

Served as a maintenance liaison officer with the 3rd Armored division.

..."In a reinforced heavy armored division, like the 3rd armored division, out of some 17,000 troops we had ordnance maintenance battalion of over 1,000 men... if you count the maintenance soldiers in the maintenance companies of two armored regiments and the armored infantry plus the maintenance of the 3 armored artillery regiment, tank destroyer battalion, anitaircraft battalion ... an additional 1,000 maintenance soldiers. The (3rd Div) had some 4,2000 vehicles... ... out of 17,000 men approximately 10,400 were involved directly or indirectly in maintenance."

"AS the spearhead of the First Army in all of these major operations the 3rd Armored Division destroyed more Germans tanks... .. CCB destroyed more German tanks than any other unit within the division... ... As the maintenance ordnance officer for CCB of the 3rd Armored Division, I believe I have seen more battle damaged American tanks that any other living American."

"Although the vehicles being replaced were actually those that had been destroyed two days before, the fact that we brought fresh vehicles every twenty-five hours enabled Combat Command to maintain a reasonable degree of its combat strength."

"With ever-increasing vehicle casualties, it became obvious that we had to forget the regulations and adopt a radically new procedure. ..."It became immediately obvious to the maintenance people in the field that it would be a disaster to follow the directive not to cannibalize certain tanks. They would have to do so in order to repair others and get them into operation quickly. The maintenance personnel decided to scrap the regulations and get on with the job of repairing the most vehicles in the least possible time and returning the to combat."

..."This was as it should have been, and it worked to the advantage of the entire division."


"Major A.C. Arrington was shocked when he saw the first combat loss report. ..."Cooper, you tell Captain Roquemore to forget the regulations and to cannibalize every vehicle he can to get those in the VCP (Vehicle Collection Point) running. He was glad to hear that the captain was already doing this on his own initiative."

There are examples in the book where a penetrating hole would be patched by taking the spent round, found in the tank, cutting off a piece of the round and welding it into the hole and then grinding it smooth and painting it.

Two further points:

1) We must bear in mind that in the scenarios in the game we are stepping into a continuum of action. The clock of the war does not coincide with the clock of the scenario.
2) I realize that not all Armies of all Nations had the wealth of material that the U.S. Army did, but when we are playing scenarios where we command U.S. Army units, this largess should be accounted for in terms of supplies, reinforcements, etc.



Just food for future thought.

The logistics "tooth to tail" quotient for the US during World War II was roughly 1:10.

For every military troop facing combat, there were 10 in support from North America through the guy firing rounds at the combat front.

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Hi all,

Here is where you can discuss what engine features ( user interface, AI, networking etc ) we should focus on.

Please keep any discussion on price to the designated threads.

We are very much looking forward to your feedback on engine features.


I'll be back to kick start this in a while.

Hi Arjuna,

I just resurrected this thread so that you could "take it with you" during the move. There are scads of good ideas here,

Rob.

[Arjuna]

Indeed. Thanks.[:)]

[loyalcitizen]

In that case, I will add my request to the list:

Fix the "RUN-TO" feature so it stops on Reinforcements and Airstrikes.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen

In that case, I will add my request to the list:

Fix the "RUN-TO" feature so it stops on Reinforcements and Airstrikes.

Shouldn't be universal.

Should be a user-selected option.