Okay, as I've said before I would really like to see some modifications made to this game to really take it to the next level. These include:
1. artillery barrage capability (details explored elsewhere)
2. disrupted units cannot spot other than adjacent units
3. engineers should not be allowed to deploy smoke (details elsewhere)
4. alter the stacking rules for wrecks - here's why: let's say there are 9 wrecks in a hex. If you have 12 tanks in that hex and artillery fires into the hex the current system will generate a tremendous number of disables. I think this is erroneous as the falling shells don't just pick the regular tanks to fall on or near. In this case, instead of the disables falling only on the "good" tanks, the game should take a percentage likelihood and apply that instead. So, in the case described, lets say 4 disables result from a particular artillery attack, instead of all 4 coming from the "good" tanks, we take the total tanks in the target area (21) and multiply that by the ratio of good tanks (12/21) rounding up or down as appropriate. This results in 2 disables to the "good" tanks in the hex.
I think these are pretty workable changes under the existing game engine. The other mod I'd love to see would be far more complicated: actual supply and ammunition monitoring for each unit.
LR
I believe the most desirable indeed, necessary addition to the game is the facility for a designer to schedule day/night...night/day transitions as needed. Particularly important for large historical scens.
True, that would be nice to have, but I think it can be simulated in most large scenarios by assuming that most forces on both sides halt and remain in place during the hours of darkness and then resume the fight at first light. Obviously, would it be nice to have day night cycles, yes. But that also raises the question of scale (time per turn) and ammunition/supply. It should be recalled that most actions (particularly in Russia) came to halt or pause because one or both sides ran out of ammunition. Night resupply was an artform, and of course during the day as well. Heck, at Prokhorovka, the German's were already calling for resupply before the morning was half-way gone.
Anyway, I think with this system we might be pushing it too far when the variables could be so large. On the question of scale, I've also found that 10 to 15 turns should generally equal a day in most large scenarios as penetration rates, historical mobility, etc..., are generally far out paced by the putative scale and speeds used in the game.
Just my thoughts,
LR
I would not wish to reopen the scale issue, which caused so much grief a while back. That said, I believe your day length would work well. You do imply, as I read it, that, historically, little night combat took place during WWII. I cannot comment on the Eastern Front, but a good deal of night action took place elsewhere. It may well be true that tank action was very limited, but that is not so with infantry activity.
I think Larry's idea of day to night cycles would bring about a slight remedy to the scale issues of larger scenarios with hundreds of turns. Resupply is one of the biggest issues.
Fatigue also needs to be considered. It might be a programming nightmare to have some units fatigued while others are not, simply because some are fresh, or not involved in combat, while others are continuously in combat.
I would have no problems "of scale" in a scenario using three Corps of troops per side, on a 400 by 400 map, if the designer had a 25 turn limit, and set victory levels accordingly. My "problem" arises when the scenario designer uses 300 turns because so many units are on such a large map. ;)
I believe the 15 to 20 turns as a "day's fighting" makes some sense. Maybe even stretching to 25 turns on longer maps where reinforcements enter later than the first five turns?
It's all a matter of the intent of the original game designer/developers, using the limitations of the game system, to create "realistic" scenarios? :chin:
Placing in a system for extended combat would make the game more flexible. But, is it worth the programming effort?
HSL
(06-02-2010, 07:13 PM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: [ -> ]Placing in a system for extended combat would make the game more flexible. But, is it worth the programming effort?
HSL
... especially given other priority issues that need to be addressed / resolved with the CS game engine? Hopefully in the next update? :chin:
It seems we have a version of this going on with variable visibility, albeit a random change that is not realistic for dusk/dawn transitions with LOS.
That would be a great thing to have available when designing scenarios.
Larry, I'm for anything that cuts down the incredible number of disables the new tables generate.
Regards,
Dan
"I'm for anything that cuts down the incredible number of disables the new tables generate."
Hahahahahaha.........some of us like the disables. Watch your stacking guys......
Rob
Going to respond soon guys, just been really busy.
LR
Greetings all,
First, on the disables, I'm fine with the new system, in fact, I love it. (Standard US infantry practice when faced by German armor was to call in artillery.) Quite apart from direct hits, throwing tracks, concussion both of crew and delicate optics, made artillery deadly for armor too, just not as deadly as direct fire. My beef was with all disables being taken against only "good" armor, ignoring X number of wrecks in a hex which are creating an overstack.
On night combat, I've done a very lengthy study of this subject and I use the term "most" quite deliberately. There was a great deal of action on most fronts after dark, but this action was small scale, raiding, prisoner sorties, probing, etc..., in most cases, quite apart from the massive, large scale engagements general undertaken in daylight. There were of course exceptions when major battles, breakthroughs, and pursuits took place at night, but these were by far the exception and not the rule. In this game, I think as a "sleight of hand" to account for more than one day of fighting it is fine to think of every 15 to 20 turns there being "night", with the forces largely static and resting, performing maintenance, resupplying, victualing, etc..., with little fighting that would measurably effect the front lines (of course, if the scenario includes large scale night fighting, the designer might better chose having the scenario itself BE at night?). Anyway, just my thoughts.
The Russians on the small scale used the T-34 and other tanks early on at night, in combination with infantry, to terrorize German units. I was particularly taken by descriptions of German corps and army commanders identifying certain German infantry divisions as reliable during the day, but worthless at night because of "tank terror" and other factors. I can recommend some really good staff studies on night action in WWII as a whole as well.
Best regards all,
LR