COTA: Motorized infantry and rugged terrain
Luca Morandini
battalion attacking a mountain pass (despite ample artillery support
they moved sooo slowly they didn't even reach the enemy position).
This sobering experience left me mumbling for a while: I (unconsciously)
expected mot. infantry to dismount and mount and attack by foot, but the
COTA engine may prevent the doing so, hence mot. infantry is *way
slower* then foot infantry to attack or move trough rugged terrain, is
that so ?
Regards,
--------------------
Luca Morandini
www.lucamorandini.it
--------------------
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Playing the "Foothills of the gods" scenario, I wasted a fine Schuetzen
> battalion attacking a mountain pass (despite ample artillery support
> they moved sooo slowly they didn't even reach the enemy position).
>
> This sobering experience left me mumbling for a while: I (unconsciously)
> expected mot. infantry to dismount and mount and attack by foot, but the
> COTA engine may prevent the doing so, hence mot. infantry is *way
> slower* then foot infantry to attack or move trough rugged terrain, is
> that so ?
Yes.
There's no mount/dismount of motorized infantry. I'll let Arjuna
comment on the why and how as this was seriously looked at and
discussed in the beta forum.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Luca Morandini
> There's no mount/dismount of motorized infantry. I'll let Arjuna
> comment on the why and how as this was seriously looked at and
> discussed in the beta forum.
I think a revision of said scenario is in order: the inclusion of a foot
inf. bat. in the "North" force would make it way more realistic.
Giftzwerg
f91530...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > Playing the "Foothills of the gods" scenario, I wasted a fine Schuetzen
> > battalion attacking a mountain pass (despite ample artillery support
> > they moved sooo slowly they didn't even reach the enemy position).
> >
> > This sobering experience left me mumbling for a while: I (unconsciously)
> > expected mot. infantry to dismount and mount and attack by foot, but the
> > COTA engine may prevent the doing so, hence mot. infantry is *way
> > slower* then foot infantry to attack or move trough rugged terrain, is
> > that so ?
>
> Yes.
>
> There's no mount/dismount of motorized infantry. I'll let Arjuna
> comment on the why and how as this was seriously looked at and
> discussed in the beta forum.
I'll bet the discussion broke down around, "it's waaaaaay too much work
to implement this just so players can fail at something they shouldn't
be doing anyhow."
Hard to make this work. The problem is that the trucks / halftracks
need to be *somewhere*, and thus the only way to model dismounting is to
break a dismounted unit into transport counters and infantry counters
and be able to implement separate orders for each. Then we're faced
with the gamey nightmare of "halftrack companies" milling about the map,
triggering TacAI responses, able to occupy objectives, serving as handy
chairs to be twitched it the path of pursuing enemies.
Or we just "ignore" the halftracks and assume they're still with the
infantry unit ... but that raises the question of how to "reappear" the
halftracks once the infantry has climbed over the summit of K2 and down
the other side. Do the halftracks suddenly and magically rejoin them?
Bad, gamey bullshit involved in this. Another example of how good
design choices can simultaneously channel players into realistic
patterns of thought (motorized infantry isn't the right choice for
mountain warfare) even as it avoids a nasty snakepit of gaming /
programming woes.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"The deeper reality of this campaign is that Obama has shown, by his
incredible skill in the way he is waging it, an ability to handle
himself and a talent for the demands of center stage that show,
experienced or not, he is better able to be president than the inept
Hillary."
- Dick Morris
Frank E
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'll bet the discussion broke down around, "it's waaaaaay too much work
>to implement this just so players can fail at something they shouldn't
>be doing anyhow."
>
>Hard to make this work. The problem is that the trucks / halftracks
>need to be *somewhere*, and thus the only way to model dismounting is to
>break a dismounted unit into transport counters and infantry counters
>and be able to implement separate orders for each. Then we're faced
>with the gamey nightmare of "halftrack companies" milling about the map,
>triggering TacAI responses, able to occupy objectives, serving as handy
>chairs to be twitched it the path of pursuing enemies.
Other games have managed to implement transport pools without breaking
the system.
>Or we just "ignore" the halftracks and assume they're still with the
>infantry unit ... but that raises the question of how to "reappear" the
>halftracks once the infantry has climbed over the summit of K2 and down
>the other side. Do the halftracks suddenly and magically rejoin them?
>
>Bad, gamey bullshit involved in this. Another example of how good
>design choices can simultaneously channel players into realistic
>patterns of thought (motorized infantry isn't the right choice for
>mountain warfare) even as it avoids a nasty snakepit of gaming /
>programming woes.
I could argue that (almost?) every US infantry unit that fought in
Europe during WW2 was motorized, even the airborne when they weren't
jumping out of planes; specifically in getting to places like Bastogne
during the Bulge. If CotA can't handle that, one has to wonder about
their next game where that kind of maneuverability should be playing
an important part.
Rgds, Frank
Luca Morandini
> In article <bfea182f-7d59-4b39-91ac-
> f91530...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
>> comment on the why and how as this was seriously looked at and
>> discussed in the beta forum.
>
> I'll bet the discussion broke down around, "it's waaaaaay too much work
> to implement this just so players can fail at something they shouldn't
> be doing anyhow."
>
> Hard to make this work. The problem is that the trucks / halftracks
> need to be *somewhere*, and thus the only way to model dismounting is to
> break a dismounted unit into transport counters and infantry counters
> and be able to implement separate orders for each. Then we're faced
> with the gamey nightmare of "halftrack companies" milling about the map,
> triggering TacAI responses, able to occupy objectives, serving as handy
> chairs to be twitched it the path of pursuing enemies.
This is what happened in reality: never heard of the bronegruppa ? Of
course, this would lead, for the sake of consistency, to the modeling of
supply columns as counters and... well, it opens a lot of other issues too.
> Or we just "ignore" the halftracks and assume they're still with the
> infantry unit ... but that raises the question of how to "reappear" the
> halftracks once the infantry has climbed over the summit of K2 and down
> the other side. Do the halftracks suddenly and magically rejoin them?
This alternative is way less attractive.
> Bad, gamey bullshit involved in this. Another example of how good
> design choices can simultaneously channel players into realistic
> patterns of thought (motorized infantry isn't the right choice for
> mountain warfare) even as it avoids a nasty snakepit of gaming /
> programming woes.
I'd dare say that you should then be careful enough to avoid creating
scenarios in which the player as no alternative but using Mot. Inf. to
attack mountain passes.
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >I'll bet the discussion broke down around, "it's waaaaaay too much work
> >to implement this just so players can fail at something they shouldn't
> >be doing anyhow."
> >
> >Hard to make this work. The problem is that the trucks / halftracks
> >need to be *somewhere*, and thus the only way to model dismounting is to
> >break a dismounted unit into transport counters and infantry counters
> >and be able to implement separate orders for each. Then we're faced
> >with the gamey nightmare of "halftrack companies" milling about the map,
> >triggering TacAI responses, able to occupy objectives, serving as handy
> >chairs to be twitched it the path of pursuing enemies.
>
> Other games have managed to implement transport pools without breaking
> the system.
Which ones?
Giftzwerg
says...
> > Hard to make this work. The problem is that the trucks / halftracks
> > need to be *somewhere*, and thus the only way to model dismounting is to
> > break a dismounted unit into transport counters and infantry counters
> > and be able to implement separate orders for each. Then we're faced
> > with the gamey nightmare of "halftrack companies" milling about the map,
> > triggering TacAI responses, able to occupy objectives, serving as handy
> > chairs to be twitched it the path of pursuing enemies.
>
> This is what happened in reality: never heard of the bronegruppa ? Of
> course, this would lead, for the sake of consistency, to the modeling of
> supply columns as counters and... well, it opens a lot of other issues too.
Especially the obvious ones; players building "truck recon companies" to
serve as handy (and speedy!) spotters, objective-grabbers, and suicide
intelligence gatherers.
> > Or we just "ignore" the halftracks and assume they're still with the
> > infantry unit ... but that raises the question of how to "reappear" the
> > halftracks once the infantry has climbed over the summit of K2 and down
> > the other side. Do the halftracks suddenly and magically rejoin them?
>
> This alternative is way less attractive.
...until gamey-minded players start to *use* such abstractions in some
interesting ways. Then you have the insane situation where
"dismounted" infantry units are essentially allowed to *carry their
trucks* across mountain ranges.
> > Bad, gamey bullshit involved in this. Another example of how good
> > design choices can simultaneously channel players into realistic
> > patterns of thought (motorized infantry isn't the right choice for
> > mountain warfare) even as it avoids a nasty snakepit of gaming /
> > programming woes.
>
> I'd dare say that you should then be careful enough to avoid creating
> scenarios in which the player as no alternative but using Mot. Inf. to
> attack mountain passes.
Are you arguing that the German player in the "Foothills of the Gods"
scenario has *no* regular ol' infantry? Don't you have a whole infantry
division in that one?
Luca Morandini
>> scenarios in which the player as no alternative but using Mot. Inf. to
>> attack mountain passes.
>
> Are you arguing that the German player in the "Foothills of the Gods"
> scenario has *no* regular ol' infantry? Don't you have a whole infantry
> division in that one?
Yep, but on the wrong side of the map :(
The "North force" (which is where I need to take the Portas pass) is
only mot. and arm.
Giftzwerg
says...
> > Are you arguing that the German player in the "Foothills of the Gods"
> > scenario has *no* regular ol' infantry? Don't you have a whole infantry
> > division in that one?
>
> Yep, but on the wrong side of the map :(
>
> The "North force" (which is where I need to take the Portas pass) is
> only mot. and arm.
Yeah, but isn't there a highway running right down the center of this
pass?
<shrug>
I've never had any troubles with this scenario. I just drove right down
the highway. Slow going, lots of casualties, but that's to be expected
when you're trying to force a narrow corridor.
Luca Morandini
>> only mot. and arm.
>
> Yeah, but isn't there a highway running right down the center of this
> pass?
>
> <shrug>
>
> I've never had any troubles with this scenario. I just drove right down
> the highway. Slow going, lots of casualties, but that's to be expected
> when you're trying to force a narrow corridor.
Hmm... you have to micromanage every company to achieve that, but if
you order a bat to take the pass it will branch out, hence going on the
rough terrain, hence slowing to a crawl.
Anyway, I'd rather have a better alternative to sending truckloads of
soldiers (mind, these are Schuetzen, not Panzergrenadiere) in a defile
without securing the high ground first.
Frank E
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <pqfGR6Ps5Iekuk...@4ax.com>,
>fakea...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> >I'll bet the discussion broke down around, "it's waaaaaay too much work
>> >to implement this just so players can fail at something they shouldn't
>> >be doing anyhow."
>> >
>> >Hard to make this work. The problem is that the trucks / halftracks
>> >need to be *somewhere*, and thus the only way to model dismounting is to
>> >break a dismounted unit into transport counters and infantry counters
>> >and be able to implement separate orders for each. Then we're faced
>> >with the gamey nightmare of "halftrack companies" milling about the map,
>> >triggering TacAI responses, able to occupy objectives, serving as handy
>> >chairs to be twitched it the path of pursuing enemies.
>>
>> Other games have managed to implement transport pools without breaking
>> the system.
>
>Which ones?
Since we're talking about the bulge, ToA comes to mind. Games like
HoI, WitP (and TOAW?) are on a bigger scale but they also have
implementations of global transport pools. I don't see any reason why
you couldn't make that work for the panther games.
Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
says...
> > Yeah, but isn't there a highway running right down the center of this
> > pass?
> >
> > <shrug>
> >
> > I've never had any troubles with this scenario. I just drove right down
> > the highway. Slow going, lots of casualties, but that's to be expected
> > when you're trying to force a narrow corridor.
>
> Hmm... you have to micromanage every company to achieve that, but if
> you order a bat to take the pass it will branch out, hence going on the
> rough terrain, hence slowing to a crawl.
I *never* micromanage sub-units. Just set the battalion on "column"
formation, "fastest-quickest-max-rapid-max" and you'll either bull your
way through, or get bogged down and shot up. But isn't this perfectly
reasonable? Isn't this exactly why defenders have an easier time of it
in mountain passes? Isn't this why defenders seek out such positions?
Yeah. It's hard to get a panzer division through the mountains. No
shit. I find most of these "Greece" scenarios a miserable slog for the
panzers even when the opposition is light or non-existent. Exactly like
it should be.
> Anyway, I'd rather have a better alternative to sending truckloads of
> soldiers (mind, these are Schuetzen, not Panzergrenadiere) in a defile
> without securing the high ground first.
Talk to the High Command; they're the ones who decided to send a panzer
division through mountain terrain.
Luca Morandini
>> you order a bat to take the pass it will branch out, hence going on the
>> rough terrain, hence slowing to a crawl.
>
> I *never* micromanage sub-units. Just set the battalion on "column"
> formation, "fastest-quickest-max-rapid-max"
Yes, that's an alternative.
>> Anyway, I'd rather have a better alternative to sending truckloads of
>> soldiers (mind, these are Schuetzen, not Panzergrenadiere) in a defile
>> without securing the high ground first.
>
> Talk to the High Command; they're the ones who decided to send a panzer
> division through mountain terrain.
Could it be the High Command expects me to do something more sensible ?
Something like: dismount a couple schuetzen bats, put one on the high
ground securing a fire base and send the other bat down the pass with a
tank company in support ?
Rick
wrote:
> In article <pqfGR6Ps5IekukJeHyuAF1tX7...@4ax.com>,
> fakeaddr...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > >I'll bet the discussion broke down around, "it's waaaaaay too much work
> > >to implement this just so players can fail at something they shouldn't
> > >be doing anyhow."
>
> > >Hard to make this work. The problem is that the trucks / halftracks
> > >need to be *somewhere*, and thus the only way to model dismounting is to
> > >break a dismounted unit into transport counters and infantry counters
> > >and be able to implement separate orders for each. Then we're faced
> > >with the gamey nightmare of "halftrack companies" milling about the map,
> > >triggering TacAI responses, able to occupy objectives, serving as handy
> > >chairs to be twitched it the path of pursuing enemies.
>
> > Other games have managed to implement transport pools without breaking
> > the system.
>
> Which ones?
>
infantry on foot to the unit HQ. The HQ can't go on foot. So the
infantry can go on foot, go fight wherever they need to like foot
infantry, then when they reach a place the HQ can reach with its
trucks, the unit can meet up and get its trucks back. Not very
flexible, but for this engine I would say tieing the trucks to the HQ
and having the HQ within some specific short range could work,
preventing the trucks from humping their way over the trackless peaks.
Rick
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >> >Hard to make this work. The problem is that the trucks / halftracks
> >> >need to be *somewhere*, and thus the only way to model dismounting is to
> >> >break a dismounted unit into transport counters and infantry counters
> >> >and be able to implement separate orders for each. Then we're faced
> >> >with the gamey nightmare of "halftrack companies" milling about the map,
> >> >triggering TacAI responses, able to occupy objectives, serving as handy
> >> >chairs to be twitched it the path of pursuing enemies.
> >>
> >> Other games have managed to implement transport pools without breaking
> >> the system.
> >
> >Which ones?
>
> Since we're talking about the bulge, ToA comes to mind. Games like
> HoI, WitP (and TOAW?) are on a bigger scale but they also have
> implementations of global transport pools. I don't see any reason why
> you couldn't make that work for the panther games.
The question, though, is how a unit which *walks* across a mountain
range is able to later avail itself of the benefits of a "transport
pool" which presumably cannot walk (or fly) across those same mountains.
COTA is more a tactical game, so questions of exactly how these
abstracted "pools" managed to extend themselves across a mountain range
that the tactical unit could not cross riding in the same kind of truck
become paramount. And COTA doesn't abstract, but actually represents
individual vehicles as part of the parent unit - unlike the ones above.
In COTA, we're really talking about what to do with the 530 vehicles
belonging to the motorized infantry regiment when it dismounts and
engages extended, long-duration, distance-intensive operations on foot
across terrain that vehicles cannot traverse easily. COTA chooses to
keep the units together.
Truly, I don't see what the hubbub is here. The scenario in question
features a significant highway going smack-dab through the center of the
mountain route under discussion. Is it troublesome to advance through
this route with a motorized / armored unit? Yup. Is it do-able? Yup,
but you end up going very slowly and being held up by pockets of enemy
resistance in very, very favorable defensive terrain.
I thought the scenario played out exactly as expected. The German
player has lots of speedy panzers and motorized units ... but the
terrain is terrible, the going is painfully slow, and the enemy has
plenty of opportunities to delay the victorious advance.
Luca Morandini
>> HoI, WitP (and TOAW?) are on a bigger scale but they also have
>> implementations of global transport pools. I don't see any reason why
>> you couldn't make that work for the panther games.
>
> The question, though, is how a unit which *walks* across a mountain
> range is able to later avail itself of the benefits of a "transport
> pool" which presumably cannot walk (or fly) across those same mountains.
In the case of the COTA scenario, after the dismounts have cleared it
from enemies, even a road in a gorge is negotiable by soft-skinned vehicles.
The PzC way of handling motor pools, as described by Rick, seems
reasonable (though I cannot elaborate on this since I don't own that game).
Giftzwerg
says...
> > Talk to the High Command; they're the ones who decided to send a panzer
> > division through mountain terrain.
>
> Could it be the High Command expects me to do something more sensible ?
>
> Something like: dismount a couple schuetzen bats, put one on the high
> ground securing a fire base and send the other bat down the pass with a
> tank company in support ?
Why is this any more "sensible?" What good does holding the high ground
with *riflemen* do? Why is a "fire base" up on the high ground useful
when you can't remotely drag any of your heavy weapons up there? Why
isn't your artillery able to pound the enemy equally well from a non-
high-ground fire base that you can haul the guns to with your trucks?
If this is the scenario I recall, where the panzer division attacks from
the tiny enclave at the top left side of the map and has to advance down
the one highway through the mountains, my strategy was to force the
enemy out of their line positions before the mountains - being sure to
wipe out as many of them as I could before they stoppered up that pass -
send two motorized infantry battalions down the highway, each
overwatching the other, tanks in support, and make sure every cannon I
can muster is on-call for fire support. Set the infantry battalions on
narrow frontage and blast your way through, following closely with
everything else. If any Stukas appear, let 'em have it with them, too.
Why climb the surrounding hills at all? What does that do for you?
There's no real potential to flank the enemy, and the dynamic of this
part of the campaign is to just force your passage. You'll end up with
a couple of weary, shot-to-shit infantry units, but if you try to candy-
ass your way through, you'll lose so much time that you might as well
not bother.
IIRC, you've only got something like 4 days to blast your way through a
whole brigade of ANZACs dug in along a mountain pass. Not a whole lot
of time available for fiddly, sand-table exercises.
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Talk to the High Command; they're the ones who decided to send a panzer
> division through mountain terrain.
From the general scenario briefing :
"Commonwealth forces, fearing for their open left flank, have pulled
back from the Aliakmon Line and are now holding in the passes around
the toughest piece of terrain in Greece: the Olympian Mountains.
Significant areas are above the snowline and movement for men and
vehicles is tough on the roads and worse off-road. In this forbidding
country, only two routes offer high-speed approaches to the more open
terrain to the South: the Portas Pass, south of Servia, and the
Olympus Pass, on the Katerini-Elevtherokhorion road.
In these positions, 4th and 5th NZ Inf Bdes have dug in on high ground
dominating both passes. 16th Au Inf Bde, after an exhausting march
through the mountains, has taken up positions between the two. The
Kiwi battalions must defend in these locations for four to five days,
in order to cover the withdrawal of 16th Au Inf Bde and other
Commonwealth and Greek forces to the Thermopylae Line, which will be a
more permanent stand.
-
"holding passes round the toughest piece of terrain in Greece" is
pretty much a good indicator here :)
I'm at home now and when going through my notes I see that the last
time I played this particular scenario was back in March 2007 - going
to give it another go tonight.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
says...
> > The question, though, is how a unit which *walks* across a mountain
> > range is able to later avail itself of the benefits of a "transport
> > pool" which presumably cannot walk (or fly) across those same mountains.
>
> In the case of the COTA scenario, after the dismounts have cleared it
> from enemies, even a road in a gorge is negotiable by soft-skinned vehicles.
In COTA, the unit *does* dismount to attack, even in wide-open fields.
The game doesn't represent motorized infantry, like, shooting out the
windows of their trucks as they trundle towards the enemy. The only
thing you can't do is explicitly divide the trucks from the infantry and
send them in different directions.
And why do that?
Luca Morandini
>> ground securing a fire base and send the other bat down the pass with a
>> tank company in support ?
>
> Why is this any more "sensible?" What good does holding the high ground
> with *riflemen* do?
To avoid being criss-crossed by enemy fire should the enemy pan-out on
the flanks ?
> Why is a "fire base" up on the high ground useful
> when you can't remotely drag any of your heavy weapons up there?
Sometimes MGs and mortars are enough.
> There's no real potential to flank the enemy,
Maybe yes, maybe no... I think I'll make up scenario variant with a
couple infantry bats and have a go at it.
Regards,
Luca Morandini
>> from enemies, even a road in a gorge is negotiable by soft-skinned vehicles.
>
> In COTA, the unit *does* dismount to attack, even in wide-open fields.
Have I suggested otherwise ?
Giftzwerg
says...
> >> In the case of the COTA scenario, after the dismounts have cleared it
> >> from enemies, even a road in a gorge is negotiable by soft-skinned vehicles.
> >
> > In COTA, the unit *does* dismount to attack, even in wide-open fields.
>
> Have I suggested otherwise ?
Then what the fuck is your point?
Giftzwerg
says...
> >> Something like: dismount a couple schuetzen bats, put one on the high
> >> ground securing a fire base and send the other bat down the pass with a
> >> tank company in support ?
> >
> > Why is this any more "sensible?" What good does holding the high ground
> > with *riflemen* do?
>
> To avoid being criss-crossed by enemy fire should the enemy pan-out on
> the flanks ?
So you "pan-out" too.
> > Why is a "fire base" up on the high ground useful
> > when you can't remotely drag any of your heavy weapons up there?
>
> Sometimes MGs and mortars are enough.
Mortars and MGs are just as effective in direct contact.
> > There's no real potential to flank the enemy,
>
> Maybe yes, maybe no... I think I'll make up scenario variant with a
> couple infantry bats and have a go at it.
Be sure to add a few days to the scenario duration while you're at it.
Luca Morandini
> In article <62o982F...@mid.individual.net>, lmora...@ieee.org
> says...
>
>>>> In the case of the COTA scenario, after the dismounts have cleared it
>>>> from enemies, even a road in a gorge is negotiable by soft-skinned vehicles.
>>> In COTA, the unit *does* dismount to attack, even in wide-open fields.
>> Have I suggested otherwise ?
>
> Then what the fuck is your point?
Expletives aside, the point is the one you so neatly pointed out in the
second part of you post <<The only thing you can't do is explicitly
divide the trucks from the infantry and send them in different
directions>>... or let the truck wait before rejoining them, I may add.
Luca Morandini
>> the flanks ?
>
> So you "pan-out" too.
Yep.
>>> Why is a "fire base" up on the high ground useful
>>> when you can't remotely drag any of your heavy weapons up there?
>> Sometimes MGs and mortars are enough.
>
> Mortars and MGs are just as effective in direct contact.
Yes, but I'd like my incoming to come (no pun intended) from two
different directions,
>>> There's no real potential to flank the enemy,
>> Maybe yes, maybe no... I think I'll make up scenario variant with a
>> couple infantry bats and have a go at it.
>
> Be sure to add a few days to the scenario duration while you're at it.
I'll keep you posted.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> I'll keep you posted.
FYI - the third patch will appear shortly which contains an updated
Foothills of the Gods scenario - more particularly additional
reinforcement schedules for some randomness in the challenge, so if
you intend to edit this scenario I'd suggest to wait a couple of days
so you can base it on the improved version.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
says...
> >>>> In the case of the COTA scenario, after the dismounts have cleared it
> >>>> from enemies, even a road in a gorge is negotiable by soft-skinned vehicles.
> >>> In COTA, the unit *does* dismount to attack, even in wide-open fields.
> >> Have I suggested otherwise ?
> >
> > Then what the fuck is your point?
>
> Expletives aside, the point is the one you so neatly pointed out in the
> second part of you post <<The only thing you can't do is explicitly
> divide the trucks from the infantry and send them in different
> directions>>... or let the truck wait before rejoining them, I may add.
But your clear implication is that there's something about this scenario
which *requires* that you separate the infantry from the trucks, and the
COTA system prevents this. I'm saying that's ridiculous; in fact, in
this scenario it's essential to keep the infantry with their transport
if you're to have any hope of fulfilling the "exit the map south"
victory condition that everything hinges on.
You say:
"I'd dare say that you should then be careful enough to avoid creating
scenarios in which the player as no alternative but using Mot. Inf. to
attack mountain passes."
Unless you're stupid enough to *ignore the fucking highway* that runs
down this mountain pass, you don't need an "alternative" - the motorized
units will attack just fine along the roadway. Just use your troops in
the obvious way and get about the business of forcing the pass.
BP
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>The question, though, is how a unit which *walks* across a mountain
>range is able to later avail itself of the benefits of a "transport
>pool" which presumably cannot walk (or fly) across those same mountains.
Maybe the motorized infantry should just lose their transport for the
rest of the scenario - they can dismount, but not remount again later.
Just have the halftracks disappear from the game once the infantry is
dismounted, to avoid the gamey problems you mentioned with keeping
them around as seperate units.
BP
eddys...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:35:19 -0500, Giftzwerg
>
I like the suggestion done by Rick : upon dismount attach the vehicles
to the HQ - make the HQ motorized - if those dismounted units can get
to wherever the HQ ends up they can mount again.
Clean - simple - realistic - no gamey bs possible.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Luca Morandini
>
> You say:
>
> "I'd dare say that you should then be careful enough to avoid creating
> scenarios in which the player as no alternative but using Mot. Inf. to
> attack mountain passes."
>
> Unless you're stupid enough to *ignore the fucking highway* that runs
> down this mountain pass, you don't need an "alternative" - the motorized
> units will attack just fine along the roadway. Just use your troops in
> the obvious way and get about the business of forcing the pass.
Forcing the pass in column formation isn't the obvious way in my book;
especially if the adversary knows that and puts some troops on both
sides of the road in a position which is too far for your Schuetzen to
dislodge them but too close for comfort.
Giftzwerg
says...
> > You say:
> >
> > "I'd dare say that you should then be careful enough to avoid creating
> > scenarios in which the player as no alternative but using Mot. Inf. to
> > attack mountain passes."
> >
> > Unless you're stupid enough to *ignore the fucking highway* that runs
> > down this mountain pass, you don't need an "alternative" - the motorized
> > units will attack just fine along the roadway. Just use your troops in
> > the obvious way and get about the business of forcing the pass.
>
> Forcing the pass in column formation isn't the obvious way in my book;
> especially if the adversary knows that and puts some troops on both
> sides of the road in a position which is too far for your Schuetzen to
> dislodge them but too close for comfort.
Yeah, but that's what makes this a tough scenario; you have to be
willing to trade casualties for speed if you're going to have any hope
of exiting the panzers off the south side of the map. Sure, that's
going to make for a couple of shot-up, played-out battalions by the time
you simultaneously crush the Kiwis on the north side of the mountains
and force the pass, but a methodical approach leaves your panzers about
2/3rds of the way down the map at the point the scenario runs out.
To think about it another way, only the mountain passes make this
scenario interesting. Certainly rolling over a single infantry brigade
with a panzer division in open country is a fairly boring tutorial, not
a challenge.
Rick
<eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Clean - simple - realistic - no gamey bs possible.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
Exactly, and it was John Tiller's solution to the same exact problem.
The PzC series had the same issue at its beginning, no foot movement
for mot troops. If I recall correctly, it was before my time testing
there, a new game (Bulge I think) with river crossings without bridges
was being worked on. The Germans had to be able to cross the river
before bridges went up, but had to leave their trucks behind - totally
gamey otherwise, as Giftzwerg says - so this was the solution
implemented, so they could then remount and move forward, but only
after bridges were put up allowing the trucks to move across (with the
HQ). Even the delay of moving to and reboarding trucks is cleanly
implemented by having to wait for the HQ to arrive in the same hex.
Having played COTA, I would imagine the trucks return should be more
flexible - but if this whole issue was the problem discussed, I am
sure Arjuna can implement a realistic method for that portion if
desired.
Rick
Arjuna
>I am
> sure Arjuna can implement a realistic method for that portion if
> desired.
Thanks for your confidence Rick. How to bets handle motorised/
mechanised/airborne( helo mounted ) infantry is a tough question. One
we have debated long and hard. IMO the best solution is to simulate
the combined unit as consisting of two component units - one motorised
and one foot.
Sure rules have to be written that cover when and why they should
marry up and divorce and what happens to the divorced motorised
component. None of these are trivial but can be done.
However, the real issue then is processing. Effectively you double the
number of units in a mech/mot force with this approach and that means
slowing the game down considerably or reducing the force size. At the
moment we can handle a small Corps. This approach would reduce this to
a Division. I've been waiting for an increase in cpu power before
contemplating it.
As an interim solution we could fall back on what we considered to be
the second best solution and that is to abstract the divorce into an
event like we do currently for SupplyTransportEvents - ie. when we
want to dismount and proceed as foot, we create a MotComponentEvent
( I'll think of a better name later ) hive off the motorised vehicles
and their crew into it, determine a route back to the original unit's
Base and set the execution time accordingly.
We go back to the Base rather than to the HQ, because in COTA HQs have
real work to do commanding the formations and they too need to be able
to divorce and go foot if the need arises. Besides, this is what
happens in RL. Upon arrival at the Base, the vehicle and pers are
assigned to the Base but tagged as belonging exclusively to its parent
unit - hence they can't be used for any other purpose.
This enables our foot component to continue on through the grunge. At
some time in the future, when it wants to marry up again, it checks to
see if a valid motorised route can be determined. If so, then we
create another MotComponentEvent, this time with the destination as
the parent unit. It will take whatever time it would to travel from
the Base to the unit before they can be reabsorbed and the unit can be
considered as motorised again.
This is not the best solution IMO, but it's a workaround. It will take
time to implement and doing so would delay BFTB. It could add a month
or more.
Rick
>
> Thanks for your confidence Rick. How to bets handle motorised/
> mechanised/airborne( helo mounted ) infantry is a tough question. One
> we have debated long and hard. IMO the best solution is to simulate
> the combined unit as consisting of two component units - one motorised
> and one foot.
e comment here, what is most realistic and what is best are different,
I see the 2 separate units as most realistic, but at least for truck
mounted units not the best solution. Having a separate truck unit
could lead to a lot of gamey stuff, as Giftzwerg points out, without
adding anything I can think of to the gameplay. Halftracks, helos, or
more modern IFVs would be best represented by a separate unit,
probably.
>
> This is not the best solution IMO, but it's a workaround. It will take
> time to implement and doing so would delay BFTB. It could add a month
> or more.
For trucks, though, I think your "interim" method sounds perfect as a
permanent solution, as the best one for those. Either way, if the
engine doesn't require the separation, then it doesn't sound like
tieing up a month of effort into it is very sensible, although more
realistic in the long run. Good luck with it all, and keep Eddy
working away on the builds.
Rick
Ray O'Hara
"Luca Morandini" <lmora...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:62od7nF...@mid.individual.net...
you're wasting your time trying to deal with the severely anal gifty.
Giftzwerg
7b7dbb...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, ricky...@yahoo.com
says...
> Having a separate truck unit
> could lead to a lot of gamey stuff, as Giftzwerg points out, without
> adding anything I can think of to the gameplay. Halftracks, helos, or
> more modern IFVs would be best represented by a separate unit,
> probably.
The problem isn't necessarily with the existence of separate truck or
helicopter transport counters, but with having these units, when empty,
under the tactical control of the player. If empty trucks or helos just
returned to base and weren't available for the odd suicide spotting
mission, then my objections disappear.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Good luck with it all, and keep Eddy
> working away on the builds.
Now that the COTA #3 patch is out the door I'm dying to get my hands
on the new BFTB build with all the revised scenarios.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Arjuna
Yeh, yeh Eddy...but you are going to have wait another 24 hours. What
a day it's been - final patch installer to test, new code to write and
test to provide effects for changing the new order/task supply
settings, a son to get ready for departure to Germany at crack of
dawn tomorrow, negotiations for a possible defence contract and not to
mention kicking off the autotesters for the new BFTB build 149 that I
hope to release tomorrow.
Late Breaking News....six errors already from the autotester...oh
dear, it's not looking that promising Eddy.....time to go to bed....gn
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Late Breaking News....six errors already from the autotester...oh
> dear, it's not looking that promising Eddy.....time to go to bed....gn
Don't sweat it - I'm at a wargaming convention in Ghent tomorrow so I
wouldn't be able to start play^H^H^testing anyway :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
> need to be *somewhere*, and thus the only way to model dismounting is to
> break a dismounted unit into transport counters and infantry counters
> and be able to implement separate orders for each. Then we're faced
> with the gamey nightmare of "halftrack companies" milling about the map,
> triggering TacAI responses, able to occupy objectives, serving as handy
> chairs to be twitched it the path of pursuing enemies.
What about a solution like this:
When you dismount, the unit becomes a normal infantry one - but the program
keeps track of where the transports are *without showing them*. When you
decide to go back on them, the program calculates how much time you need to
get the transports where you are (based on terrain etc.), gives an
approximate ETA for them to arrive (let's say 30 mins) and then asks you if
you want to wait.
If you choose to wait, you have to wait for the X (simulated) mins given by
the ETA before the unit becomes "mounted" again. If you move back (or in
another direction) after a while you can ask for another estimate - and
luckily it will be shorter. You can even ask for the transports to reach you
and then "move" towards them so to cut the time needed to become "mounted"
again. All of this without ever putting the vehicles under the player's
control - only a vague track of their position on the map.
It is not perfect, but I think that in the COTA system this could work (of
course it could need some major reprogramming, so something to look forward
to in a future title).
Luca Morandini
>
> What about a solution like this:
>
> When you dismount, the unit becomes a normal infantry one - but the program
> keeps track of where the transports are *without showing them*. When you
> decide to go back on them,
Ahem... I see a drawback in this: what if the enemy occupies the
transport pool location ? If you don't know where they are you cannot
protect them (not to mention means of transport, usually, can be moved
around to avoid capture).
> All of this without ever putting the vehicles under the player's
> control - only a vague track of their position on the map.
That's slightly better, but I think the notion of putting them into the
"ghost" pool that is available for supply forces (those truck columns
usually arriving in the dead of night) has less cons.
Regards,
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
Sounds fine. Again, my *only* objection to allowing dismounted infantry
to proceed on foot is the potential for creating "truck counters" which
can be used in a gamey fashion. So long as the empty trucks are simply
parked, or returned to the unit supply base, or added to some abstract
transport pool, then I have no objection.
But I wonder also if this wouldn't have to be handled on a national-
doctrine level. For example, my understanding is that the trucks that
schlepped an American infantry battalion from the rear to the front
lines didn't belong to the battalion or regiment - but to the division
or even corps command. So I'm not sure what "should" happen to a US 6x6
GMC when it unloads an infantry squad and they go off into the trees.
Does the truck wait? Or has it already fulfilled its mission and now
must return to the motor pool? And who does a German, or British, or
Italian, or ANZAC truck belong to?
Halftracks, I'm pretty sure, were part of the armored infantry formation
itself in most armies. Should they be handled differently?
?!?
Giftzwerg
says...
> > What about a solution like this:
> >
> > When you dismount, the unit becomes a normal infantry one - but the program
> > keeps track of where the transports are *without showing them*. When you
> > decide to go back on them,
>
> Ahem... I see a drawback in this: what if the enemy occupies the
> transport pool location ? If you don't know where they are you cannot
> protect them (not to mention means of transport, usually, can be moved
> around to avoid capture).
Then you lose a whole pile of trucks - and thus a mountain of victory
points.
Which brings us to the *reason* that players tend to use tactically-
controlled transport vehicles for suicide missions; game designers tend
to *vastly* undervalue absolutely crucial trucks when it comes to
calculate victory points. Make a truck worth twice as much as a tank -
which is hardly a stretch, given the realities of modern warfare and
reliance on logistics - and players will suddenly keep trucks nice 'n'
safe, right where they belong.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <JFWxj.367$q53....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> reck...@hotmail.com says...
A base seems the most logical place - from a historical pow and also
from a game pov because I pity the fool who uses them as recon units.
> But I wonder also if this wouldn't have to be handled on a national-
> doctrine level. For example, my understanding is that the trucks that
> schlepped an American infantry battalion from the rear to the front
> lines didn't belong to the battalion or regiment - but to the division
> or even corps command.
Correct. The trucks which got the 101st from Reims into Bastogne were
*not* part of the division but from a truck pool which was actually
really busy getting supplies forward from the Normandy ports.
> So I'm not sure what "should" happen to a US 6x6
> GMC when it unloads an infantry squad and they go off into the trees.
> Does the truck wait? Or has it already fulfilled its mission and now
> must return to the motor pool? And who does a German, or British, or
> Italian, or ANZAC truck belong to?
The actual organisation they officially belonged to doesn't really
matter - what counts is that trucks dropped off the troops and went to
some rear HQ/base/whatever - nobody kept trucks into the firing line.
> Halftracks, I'm pretty sure, were part of the armored infantry formation
> itself in most armies. Should they be handled differently?
Yes - they were taken into combat, trucks weren't.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:MPG.22320a32a...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <62qshpF...@mid.individual.net>, lmora...@ieee.org
> says...
>
>> > What about a solution like this:
>> >
>> > When you dismount, the unit becomes a normal infantry one - but the
>> > program
>> > keeps track of where the transports are *without showing them*. When
>> > you
>> > decide to go back on them,
>>
>> Ahem... I see a drawback in this: what if the enemy occupies the
>> transport pool location ? If you don't know where they are you cannot
>> protect them (not to mention means of transport, usually, can be moved
>> around to avoid capture).
>
> Then you lose a whole pile of trucks - and thus a mountain of victory
> points.
This could lead to another kind of "gamey" tactic, i.e. chasing the trucks
instead of the tanks :o) However, if the empty trucks are out of the control
of the player (and given to the AI, that, if in need, can try to rush them
away from peril) and the enemy manages to hit them anyway (even via air or
artillery strike), then the loss is exactly the same than in real life: loss
of mobility for the dismounted. Maybe it will not matter for the final
result, maybe it will be crucial.
If ACVs are involved, then the player could choose to keep the dismounted
infantry and the vehicles together as a single unit - but as soon as the
infantry leaves them they do return under AI control, and their actual
position marked as "vague" for the owning player.
I think that overall this system could be worth a try. It would never work
in Steel Panthers or the Campaign Series, but, as I said, in games like COTA
or even the "Flashpoint: Germany" series it could be implemented (how
"easily", of course, I don't know :o) )
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > Then you lose a whole pile of trucks - and thus a mountain of victory
> > points.
>
> This could lead to another kind of "gamey" tactic, i.e. chasing the trucks
> instead of the tanks :o)
Stop. Halt. Attacking logistics isn't *gamey*, it's *SOP*. For every
military force since Sumeria. Indeed, the *proper* target for any unit
with a chance to hit transportation assets is trains, trucks, carts,
horses, and the Ho Chi Minh trail. Ignore the tanks. Hit the trucks.
So I say, "Yes, make trucks worth a lot of victory points. To reflect
the zeal with with *everyone* slams exposed logistic assets."
Arjuna
have the computer look after them" and actually implementing that. I
am loathe to adopt abstractions as a matter of design principle. But
as our motto says "when realism counts". In the case where the
transport component is just trucks, it doesn really count to implement
them as separate tactical units, because they don't add anything. They
have no firepower or other special capability that could further your
objectives, other than the ability to transport a line unit. What's
more, as Gifty highlights, modelling them explicitly leads to some
very gamey ( ie unrealistic ) tactics. So in fact for the sake of
realism and a good game these are best abstracted.
Where the transport component is half tracks with their own inherent
and considerable firepower the argument goes the other way. Because of
that firepower and their armour protection, in RL they were used to
support assaults, defend FUPs etc. So it would be best to simulate
them as separate tactical units that had the ability to maryy with
their foot component.
However, as I mentioned earlier, modelling them this way is going to
add more units and more processing load and slow the game ( or reduce
the scope ). Further, a raft of complex algorythms need to be written
to handle the myriad of cases that arise. Eg. when does the transport
component ( TC ) actively support and when does it pull back out of
harms way. Where does it pull back to? How does it react when
contacted while it is "divorced" from its foot component ( FC) - a.
when supporting an assault and b. when pulled back. What happens when
they marry and there is insufficient lift capacity because the TC took
some losses while divorced? Do we just kill off the excess from the
FC? What happens if the FC is wiped out? What happens if the TC is
wiped out? Do we allow divorced components to disband separately? Does
this mean that when they are married we need to do multiple route
checks - ie first to see if they can get there mounted and if not then
a second route check for foot. This could add signifigantly to
processing load. Do we need to modify the Pathing tools? And so on and
so on.
What I am saying is that this is a complex issue. There are probably
aspects we cannot know about that need to be addressed but won't be
until we do the first cut. It's a BIG job. It may take one month but
it could easily take three months of work.
Frank E
>In article <q9LGR6ndvlkBWiPOZND=zHfV...@4ax.com>,
>fakea...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> >> >Hard to make this work. The problem is that the trucks / halftracks
>> >> >need to be *somewhere*, and thus the only way to model dismounting is to
>> >> >break a dismounted unit into transport counters and infantry counters
>> >> >and be able to implement separate orders for each. Then we're faced
>> >> >with the gamey nightmare of "halftrack companies" milling about the map,
>> >> >triggering TacAI responses, able to occupy objectives, serving as handy
>> >> >chairs to be twitched it the path of pursuing enemies.
>> >>
>> >> Other games have managed to implement transport pools without breaking
>> >> the system.
>> >
>> >Which ones?
>>
>> Since we're talking about the bulge, ToA comes to mind. Games like
>> HoI, WitP (and TOAW?) are on a bigger scale but they also have
>> implementations of global transport pools. I don't see any reason why
>> you couldn't make that work for the panther games.
>
>The question, though, is how a unit which *walks* across a mountain
>range is able to later avail itself of the benefits of a "transport
>pool" which presumably cannot walk (or fly) across those same mountains.
>
>COTA is more a tactical game, so questions of exactly how these
>abstracted "pools" managed to extend themselves across a mountain range
>that the tactical unit could not cross riding in the same kind of truck
>become paramount. And COTA doesn't abstract, but actually represents
>individual vehicles as part of the parent unit - unlike the ones above.
COTA already has the answer to that one built in with it's supply
system. If a unit doesn't have a good supply line (IE: very close to a
road on the supply net) then you don't have access to vehicles.
>In COTA, we're really talking about what to do with the 530 vehicles
>belonging to the motorized infantry regiment when it dismounts and
>engages extended, long-duration, distance-intensive operations on foot
>across terrain that vehicles cannot traverse easily. COTA chooses to
>keep the units together.
Even if we kept the trucks attached to the units, I'd be more
comfortable if they just disappeared when not in use. Otherwise it
kinda defeats the purpose of motorized infantry, the 'motorized' part
was to get to inf to the battleground, not limit where those units
could fight. What do you do with the US and british armies where every
unit is motorized?
>Truly, I don't see what the hubbub is here. The scenario in question
>features a significant highway going smack-dab through the center of the
>mountain route under discussion. Is it troublesome to advance through
>this route with a motorized / armored unit? Yup. Is it do-able? Yup,
>but you end up going very slowly and being held up by pockets of enemy
>resistance in very, very favorable defensive terrain.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you here. I never thought of it as a
problem before this thread. But since someone brought it up, I thought
I'd throw in my $.02 worth. <g>
Rgds, Frank
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> COTA already has the answer to that one built in with it's supply
> system. If a unit doesn't have a good supply line (IE: very close to a
> road on the supply net) then you don't have access to vehicles.
One remark here though : supply in COTA is a bit more detailed and
doesn't only use trucks. For instance : when a Falschirmjäger or
Gebirgsjäger division is dropped on Crete / Malta it doesn't have
supply trucks (duh) but actual men schlepping 50 kg manpacks. This is
what happened historically at Crete, so in those cases FJ or GJ units
can get resupplied even when operating outside the road network but
actually getting enough supplies through is another matter as this
method is a lot slower and it takes a lot of guys to replace even one
truck. You'll feel the effect of this once you start to operate some
distance away from your (supply) Base. Try the revised Malta scenario
to get a taste of what it feels like to operate on a supply
shoestring. No more attacking full throttle wherever and whenever you
feel like it. Supply and fatigue are real killers in this scenario.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx