 |
|
Scenario design musings - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: Scenario design musings (/showthread.php?tid=44853) Pages:
1
2
|
Scenario design musings - JonS1 - 04-09-2008 Hi Folks, One of the persistent issues with N'44, and longer campaigns in particular, seems to be the apparent inability of the German player to set up defense lines comparable to those acheived in 1944. This is borne out by results in the Scen Database: of 44 games recorded where the scen had more than 100 turns, the Allies won 27 to the Axis 14 (3 draws). In a scen with over 100 turns the Allies averaged 108 points, while the Axis only averaged 70. In part this is due to an endemic problem with wargames, namely that both sides know what the other is doing, what they have, and what their goals are. This means that, for example, the US player can drive hell for leather S from OMAHA and SW from GOLD in the certain knowledge that the German players has nothing - or not much - in that area. This is compounded by the lack of restrictions on how units organise themselves for battle. Players can race motorised AT units all over the place, using them to lead the charge and seize terrain, when in practice platoon commanders would tend to tell COs who tried to order that as a matter of course to "have sex and travel". however, in the longer scenarios it seems to be made much worse due to the sheer length of the game, and the Allied ability to crush the Germans in the inital landing battles, speed inland, and prevent an effective defence later on. It's also due in part to relative unit strengths, but that's easy enough to adjust. Simplistic supply models also have an effect, though that, too, can be mitigated by using explicit supply. It is also, I think, due in large part to the fact that things in wargames simply happen so fast. Units have a movement factor based on what is essentially their best speed, but in practice this becomes their average speed and it means they can get far more done in a day than any real-world military unit could dream of. Having pondered this for some time, I'm coming around to the idea that instead of 8 x 2hr day turns and 2 x 4hr night turns, N44 might play better with 6 x 3hr day turns (with the dusk/dawn flag ON) and 1 x 6hr night turn. This would be accompanied by slight changes to, for example staking limits (making it higher), but otherwise everything - notably unit speeds - stays the same. This would have the immediate effect of cutting some 30% of the turns, dropping the campaign from 750 to some 525 turns, making the campiagn somewhat more tractable. In any given day it would similarly reduce the distance a unit can move by some 30%. It'd also reduce the number of moves the allies get before German reinforcements show up. However it would reduce the night from 20% of turns to 14% of turns, although that would be somewaht mitigated by the dusk/dawn turns. I'm curious to hear what other designers and players think of this as a proposal. I understand that Modern Campaigns makes use of 3hr daylight turns by default, so it'd be interesting to hear from people that can compare-and-contrast the two systems. Regards Jon RE: Scenario design musings - Dog Soldier - 04-09-2008 JonS1 Wrote:Hi Folks, Be careful how you are using these statistics. In my experience, long games are dropped when the defender "thinks" they are at a disadvantage and no longer continue. Defense in PzC is a matter of great patience. Campaign games require even more patience. Very few CGs are played out long enough to draw the conclusions your drawing. JonS1 Wrote:In part this is due to an endemic problem with wargames, namely that both sides know what the other is doing, what they have, and what their goals are. This means that, for example, the US player can drive hell for leather S from OMAHA and SW from GOLD in the certain knowledge that the German players has nothing - or not much - in that area. This is compounded by the lack of restrictions on how units organise themselves for battle. Are you referring to the recent changes of being a "detached" unit? Detached units are out of command range and thus restricted. Artillery support for such units is less. These units can be isolated by good defensive play. If not killed before help arrives, they can be severely mauled. Set the right optional rules. Such units will take days to recover if at all. JonS1 Wrote:Players can race motorised AT units all over the place, using them to lead the charge and seize terrain, when in practice platoon commanders would tend to tell COs who tried to order that as a matter of course to "have sex and travel". however, in the longer scenarios it seems to be made much worse due to the sheer length of the game, and the Allied ability to crush the Germans in the inital landing battles, speed inland, and prevent an effective defence later on. AT rules were changed about a year ago so this type of behavior will have the commander writing many letters to the familys of AT unit soldiers. I regret to inform you that your son speed way out ahead of the advance was never seen again..... AT units do not have a ZOC, so they are easily surrounded. Unsupported by infantry, they are pretty easy to kill now by infantry assault. This is as it should be. BTW, I have seen some pretty good defenses in N44 making it really hard to get off some beaches. As I said above, good defense takes time, lots of it against a good attacker. It is rare to have the defensive player win early in the game. JonS1 Wrote:It's also due in part to relative unit strengths, but that's easy enough to adjust.This is complicated. More often than not adjustments have brought unintended consequences. There are the stock values and the McNamara DB values in VM ALT scenarios. What more could you want? JonS1 Wrote:Simplistic supply models also have an effect, though that, too, can be mitigated by using explicit supply. Good gosh man! There are already enough counters in N44. Explicit supply would make playing a turn take forever....historically supply was not a big factor in that campaign. The storm had an effect of stopping the Allied offensive for a while, simulated in many war games by lowering supply. Currently storm rules that came with R42 will affect this CG quite well. JonS1 Wrote:It is also, I think, due in large part to the fact that things in wargames simply happen so fast. Units have a movement factor based on what is essentially their best speed, but in practice this becomes their average speed and it means they can get far more done in a day than any real-world military unit could dream of. The time of the turns is part of the engine in the game system. It would require...well a new game engine to change this. I think the editor does allow one to tinker with MP's. It has been stated many times here by Glenn that the MP's are NOT the top speed but a speed determined by deployment at which a full unit can move. Dog Soldier RE: Scenario design musings - CptCav - 04-09-2008 Changing the number of hours per turn only requires a change within the PDT file. Regards, CptCav RE: Scenario design musings - JonS1 - 04-09-2008 Dog Soldier Wrote:Be careful how you are using these statistics.Yes, I'm quite aware of that. If you have a better data set to use, please, point me at it. In the meantime it's the best I could find, and your anecdotal stories merely serve to reinforce the conclusions derived from it. Put it this way: Assume you care about ladder points and someone offers to play you in an N'44 campaign, or one of the long scens that start with the landings. Which side do you choose? Dog Soldier Wrote:Are you referring to the recent changes of being a "detached" unit?No. Those changes are good, but they don't really address this situation. DS Wrote:AT rules were changed about a year ago so this type of behavior will have the commander writing many letters to the familys of AT unit soldiers. ... AT units do not have a ZOC, so they are easily surrounded. Unsupported by infantry, they are pretty easy to kill now by infantry assault. This is as it should be.Yes. Quite. It rather presupposes that the German player has something to surround and attack them with though. DS Wrote:[Adjusting unit strengths] is complicated. More often than not adjustments have brought unintended consequences. There are the stock values and the McNamara DB values in VM ALT scenarios. What more could you want?No kidding it's complicated. I'm not a total nob. What more could I want? Heh. That's kind of a sad question to even ask. :) DS Wrote:... historically supply was not a big factor in that campaign.Ok, this is incorrect. And not just a little bit either :) DS Wrote:The time of the turns is part of the engine in the game system. It would require...well a new game engine to change this.This is incorrect too. You really need to start tinkering before you spread more false information. DS Wrote:I think the editor does allow one to tinker with MP's. It has been stated many times here by Glenn that the MP's are NOT the top speed but a speed determined by deployment at which a full unit can move.Well, Glenn's wrong too then, or is being misquoted. Military units move slooooowly, even when there is no enemy around. For example during the Great Swan, after crossing the Seine, units were moving at the dizzying speed of 62kms per day. That was going flat knackers against essentially no opposition. That works out to about 6 hexes per N'44 turn. Granted, that's averaged, so heck double it and call it 12 hexes per turn. In 'T' mode. Similarly, truck units on the Red Ball Express covered a total of 100 miles per day, or about 16 hexes per turn (avg, say 20 hexes/turn when actually moving. In 'T' mode). But, I'm not really interested in your thoughts on how fast units move. I'm curious to hear what other designers and players think of 3 and 6hr turns. I understand that Modern Campaigns makes use of 3hr daylight turns by default, so it'd be interesting to hear from people that can compare-and-contrast the two systems. Regards Jon RE: Scenario design musings - FLG - 04-10-2008 To modify movement why not try playing with the congestion flags instead. This seems to be a very underused feature of the game and would seem to be ideal for your needs, limiting the flow of traffic through roads, junctions, bridges, etc. RE: Scenario design musings - JonS1 - 04-10-2008 Thanks FLG. I have used congestion quite a bit on the beaches. I'm not so sure about using them elsewhere though - the congestion 'penalty' is quite high, and that could easily see tracks, for example, being used as MSRs to avoid the congested hexes, and that doesn't seem right. Also, there are only a few truly restricted places to move where congestion markers might be much use - mainly over canals and rivers. Also, congestion markers tend to be kinda ugly en masse :) RE: Scenario design musings - Glenn Saunders - 04-10-2008 We set the unit speed at a rate we feel is acceptable for the game scale and not the top speed of the standard vehcile of the formation. So we are using 10 km and hour for Motorized units. If you feel that is too high you can reduce it further I suppose. As for the time scale, as someone said here you can make that change in the PDT and then maybe build or revise your own scn as things like releases, reinforcements and such would not match the 3 hour day turns. Where you would have to FUDGE things is the 2 hour time is linked with the speed in the OOB. That is if you take my Mot Unit speed of 10 km in the OOB and then looked at how many hexes that is in a two our turn - then changed the PDT to 3 hour turns the 10km speed would give you a different number of hexes for that same speed. THis shouldn't be a big problem because from what you are saying a Mot unit moves too fast anyway - just make sure when you plug in new values which if you want 9 km per hour you might need to put in a value like 6 ... or something like that ... the math makes my head hurt. Glenn RE: Scenario design musings - JonS1 - 04-10-2008 Glenn Saunders Wrote:We set the unit speed at a rate we feel is acceptable for the game scale and not the top speed of the standard vehcile of the formation.Misquoted it is :) Quote:As for the time scale, as someone said here you can make that change in the PDT and then maybe build or revise your own scn as things like releases, reinforcements and such would not match the 3 hour day turns.Actually, that isn't really necessary. Or not as much as you'd initially think. And I am building my own scen anyway. Altering the time scale was a concept I'm considering, and thought it'd be useful to get some different perspectives on. I realise wahat the knock-ons are. My question is whether it'd be worthwhile implementing, would the net effect be positive. Quote:Where you would have to FUDGE things is the 2 hour time is linked with the speed in the OOB. ... This shouldn't be a big problem because from what you are saying a MOT unit moves too fast anyway...It's not just MOT units, but yes, that's the general idea. The MOT AT-unit comment was merely an example. As it is, any unit can just get so much done in a day. Instead of moving extraordinary distances, a unit could area fire 30 times, or mount 10 assaults plus area fire 10 times, or some other combination of activities. That's a fabulous amount for a unit to get done in a day, and I believe it directly contributes to the difficulties the Germans experience in the longer N'44 scenarios. RE: Scenario design musings - Glenn Saunders - 04-10-2008 JonS1 Wrote:It's not just MOT units, but yes, that's the general idea. Understood - the Mot units was an example as they are generally a consistent 10 km/hr RE: Scenario design musings - Dog Soldier - 04-11-2008 JonS1 Wrote:It's not just MOT units, but yes, that's the general idea. The MOT AT-unit comment was merely an example. As it is, any unit can just get so much done in a day. Instead of moving extraordinary distances, a unit could area fire 30 times, or mount 10 assaults plus area fire 10 times, or some other combination of activities. That's a fabulous amount for a unit to get done in a day, and I believe it directly contributes to the difficulties the Germans experience in the longer N'44 scenarios. While being able to direct fire 30 times seems bad, remember the unit weill take on fatigue, and maybe casualties from defensive fire and direct fire in the other player's turn. Assuming the defender is in better terrain and even fortified with a TRENCH, the attacker really could have the effectiveness of his firing unit go down pretty quick. Same with assaults. Effectiveness will go down faster if a unit performed 10 assaults in one day. All this makes for good sense in rotating the units on the line with reserves for each side. The game is causing what should be done. The new QFM optional rule would help make the Germans harder to dig out of their positions in this case. Still German units were kept in the line at this time until they were worn down to cadres. That was strategic condition in 1944. Changing that aspect would be a big what - if I think. Dog Soldier |
){kind=link}