Some thoughts that you can say are bad ideas!

[Mike Bowen]

Had man flu so been bored (only so much day time TV I can watch without wanting to slit my wrists) anyway thought I would mention the following thoughts which might be worth HPS looking at depending on how you all tink.

1 Helicopters I know its boring but I am playing NGP with a view to southern front arriving on my door mat Royal Mail permitting at the weekend (pure speculation on my part) and I have tried only allowing helicopters to work within the command range of an HQ. This works quite well I am finding does anyone think this is a good idea and if so could it be done (I in my simple way assume its possible as command ranges are used for many things including artillery spotting)

Does anyone have any real life experience as to the sort of ranges that helicopters would be expected to work behind the lines and or from HQs.

2 Would it be useful to have the ability to have the command range and the movement range highlighted at the same time or indeed ant two shadings. Some other games can do this and it would help with helo movement setting artillery up in range etc. If one range was an outline and the other shaded that might work.

3 I am not sure this exists or not but when setting up wired hexes can you see what ones have been set up already and if not could it be done so you can.

4 Could the modifier that applies to bridging by battalions apply to mineclearance and could that become odds based please. I find it odd that size does not matter I had a 2 man company of Australians clearing mines whilst at 250 plus fatigue for days at El Alamein behind the lines of course but they were still very useful and I would suggest shows that something ought to be done.

5 Could the strength of units passing through a hex be tallied and then have a MP penalty applied. Its difficult to explain but say you have a Div stacked on a road max stacking. Then there is a wood the road passes through and then a bit of clear the otherside. What you do is unstack and move and restack the otherside. What happens in real life is the lead unit goes as far as it can in the given period of time or it may stop but the last one to move is not going to make it because the rest took longer to cross therough the wood in T mode. That is not my best attempt at explaining the point but I think you can see what I mean.

6 Scenario descriptions could there be an alternative description I like often to play the scenario blind in taht I do not look at the scenario prior to play from the otherside of the hill perhaps I should. I am playing a Minsk game where the Russians appear way behind the German flanks on the north side of the map. Now there is not much I could or would have done but it was a bit of a shock. If there was an alternative description that said eg the line to your north has been ruptured and you can expect eenemy armoured units to threaten your flank that would have been useful but not given the game away by looking at the othersides reinforcements etc. It may be my odd way of approaching the game. I suspect its a lot of work for not much benefit any one agree disagree etc?

7 Strategy options some one else mentioned this and I am sorry I forget who but it seems wrong that you can delay your para drop or whatever. Is there a way that if the reinforcements that arrive are not placed they are lost? In return you should have the ability to delay the choosing of the option.

For example on turn 10 you get to choose an option of a para drop but you do not think any choice is well advanced yet. At the moment you can choose one and then delay till game turn 9999 the units. What would I think be better is if the choice was offered each day or turn and the reinforcements had to either be used X turns later or lost. so if it takes 20 turns to arrange the drop then if you delay the options acceptance on turn 10 next day (turn 20) you accept it the paras arrive turn 40 and MUST be used or lost.

That I think is the way an operation like that would be planned/put into effect but I have no knowledge to back that up. If thats right can it be done?

Mike

[FLG]

1 Helicopters I know its boring but I am playing NGP with a view to southern front arriving on my door mat Royal Mail permitting at the weekend (pure speculation on my part) and I have tried only allowing helicopters to work within the command range of an HQ. This works quite well I am finding does anyone think this is a good idea and if so could it be done (I in my simple way assume its possible as command ranges are used for many things including artillery spotting)

We play a similar rule. Any helo that becomes low on fuel or ammo or disrupted must disengage and land until the situation is correct. The obvious place to land is adjacent to your HQ.

6 Scenario descriptions could there be an alternative description ...

I have always found it strange the scenario descriptions are so limited in extent. Any extended description would need to take into consideration the events leading up to the battle and may need to be different for each side. For example the Russians prior to the Minsk CG new a lot about the German positions but the Germans were completely surprised by the attack.

7 Strategy options some one else mentioned this and I am sorry I forget who but it seems wrong that you can delay your para drop or whatever. Is there a way that if the reinforcements that arrive are not placed they are lost? In return you should have the ability to delay the choosing of the option.

I am not entirely sure what you are saying here but wasn't the delaying of a para drop normal. Weren't the para's ready to go and then told to stand down on D-day-1?

It would seem the same with other reinforcements. The theater commander should have some say in when reinforcements arrive

[CptCav]

Mike,

Regarding #6, I would have to say that the designer (at least when I am designing a scenario) has already spent a lot of time putting it together and generally does not feel like spending too much additional time in putting together more than a brief description.

I suppose it would be more appropriate to actually put together something more along the lines of a detailed operations order with (situation, the forces participating in the battle, concept of battle, etc.) But, to do it right does take a lot of time and many players, such as yourself have indicated that you do not want detailed info on the opposing force, which an intel report may contain. So, it becomes more difficult to decide what would be welcomed versus unwelcomed knowledge.

For example, do we put something in the description indicating that on the second day of the scenario, the northern sector (off-map) will be penetrated and enemy forces will be outflanking you. That seems to be giving a player the knowledge of the future. Is that appropriate. Even if we say something like "the enemy has been building up and it has been observed to be in greater strength to your north" still can be too much info if you are wanting to play it blind.

As FLG points out, ideally there would be two descriptions of the situation, one for each side. But, again, how much info would make the player happy or unhappy. So, generally, a designer is safer just giving a brief description and it takes less of his time.

Regards,
CptCav

[Volcano Man]

I agree about the briefings. Also, certain people expect certain things from briefings. Some want a description of the situation, others want a description of what is supposed to happen or what happened in the battle. Others want a description that leads up to the event of the battle itself. I fall into the latter catigory, I tend to explain the situation which led to the scenario and then leave it open to play out. I guess someone could type up a five paragraph OPORD that explains everything, but who wants to do that? Either way, not everyone is happy.

[Glenn Saunders]

1 Helicopters I know its boring but I am playing NGP with a view to southern front arriving on my door mat Royal Mail permitting at the weekend (pure speculation on my part) ..(SNIP)..

Helicopters represent - more-so than any other unit - the largest abstraction in the game. When you consider a machine that flies at speeds of 150 mph or more, stays in the air for perhaps, at most, two hours at a time, and carries some heavy firepower, it can be a recipe for trouble when trying to represent them properly in a game where a single turn is three hours during the day.

For now - all I will say is given the abstraction as long as a command radius is small enough to restrict the us, then it doesn't matter what the value is, as long as it is short to keep the machnes from operating more than a turns move away from the HQ

2 Would it be useful to have the ability to have the command range and the movement range highlighted at the same time or indeed ant two shadings. Some other games can do this and it would help with helo movement setting artillery up in range etc. If one range was an outline and the other shaded that might work.

Not sure I see the merit in this. Keep in mnd the HQ range is a 50% level and not a IN RANGE or OUT of range limit so close is OK. It is just a generalization.

3 I am not sure this exists or not but when setting up wired hexes can you see what ones have been set up already and if not could it be done so you can.

You can only make a MINE hex in the game - not Wire. Wire is an editor feature.

4 Could the modifier that applies to bridging by battalions apply to mineclearance and could that become odds based please. I find it odd that size does not matter I had a 2 man company of Australians clearing mines whilst at 250 plus fatigue for days at El Alamein behind the lines of course but they were still very useful and I would suggest shows that something ought to be done.

This won't happen I am afraid - it impacts or would impact many previous games where Mines are prevalent.

5 Could the strength of units passing through a hex be tallied and then have a MP penalty applied. Its difficult to explain but say you have a Div stacked on a road max stacking. Then there is a wood the road passes through and then a bit of clear the otherside. What you do is unstack and move and restack the otherside. What happens in real life is the lead unit goes as far as it can in the given period of time or it may stop but the last one to move is not going to make it because the rest took longer to cross therough the wood in T mode. That is not my best attempt at explaining the point but I think you can see what I mean.

This does not sound to me to be something that would be easy to do.

6 Scenario descriptions could there be an alternative description ..... I suspect its a lot of work for not much benefit any one agree disagree etc?

I agree that it could be a lot of work andnot much benefit.

I have had a hand n a lot of these overvews and sometimes I find it hard to find what to say let alone have or write alternative overviews and still get the right Alt Overview with the right Scn ect.

7 Strategy options some one else mentioned this and I am sorry I forget who but it seems wrong that you can delay your para drop or whatever. Is there a way that if the reinforcements that arrive are not placed they are lost? In return you should have the ability to delay the choosing of the option.

There is merit in this idea when you consider Para - but I am not sure it would have a lot of impact on the series as a whole. Further more the SO code would have to be completely overhauled to accomodate it. You see in MC I know the Operation often doesn't come RIGHT after you pick it in the Strategy selection. Once picked the units move to the reinforcements menu

Hope the RM is able to deliever something that meets some of your expectations.

Glenn

[Mike Bowen]

Glenn wrote (how do you do that quote thing)
For now - all I will say is given the abstraction as long as a command radius is small enough to restrict the us, then it doesn't matter what the value is, as long as it is short to keep the machnes from operating more than a turns move away from the HQ

I do not understand are you saying something has been done that we do not know about yet? If so as my copy is in the post you could share now?

2 I think it would be useful for combinations like movement and range so you do not have to move an artillery unit and then check its in range by swapping the shading over.

3 Sorry I used the wrong word you wire a hex side bridge could they not be highlighted in the editor as you do them?

4 I know but its the one abstraction that bugs me.

5 I thought that was so.

6 I agree with the comments on the descriptions but perhaps its something people could do as they play and submit them for approval?

7 Do not get me wrong I like the SO but I do think that they can be used in the wrong way. I agree ops were cancelled IIRC 1 Airbourne had 17 planned drops prior to Market Garden my point is you can order the SO then wait and when the time is perfect drop IF and I know it would be difficult there was a time lag then that would not happen.

[Dog Soldier]

Mike,

4 Could the modifier that applies to bridging by battalions apply to mineclearance and could that become odds based please. I find it odd that size does not matter I had a 2 man company of Australians clearing mines whilst at 250 plus fatigue for days at El Alamein behind the lines of course but they were still very useful and I would suggest shows that something ought to be done.

I do not look at this as clearing every mine in the hex. The hex is not mined all the way across from hex side to hex side. The engineers have done enough to mark the safe areas or lifted enough mines in the right places to create a safe lane.

Could two guys do this by themselves in two hours? Probably not. It is a small anomaly for a rule that works well. A minefield not covered by fire is worthless anyhow. If the field is covered by fire, then the two guys will be casualties quick. The 250 fatigue means nothing to the individuals, it is a measure of the unit cohesion. I'd say a unit with only two guys left standing is too messed up to be effective. The game is only modeling that issue.

7 Strategy options some one else mentioned this and I am sorry I forget who but it seems wrong that you can delay your para drop or whatever. Is there a way that if the reinforcements that arrive are not placed they are lost? In return you should have the ability to delay the choosing of the option.

I consider strategy options to be one of two flavors.
a. You send a brilliant idea up to your superiors and they approve it.

b. A subordinate has a brain storm and you approve it in the S/O phase.

The timing of when to execute the now approved plan should be in your control. The game makes this work.

Dog Soldier

[Dog Soldier]

Glenn wrote (how do you do that quote thing)

Below every post in a thread there is a row of buttons for replying. One is labeled quote. Click it and the rest is simple.

Dog Soldier

[Glenn Saunders]

3 I am not sure this exists or not but when setting up wired hexes can you see what ones have been set up already and if not could it be done so you can.

You can only make a MINE hex in the game - not Wire. Wire is an editor feature.

3 I am not sure this exists or not but when setting up wired hexes can you see what ones have been set up already and if not could it be done so you can.

I suppose this is doable but you see, the idea is that as the designer I didn't want the attacking side to just SEE where all the wired bridges are.

Here is a brief history of this feature - it was designed for MG44 which has the smallest map in the series with a rather linear path of advance. Virtually all the bridges are wired and the requirement was to have the bridges not occupied by enemy units - yet blow up in the Allies face.

The Show Wired Bridges feature was added to the editor for the France 40 game because by setting a higher cost to cross streams on minor rivers and then wiring a bunch - but not all the bridges - we could simulate "road damage" in the Ardenne.

But with the size and shape of the map, it was impossible for me to see the wherethe bridges were wired and unwired. So I asked John to give me a way to see them temporarily. My idea was to not even release the feature in the editor because I wanted the bridge distructions to be more or less random. Or - stated another way - I didn't want the germans to be able to plot a way through "the maze and possibly find a perfect path through all the wired Bridges.

John argued that if I found the feature useful for scn design, so would others - and it was no difference than people being able to open and view the setup of the other side in a scn. Some people will do this but most guys just want to play with full FOW.

Being able to view wired bridges is not realistic - the Germans would not know ahead of time whch bridges are wired so it doesn't make sense to give the German player a feature that will allow this info to be used during game play.

Anyway - that is how this "Show Wired Bridges" thing came about in the editor and why we have decided to not make it a game feature.

Glenn