r.bragg
28 Nov 05, 06:43
(I posted this memo in the general section but someone suggest to move it here;
sorry if you have read yet)
Hello guys !
I’m a newcomer in this forum
At first, sorry for my poor English
I have played TOAW – CW since 2000, and I’d like to make some personal consideration on the general approach for a future “TOAW clone ++” (if someone could develop it)
(Personally, I have little hopes about the new Matrix version)
TOAW – CW was without any doubt my best wargame ever, but (because perfection does not exist) I unfortunately experienced a lot of unrealistic effects in the TOAW combat and scenario results.
I divided my consideration between the tactical, operational and strategic levels.
Tactical level
I think that the current engine / database must be re-defined with a focus on :
- implications of scenario scale on combat
we have to consider, for example, that a regimental attack on a 5 km hex scale usually does not involve the whole extension of the front, i.e. do not involve the whole front of the defending unit; that principle should be applied to every hex scale / unit involved : defending units usually cover the front (but in different ways), whereas attacking units are usually concentrated on breakthrough points (with different tactics). So, a 10-5 unit attacking vs. a 10-5 defending unit could not be resolved by a pure attacking vs. defending factor confrontation. How can we model it into the engine ? perhaps using for each unit an “attack / defend tactical mode” : frontal attack, echeloned attack, ... linear defence, defence in depth, ... , used as a multiplier / de-multiplier of the involved forces.
- implications of units / subunits’ organisation structure (TO&E) on combat
we should also consider in some way the split (inside each unit) between active, fire support, general support, reserve echelons (that’s a bigger problem with brigade / divisional and upper unit scale), considering in attack / defence phases only the echelons naturally involved. Furthermore, we should also take into account the sub-units / weapons’ coordination / communication capabilities and generally speaking the command & control chain (should it be simulated only by proficiency ?). Perhaps some specific “equipment” could be used to manage and improve C3I capabilities, period by period. A WW2 US I.D. had different approach to the use of its subunits and to fire support and weapons’ coordination from that of a German I.D. or a Russian Rifle D. (the same could be applied to every historical period and organisation). If the simplified Attack (AP / AT) / defence factor is only a rough sum up of the weapons listed, we aim not to a TO&E but only a Table of Equipment. In fact, I think that TOAW at present can’t simulate correctly the real difference between for ex. a modern balanced force (i.e. an armoured brigade) and the WW2 equivalent, only by listing the different equipment.
The implication of our choices in terms of scale and units / sub-units structure must be considered also from the system’s database point of view. Could anyone really believe that a WW2 German squad with a MG34/42 (LMG) is equivalent to a British squad with Bren (LMG) ? Not only German MGs was different and far superior but tactics were different : German squad was created “around” the MG and fought around the MG (one of the reason of the proficiency differences in WW2 infantries). So I think that national identity must be ascribed also to infantry and infantry support units, not only to the other weapons (arty, tanks, aircraft and so on). Another ex. : in terms of firepower (so in terms of attack factor) WW1 German / British / French / Russian squads were very different, not only for having a different number of men / weapons (from 8 to 15). Could we simulate that using only generally designed Light Rifle / Rifle Squads ? Above all, I think that the whole balance between attack / defence factor of Infantry, Guns, Tanks and so on must be re-defined, considering scale / time scale. Perhaps we must think (in the database) in terms of Ammo equivalents, Rate of Fire, CEP, Range effectiveness (!), number of missions in a time unit, and so on and have a conversion routine of all these values into combat factors, on the basis of scale / time scale.
At tactical level I also suggest a very different approach to all other “battlefield support” issues : prepared defence (from dig-in to fortifications : they requires time and materials in different way, not only “turns”), constructions and destructions (of bridge / road / railways / airfields / ports and so on : they required specialised abilities and materials, not only a “local transit”), logistics (how to simulate better the logistic chain and its key elements : remember that WW1 most after-breakthrough failures were caused by logistics failures), recon (human and electronic : SIGINT / ELINT / EW / recon hardware could contribute to determine recon capability, period by period, area by area), leadership (a very subjective matter), casualty treatments (could WW1 WIA have the same probability / time schedule in returning to combat as in Desert Storm ?, so, in terms of TOAW, to return to the pool), and so on.
At tactical level I also suggest a local management of shock effects (based on the concentration level of key assets and on the attack vs. defence mode chosen)
At last, I would spend some words on turns : I think that the ideal choice could be a sequence like : turn 1 / round 1 : player one order phase, player two order phase, simultaneous combat resolution; turn 1 / round 2 : the same till last round in the each turn, with a standard length (in terms of time) of each turn, in order to have correct figures for movement, combat time (and related effects), fatigue, supply consumption etc. A randomized length of each round impulse is unrealistic in complex scenarios : why the opportunity to exploit a breakthrough (within a given turn) in Ukraine should be influenced by the randomized round length of another attack near Leningrad ?
Operational level
At the Operational level, I think that we might consider a complete different approach in the command chain and in the OoB management.
At first I think about the possibility to have a flexible command chain, with different level (at least 4 or 5, for ex. Army, Corps, Div, Rgt or Bde, sub-units), managed by a template-like tool, with definition at each level of the TO&E of elementary units and a lot of parameters (i.e. morale, proficiency, readiness, supply level, supply efficiency, C3I capability, leaderships, tactical and operational mode, and so on), with top-down effects.
We also need the possibility to change the assignment of sub-units (dynamically) and to define / change the priority level for a lot of parameters (replacements – manpower and equipment – supply, etc.)
Finally, I dream about re-defining dynamically the TO&E of each sub-units, in order to allow (in complex / long scenarios) the equipment / organisational changes as needed. Obviously, to be realistic, a change in TO&E should require a “unit withdraw”, in a sequence like : unit withdraw, TO&E change, new manpower / equipment assignment (as available), training, unit combat ready – with a time schedule related to unit dimension (bn or div ?), time scale, historical period (more complex equipment, more time), in a sort of “Force TO&E / Replacements / Training module”
Strategic level
At the Strategic level we can imagine a lot of new “modules”.
Above all a “Economy / Resources / Production module” (with all the opportunity to change economy / resource / production strategies), to choose priorities in terms of R&D and production, to manage resources, to balance manpower between armed forces (manpower pool to train) war and civil industries, to manage in detail some key factors (as for ex. oil, energy, key industrial sectors, critical raw materials, food, etc.), and after all having continuing loops between population morale, economy / production options, war production, resources availability, etc., usable to calculate / determine victory points levels, critical situation, political events and so on.
Then a “Logistic module” : to manage all logistics : supply, maintenance, medical support, railways, air / naval transportation, civil labour, POWs (POWs require resources) etc..
Then a Strategic Combat Environment : to simulate use / effects of strategic off theatre weapons on production / logistics : i.e. air strategic environment (bombers, missions, targets, fighters, missiles, C3I networks and so on), naval strategic environment (naval blockade, convoys, submarine, ASW, surface intruders, naval patrols, and so on).
So a lot of the events now managed by the Event Ed. could be managed by a direct use of properly designed functions : for ex. : units withdrawal / activation (“Force TO&E / Replacements / Training module”), recon (on the basis of the local deployment of different tactical / strategic recon / C3I assets), transportation (railways, road, sea and air – “Logistic module”), Replacements (“Production modules”).
I’m dreaming … have a nice day
Robert (Milano – Italy)
sorry if you have read yet)
Hello guys !
I’m a newcomer in this forum
At first, sorry for my poor English
I have played TOAW – CW since 2000, and I’d like to make some personal consideration on the general approach for a future “TOAW clone ++” (if someone could develop it)
(Personally, I have little hopes about the new Matrix version)
TOAW – CW was without any doubt my best wargame ever, but (because perfection does not exist) I unfortunately experienced a lot of unrealistic effects in the TOAW combat and scenario results.
I divided my consideration between the tactical, operational and strategic levels.
Tactical level
I think that the current engine / database must be re-defined with a focus on :
- implications of scenario scale on combat
we have to consider, for example, that a regimental attack on a 5 km hex scale usually does not involve the whole extension of the front, i.e. do not involve the whole front of the defending unit; that principle should be applied to every hex scale / unit involved : defending units usually cover the front (but in different ways), whereas attacking units are usually concentrated on breakthrough points (with different tactics). So, a 10-5 unit attacking vs. a 10-5 defending unit could not be resolved by a pure attacking vs. defending factor confrontation. How can we model it into the engine ? perhaps using for each unit an “attack / defend tactical mode” : frontal attack, echeloned attack, ... linear defence, defence in depth, ... , used as a multiplier / de-multiplier of the involved forces.
- implications of units / subunits’ organisation structure (TO&E) on combat
we should also consider in some way the split (inside each unit) between active, fire support, general support, reserve echelons (that’s a bigger problem with brigade / divisional and upper unit scale), considering in attack / defence phases only the echelons naturally involved. Furthermore, we should also take into account the sub-units / weapons’ coordination / communication capabilities and generally speaking the command & control chain (should it be simulated only by proficiency ?). Perhaps some specific “equipment” could be used to manage and improve C3I capabilities, period by period. A WW2 US I.D. had different approach to the use of its subunits and to fire support and weapons’ coordination from that of a German I.D. or a Russian Rifle D. (the same could be applied to every historical period and organisation). If the simplified Attack (AP / AT) / defence factor is only a rough sum up of the weapons listed, we aim not to a TO&E but only a Table of Equipment. In fact, I think that TOAW at present can’t simulate correctly the real difference between for ex. a modern balanced force (i.e. an armoured brigade) and the WW2 equivalent, only by listing the different equipment.
The implication of our choices in terms of scale and units / sub-units structure must be considered also from the system’s database point of view. Could anyone really believe that a WW2 German squad with a MG34/42 (LMG) is equivalent to a British squad with Bren (LMG) ? Not only German MGs was different and far superior but tactics were different : German squad was created “around” the MG and fought around the MG (one of the reason of the proficiency differences in WW2 infantries). So I think that national identity must be ascribed also to infantry and infantry support units, not only to the other weapons (arty, tanks, aircraft and so on). Another ex. : in terms of firepower (so in terms of attack factor) WW1 German / British / French / Russian squads were very different, not only for having a different number of men / weapons (from 8 to 15). Could we simulate that using only generally designed Light Rifle / Rifle Squads ? Above all, I think that the whole balance between attack / defence factor of Infantry, Guns, Tanks and so on must be re-defined, considering scale / time scale. Perhaps we must think (in the database) in terms of Ammo equivalents, Rate of Fire, CEP, Range effectiveness (!), number of missions in a time unit, and so on and have a conversion routine of all these values into combat factors, on the basis of scale / time scale.
At tactical level I also suggest a very different approach to all other “battlefield support” issues : prepared defence (from dig-in to fortifications : they requires time and materials in different way, not only “turns”), constructions and destructions (of bridge / road / railways / airfields / ports and so on : they required specialised abilities and materials, not only a “local transit”), logistics (how to simulate better the logistic chain and its key elements : remember that WW1 most after-breakthrough failures were caused by logistics failures), recon (human and electronic : SIGINT / ELINT / EW / recon hardware could contribute to determine recon capability, period by period, area by area), leadership (a very subjective matter), casualty treatments (could WW1 WIA have the same probability / time schedule in returning to combat as in Desert Storm ?, so, in terms of TOAW, to return to the pool), and so on.
At tactical level I also suggest a local management of shock effects (based on the concentration level of key assets and on the attack vs. defence mode chosen)
At last, I would spend some words on turns : I think that the ideal choice could be a sequence like : turn 1 / round 1 : player one order phase, player two order phase, simultaneous combat resolution; turn 1 / round 2 : the same till last round in the each turn, with a standard length (in terms of time) of each turn, in order to have correct figures for movement, combat time (and related effects), fatigue, supply consumption etc. A randomized length of each round impulse is unrealistic in complex scenarios : why the opportunity to exploit a breakthrough (within a given turn) in Ukraine should be influenced by the randomized round length of another attack near Leningrad ?
Operational level
At the Operational level, I think that we might consider a complete different approach in the command chain and in the OoB management.
At first I think about the possibility to have a flexible command chain, with different level (at least 4 or 5, for ex. Army, Corps, Div, Rgt or Bde, sub-units), managed by a template-like tool, with definition at each level of the TO&E of elementary units and a lot of parameters (i.e. morale, proficiency, readiness, supply level, supply efficiency, C3I capability, leaderships, tactical and operational mode, and so on), with top-down effects.
We also need the possibility to change the assignment of sub-units (dynamically) and to define / change the priority level for a lot of parameters (replacements – manpower and equipment – supply, etc.)
Finally, I dream about re-defining dynamically the TO&E of each sub-units, in order to allow (in complex / long scenarios) the equipment / organisational changes as needed. Obviously, to be realistic, a change in TO&E should require a “unit withdraw”, in a sequence like : unit withdraw, TO&E change, new manpower / equipment assignment (as available), training, unit combat ready – with a time schedule related to unit dimension (bn or div ?), time scale, historical period (more complex equipment, more time), in a sort of “Force TO&E / Replacements / Training module”
Strategic level
At the Strategic level we can imagine a lot of new “modules”.
Above all a “Economy / Resources / Production module” (with all the opportunity to change economy / resource / production strategies), to choose priorities in terms of R&D and production, to manage resources, to balance manpower between armed forces (manpower pool to train) war and civil industries, to manage in detail some key factors (as for ex. oil, energy, key industrial sectors, critical raw materials, food, etc.), and after all having continuing loops between population morale, economy / production options, war production, resources availability, etc., usable to calculate / determine victory points levels, critical situation, political events and so on.
Then a “Logistic module” : to manage all logistics : supply, maintenance, medical support, railways, air / naval transportation, civil labour, POWs (POWs require resources) etc..
Then a Strategic Combat Environment : to simulate use / effects of strategic off theatre weapons on production / logistics : i.e. air strategic environment (bombers, missions, targets, fighters, missiles, C3I networks and so on), naval strategic environment (naval blockade, convoys, submarine, ASW, surface intruders, naval patrols, and so on).
So a lot of the events now managed by the Event Ed. could be managed by a direct use of properly designed functions : for ex. : units withdrawal / activation (“Force TO&E / Replacements / Training module”), recon (on the basis of the local deployment of different tactical / strategic recon / C3I assets), transportation (railways, road, sea and air – “Logistic module”), Replacements (“Production modules”).
I’m dreaming … have a nice day
Robert (Milano – Italy)