UNITS

UNITS

Postby Steve Sill » Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:10 pm

UNITS
Units consist of a number of items of equipment. The properties of units will be an aggregate of the various items of equipment, together with the following general characteristics which are particular to the unit irrespective of the equipment.
User avatar
Steve Sill
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:14 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: UNITS

Postby Colin Wright » Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:51 am

A cap on the total amount of equipment a unit can have!

You can transition from 150 Pz IV's to 150 Panthers. You can't stockpile 150 Pz IV's and 150 Panthers. The Panthers only come in as your total equipment drops below 150.
Ilhan Omar speaks for me
User avatar
Colin Wright
 
Posts: 10700
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 4:36 pm

Re: UNITS

Postby Steve Sill » Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:01 am

I've read similar arguments in the past, and I have my snobbish elitist opinion that equipment transitions can readily be handled properly by the scenario designer. If they really want to. Therefore, no reason to add in any algorithms for equipment caps that will attempt to simulate the situation. What you really want to do is add in a Theater Option to Refit that Pz Unit with New Tanks, and Disband the original while a new unit arrives. This is even way more historical to the way things actually happened.
User avatar
Steve Sill
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:14 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: UNITS

Postby Colin Wright » Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:54 pm

Steve Sill wrote:I've read similar arguments in the past, and I have my snobbish elitist opinion that equipment transitions can readily be handled properly by the scenario designer. If they really want to. Therefore, no reason to add in any algorithms for equipment caps that will attempt to simulate the situation. What you really want to do is add in a Theater Option to Refit that Pz Unit with New Tanks, and Disband the original while a new unit arrives. This is even way more historical to the way things actually happened.


Well...no, it isn't more historical.

German Panzer divisions didn't withdraw from the front and then come back with all-new gleaming PzIV H's. The new equipment arrived by fits and starts -- but at no point could the the division put more tanks into the field than it had crews.

We do need an overall equipment ceiling, it would improve the quality of the simulation, and it wouldn't be hard to implement. Look at the fits I go through with both the British and the Germans in Orient -- everything would be both a whole lot easier and a whole lot more accurate with the ability to put in an overall equipment cap. After all, if you don't want it, just leave it at the default of 100,000 items and it'll never affect anything.
Ilhan Omar speaks for me
User avatar
Colin Wright
 
Posts: 10700
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 4:36 pm

Re: UNITS

Postby Steve Sill » Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:20 am

Apologies, I momentarily forgot one of my own self imposed rules, that being not to disagree with any idea that isn't wrong. So yes, put limits on equipment plus we can still Theater Option units out if we want. Everyone is happy!

From what I've read, the way the Germans refit their Pz Div's was to break them up, sending parts to other Pz Div's as reinforcements while sending cadre's back to Grafenwoehr or Paderborn to take on new equipment and train with it. While doing this they would also take on replacements, thus eventually filling out over a period of months. So that's how we worked it out in D21, with TO's that trigger the original units to disband and the replacement units to show up a couple months later. Maybe some did it that way and others did it the way you describe.
User avatar
Steve Sill
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:14 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: UNITS

Postby Colin Wright » Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:52 pm

Thinking more about the cap here.

Yeah, we really need it. For one thing, in Orient, I swiftly ran into the problem that the list of T.O.'s if transition was done by T.O. would swiftly shoot off the bottom of the page. For another, 15. and 21. Panzer emphatically did not go back to Grafenwohr to get their updated Pz. IV's and to fill out on Pz. III's in lieu of Pz. II's.

Moreover, this goes on with other equipment as well. The British transition from 2 pdr AT guns to 6 pdr AT guns. The Germans do the same with their AT guns. More interestingly, there's also a necessary 'transition' in the 'type' of 25 pdr.

You see, the 25 pdr was designed to be able to function as an AT gun. As such, it threw a very large, but rather low-velocity and hence effectively short-range AT round. At first, it proved quite effective in this role, knocking out large quantities of incautious German armor. However, over time the Germans learned to pull up out of the effective AT range of the 25 pounders and shell them with 75mm high explosive rounds from their Pz IV's.

So effectively, there were two 'types' of 25 pounders: an early, high-AT value one, and a later, low-AT value one. Now, one doesn't want to force the withdrawal and replacement of every damned artillery regiment equipped with 25 pounders -- but one does want that AT ability to evaporate over time. So one wants your 25 pounder regiment to look something like this:

24/24 25 pdr w/AT
0/24 25 pdr w/o AT
12/12 Light Rifle
18/18 truck

...and a unit equipment cap of 54 weapons.

Now, you can have the supply of '25 pdr w/AT' stop -- or probably, never start; just have the artillery regiments that appear before a certain date have those as their equipment.

The replacements come in the form of '25 pdr w/o AT.' Then, over time, the unit would slowly transition to 25 pdr with AT -- without ever becoming an uber-regiment with 48 pieces of artillery.

Of course, the trucks and light rifles might get squeezed out, so could find yourself with a unit looking something like this:

6/24 25 pdr w/AT
24/24 25 pdr w/o AT
11/12 Light Rifle
13/18 truck

Ahistorically powerful, but somewhat slower than it should be.

I suppose ideally we'd want the option to impose a cap-and-specified-replacement-weapon for any given weapon. Then your artillery regiment looks like this:

24/24 25 pdr w/AT: capped at 24, replacements 0/24 25 pdr w/o AT
12/12 Light Rifle
18/18 truck

Then, it'll keep getting 25 pdrs w/AT as long as any are in the pool; and start picking up 25 pdrs w/o AT once those start appearing.

Note the specified value for the cap; this could vary from the equipment limit for each type. Here, I'm thinking of British AT regiments, which went from 48 2 pdr AT guns to 64 6 pdr AT guns.

So they'd look like this:

48/48 2 pdrs: capped at 64, replacements 0/64 6pdr AT
24/32 Light Rifle
36/48 Trucks

Note the minor potential inconsistency with the trucks and Light Rifles; well, you can't have everything, and the truly perfectionist could always create caps and specialized replacement equipment for these as well.

All this might prove to be just too much damned work; in which case, I'd say we should go with an optional overall unit weapons cap, which would create some transitory weirdnesses but would at least avoid the more extreme uber-units.
Ilhan Omar speaks for me
User avatar
Colin Wright
 
Posts: 10700
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 4:36 pm

Re: UNITS

Postby Steve Sill » Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:33 pm

Yes, it is all quite complicated. Maybe this - in the Inventory and Replacements there is a Date on which Equipment begins arriving and a Rate. How about adding a Date to Withdraw equipment, and also a Rate. The Date is self explanatory, the Rate would simulate that normally a type of equipment wasn't suddenly withdrawn all at once.

Still there is the TOAW issue of only having 24 slots, but I think we should expand that, or maybe if a slot is empty [0/xx] and there are no longer replacements and none on hand then the slot would remove itself.
User avatar
Steve Sill
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:14 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: UNITS

Postby Colin Wright » Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:15 pm

Steve Sill wrote:Yes, it is all quite complicated. Maybe this - in the Inventory and Replacements there is a Date on which Equipment begins arriving and a Rate. How about adding a Date to Withdraw equipment, and also a Rate. The Date is self explanatory, the Rate would simulate that normally a type of equipment wasn't suddenly withdrawn all at once.

Still there is the TOAW issue of only having 24 slots, but I think we should expand that, or maybe if a slot is empty [0/xx] and there are no longer replacements and none on hand then the slot would remove itself.


This all sounds good -- but the programming burden would seem to be growing by leaps and bounds.

One way or another, we are going to have a finite number of hours of programming time available. Since I'm fairly confident there are actually an infinite number of improvements to be made, we might want to keep a weather eye open for simple fixes that are almost as good.

In other words, if I had a choice between a perfect replacement system but no volume-based supply, or a crude cap but volume-based supply as well, I'd take the latter. If I can have my cake and eat it too, of course, that's fine. It's just that I suspect there's an upper limit to how much we can afford to do.
Ilhan Omar speaks for me
User avatar
Colin Wright
 
Posts: 10700
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 4:36 pm

Re: UNITS

Postby Steve Sill » Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:48 pm

we are going to have a finite number of hours of programming time available

I agree that this is the responsible view to have, but it may not be completely true. Check the work the unpaid volunteers are doing on the Matrix Forum. There is a guy making a Force Editor, another guy designing an Equipment file [no programming in that though], another guy deconstructing combat formulas to better understand tings and correct perceived miscalculations. Of course, doing stuff on your own is different than doing stuff for others, but still it gives me reason for encouragement.
User avatar
Steve Sill
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:14 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: UNITS

Postby Colin Wright » Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:14 pm

Steve Sill wrote:
we are going to have a finite number of hours of programming time available

I agree that this is the responsible view to have, but it may not be completely true. Check the work the unpaid volunteers are doing on the Matrix Forum. There is a guy making a Force Editor, another guy designing an Equipment file [no programming in that though], another guy deconstructing combat formulas to better understand tings and correct perceived miscalculations. Of course, doing stuff on your own is different than doing stuff for others, but still it gives me reason for encouragement.


This is valid. I could see myself, for example, researching and coming up with values for combat loads and fuel needs by weapon -- in fact, I'd probably be better at it than most.

...and of course, if someone wants to pay me, that would be fine -- but it wouldn't even occur to me that I should be.

...thinking about it, it seems that the formula should incorporate the nationality using the weapon. Americans, for example, were accustomed to blaze away at will, and Britons seem to find nice, prolonged barrages comforting, while the Germans managed to economize by going for the sudden, short but very sharp deluge effect.
Ilhan Omar speaks for me
User avatar
Colin Wright
 
Posts: 10700
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 4:36 pm


Return to Game Design

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron