[OPN] Scale Consistency & Scalability

[Lettos]

This topic is directly referrs to Scale Consistency & Scalability and contains my conclusion of very interesting discussion here:
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174&start=100

I'll copy Radoye great post:

It would be a herculean task to rework the entire PG/AG SSI map catalogue to a consistent single scale. PacGen had a scale modifier value in scenarios which would change firing ranges (so that Iwo Jima and Central China make more sense within the same campaign, especially with appropriate turns per day / days per turn settings), unfortunately we don't have that in PG/AG/PGF, and if we try to stick to a consistent scale Sevastopol would be just a single hex on a map rather than a whole scenario map. Every single map would have to be redone from scratch. So IMO that ship has sailed a long time ago.

Trying to model single units as divisions - in fact, anything larger than a battalion - these would have to include everything at once (except planes and ships), infantrymen, artillery, cavalry (where applicable), tanks, armored cars, bridging equipment, your uncle and my grandma... And there's no good way to model this under PG rules as a single unit, you can't give it the capabilities of infantry and tanks and artillery all at once, unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

So HexCode is right in that the game rules favor smaller unit modeling where an infantry unit is chiefly made up by infantrymen, tank unit by tanks/armored vehicles, artillery by artillery pieces etc. Once you go above the battalion scale this breaks down and no longer can suit the purpose. But if you go below battalion scale, you're no longer talking kilometers for a hex size but meters (and we arrive at Steel Panthers territory), so larger scale PG maps no longer make any sense and if we reduce the scale to company level you're no longer invading a country but at best maybe a railway junction or a river crossing. I mean, that's perfectly fine too for those who like it like that, let there be a 1000 blossoms bloom i always say, but then we're no longer talking about Operation Barbarossa or Normandy landings or some such - which will not sit well with others who like it that way.

So, since the map scales are already widely inconsistent, IMHO as the best compromise (and you're free to disagree with me), battalion scale for unit modeling is a perfect fit because it's the largest organizational unit that is still made up largely of the same type of troops - with some added support elements that we can calculate into the stats - infantry is still (mostly) infantry, tanks units are tank units etc. This is also considered as the smallest military unit capable of independent operations on the other hand. It works (somewhat) in a Sevastopol / Washington scenario type, it works (somewhat) in a Moscow / Stalingrad scenario type and everything in between, so there you have it.

[Lettos]

So, gradually three concepts of scale in PGF were defined: Division, Battalion, Company.
At the same time, it is clear that there is no universal approach that would be ideal in all cases.
I want to consider in more detail the advantages and disadvantages of each scale.

1. Battalion

I'll start with him. This is the most advantageous scale in terms of the variety of units and their division into classes.

General information on the example of the German army:

Basic organization of the 1941-type Panzer Division

In PGF battalion units, the division at least consists of: 3 Tanks, 1 Recon, 3 ATY, 4 INF + 1 Sturmpioniere, 1 Motorcycle, 1 AT (not Gun but "tank" unit).

Infantry Division, Old Type (1939-41)
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/HB/HB-2.html

Consists of at least: 9 INF, 5 ATY, 1 AT (may be more, even 6), probably 1 Bridge Eng.

It should be understood that a tank battalion (approximately 70-80 tanks) is a much stronger unit than an infantry battalion. In 1943, a tank battalion of 45 PzVI "Tiger I" would have passed through the positions of an infantry battalion without even really noticing what was under the tracks there.
That is, as a PGF tank unit on a battalion scale, it is more logical to accept not a tank battalion, but a tank company (20 light-medium, or 10 heavy tanks). Ultimately this must be determined by the scale of the Scenario.
An infantry battalion in some Scenarios may need to be converted into a regiment or a semi-battalion (two companies). This is a perfectly acceptable deviation from the "standard", allowing you to make the game really interesting.

Luftwaffe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizat ... Geschwader
Geschwader (3-4, or 5 Gruppen) = 100-200 aircrafts
Gruppe (3 squadrons) = 30-40
Squadron (Staffel) = 9-10-12

As a unit, you can take a Gruppe or even a Staffel, also depending on the scale of the Scenario. In the game, we see how the attack of a Ju-87 unit sometimes leads to the destruction of an infantry unit. If we imagine that Staffel flew 5 sorties to the positions of an infantry battalion in a day, then yes, little will remain of the infantry battalion. The Gruppe will do the same with an infantry regiment. A Staffel attack on a small to medium Capital ship is likely to result in serious damage or sinking of the ship. The Gruppe can also destroy the Battleship. Like that.

[Lettos]

Battalion (continued)

Geographic scale

A full-strength infantry division occupied in real historical events in Poland, LC, France and on Eastern Front approximately 7-10-15 kilometers along the front and the same in depth. But the same division, with an incomplete staff, often defended in 1944 in extended combat formations and 30-40 kilometers of the front.
For one battalion, this means 1 hex = 1-2-4 km depending from Scenario. Not many, but enough to depict important objects - for example, airfields.
The location of field airfields sometimes happened 30 km from the front line, so airfields on such a map will play their role
There are a lot of possible full-fledged not yet created Scenarios.
Using the example of the Eastern Front:
South: Odessa, Crimea (Trappenjagd'42), Kuban'43, Sevastopol'44.
North: Murmansk
Center: Northern or Southern faces of Kursk (each separately), Hube's Army group breaking Korsun-Cherkassy pocket, Kurland'44 etc.
That is, you can create a Scenario with names that mean much more for understanding the historical analogue of Scenario than "Battle for unknown Snaketown".

But on the North African Front, in Norway, the battalion, as an independent tactical unit, operated on a territory that was completely different in scale. Here 1 hex = 15 km at least.
For example, Scenario Noth Africa 1941. Distance from Benghazi to Alexandria is 900 km. 52 hexes. 1 hex = 17 km. And Rommel's army consisted of an incomplete tank division and attached infantry and artillery formations, in total no more than 45 thousand people on May 12 (see Franz Halder's Diary, entries 05/12/1941).

In the Pacific, there is a different problem. Atolls and islands too small. Tarawa (31 sq.km), Makin (13 sq.km), Peleliu (13 sq.km), Saipan (115 sq.km), Guam (544 sq.km). Iwo Jima (23 sq.km) - here 3 km (!) Of coastline for the landing of five regiments of the Marine Corps. Incredible troop density. Here 1 hex = ... 200 meters? or 100? In Scenario, you can make a map in such a scale.

But ... we don't have a Range multiplier. Or rather, it is not in the GUI and in the exe file. The player cannot press the button and switch to micro-scale.
But actually there is a multiplier - this is the Range itself in the equipment. And the creator of the scenario Iwo Jima, Gibraltar, Malta can multiply the Range himself and write to the Player in Briefing: before going through this Scenario, you copy the equipment file from "EQP / Iwo Jima" Folder to Scenario folder.

And here opportunities open up that have not yet been implemented in PGF.

Range
For example, ATY with a firing range of 15 km (now Range is "3"):
If 1 hex = 2 km, than Range = 8.
If 1 hex = 1 km, than Range = 15. Etc.

Movement
Infantry running in the North Africa scenario on foot across the desert 50 km a day - isn't that weird? In the equipment "North Africa" ​​file, you can reduce the MVT to "1", right? And, for example, in Scenario "Tobruk" increase to 5-6?
The same goes for tanks and any transport.

In the meantime, it just turns out that we blindly follow the path defined by the creators of PG1, and do not use the simple modding options available to make the game at the battalion level really battalion (semi-battalion, regimental)! A surprisingly exciting and promising field for future experiments opens up here!

All of the above shows the undoubted advantages and capabilities of a battalion scale.

But, as Radoye correctly wrote, there is at least one natural flaw that follows directly from the virtues. Battles such as Barbarossa, LC, France in full scale and without huge distortions cannot be represented in the game.
Unless the battalion, at the request of the magician, will turn into a division, and then back into a regiment, into a battalion, and at midnight into two companies. It will be a fabulous Cinderella Campaign. Any increase / decrease in the battalion should be logically explainable
But it is unambiguous: a definite plus of the battalion scale is flexible scalability.
The number of Scenarios is very large, almost unlimited.
The problem that needs to be somehow solved in the future: the Player chooses the best out of the huge number of units available for purchase, and the rest will be seen on the battlefield, at best, as pre-deployed AUX.

[Lettos]

2. Division

Basically, this is the scale set by the creators of PG1 in the initial Scenarios: Poland, Warsaw, LC, France, Balkans, Barbarossa, Kiev, Moscow. And further Stalingrad, Caucasus, Kursk, Belorussia'44.
This is the only scale for the battle of millions in large theaters of war. 1 hex = 7-10-15 km.
Battle of units made up of many implied smaller military units.

Discussing the alleged impossibility of a complex unit, I would like to focus here on the very structure of the Attack / Defense parameters.
For example, an INF unit has a Hard Attack. What is this super-ability of the infantry to attack Hard targets on Clear terrain?
At the divisional level, everything is logical - they brought ATG, howitzers to the field, shot, suffered losses, but also destroyed some of the tanks.
Or an infantry division attacked a tank division with all its rear services and warehouses. It was not the tanks themselves that were destroyed, but the auxiliary divisions of the division, which made the tanks unusable.
The infantrymen did not run with grenades on tanks 2-4, or even 20 kilometers!
But at the battalion level, which is INF, and ATG Company has become a separate unit, what weapon does the infantry use to attack tanks that are several kilometers away from them? With bazookas? Having bazzokas is more like the Ground Defense, Close Defense option. That is, the tanks attacked the infantry, but did not come close, because they knew about the bazookas. And almost no harm was done to the infantry, but they themselves suffered little.
But during battles in the city, after all, everything is different, there bazooka is a deadly weapon ...
And Air Defense? Is the infantry battalion, which exists separately from the anti-aircraft battalion in the game, repelling Il-2 attacks with its small arms?

That is, thinking logically, it turns out that the well-established system of Attack / Defense parameters when moving from the Division level to the Battalion requires some revision.
And maybe then the player will start adding all these ATG, AA, AD to the core in some limited quantities?

Division level scalability is poor. Reducing to a brigade does little, and at the regiment level, battalion rules already come into force. The number of Scenario is limited.
A large number of purchased units is not required.
For example, speaking about German tanks, it is logical to do the same as with the infantry: Panzer Division'39, Panzer Division'40, '42, '43, '44.
Fighters: Fighter JG'39, '40, '41 etc.
This is not the best dish for the gamer, as well as for the icon modder.
The division is a large scale for important, but specific, and not the usual "game" tasks.
An additional plus is the ability to slightly emulate the economy of a belligerent country by regulating the Award PP.

[Lettos]

3. Company

1 hex = 100-200 meters.

Unit parameters need to be overhauled.
ATY shoots at a distance of 40-80 hexes, INF Range = 3-4-8.
Airplanes have unlimited Fuel and MVT, since airfields cannot be displayed at all, even on a map in 200x200 hexes.
Tanks can drive through the entire map in one move, if the opposing side does not create obstacles in the way.

Campaigns turn into "Battle for Snaketown Number 1", "Battle for Snaketown 2 till 34" etc.
Is it possible to offer the player at least Battle of Arnhem? I don’t think so. This will already require scalability towards the battalion.
But then why do we need the Company scale at all?
I see the optimal use of Company scale not on the frontline among forests and swamps, with a village on a distant hill as the target of Number 253, but in urban battles and in very specialized operations. Let's say, the battle for the Tractor plant workshops in Stalingrad, or a separate section of Battle for Crete, or one of the Weserubung landing points in Norway. Or colonial wars in WWI, or small local clashes between wars. Or battles on small Pacific Ocean atolls and islands?

[Lettos]

Duration of turn

1. Division
1 turn = 1 day
It is illogical to make turn two days long. Non-motorized infantry for such a turn will cover 15 km, which is not enough.
You cannot divide the day into two turns, observing the geographical scale of 1 hex = 10 km. The daily march of the infantry will be 60 kilometers, and this is a lot even with the use of Pervitin by the soldiers.
Again - Division scale have a poor scalability.

2. Battalion
1 turn = 1/8, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 1 of day.
Great Scalability!
Some Scenarios like Kursk faces, Crete, Norway, some small Pacific Ocean islands etc can be adjusted almost to level of real-time action.

3. Company
1 turn = 15-30-60 minutes.
Imagine an attack of 9 dive bombers to Company positions. After 5-10 minutes this Company will significally change their STR... and after 10 minutes enemy tanks will attack the Company's positions.
This Scale is very close to Real-time.

Naturally, dividing the day into several Turns will allow not so much modification of the existing value of the MVT parameter.
For example, the scale of the Battalion. 1 Hex = 4 km. INF MVT = 3. The day consists of three Turns. The infantry will cover a maximum of 36 kilometers. Very real.

[Radoye]

3. Company

ATY shoots at a distance of 40-80 hexes, INF Range = 3-4-8.

This would have some unintended consequences, namely that there's no return fire to any attack from Range > 0. Basically the side that moves first would be in a great advantage because they'd be able to attack at full strength on turn one and suffer 0 casualties, and in reply the enemy would have to attack with lower strength against still full strength units (they would not suffer any casualties from return fire either, but it's not the same if a full strength unit attacks or one with only 2-3-4 remaining strength points).

Also, what about spotting ranges? There's no way to control line of sight / what is visible; you always see everything within the nominal spotting range, even stuff hiding behind forests and mountains. Since currently infantry can "shoot into" the neighboring hex but (in most cases) can see double as far, that would imply spotting ranges 6-8-16??? which would pretty much mean the entire map is visible at all times.

[Lettos]

3. Company

ATY shoots at a distance of 40-80 hexes, INF Range = 3-4-8.

This would have some unintended consequences, namely that there's no return fire to any attack from Range > 0. Basically the side that moves first would be in a great advantage because they'd be able to attack at full strength on turn one and suffer 0 casualties, and in reply the enemy would have to attack with lower strength against still full strength units (they would not suffer any casualties from return fire either, but it's not the same if a full strength unit attacks or one with only 2-3-4 remaining strength points).

Also, what about spotting ranges? There's no way to control line of sight / what is visible; you always see everything within the nominal spotting range, even stuff hiding behind forests and mountains. Since currently infantry can "shoot into" the neighboring hex but (in most cases) can see double as far, that would imply spotting ranges 6-8-16??? which would pretty much mean the entire map is visible at all times.

These were only my first hypotheses about Company . Start point for thinking, not more.
It is clear that the scale of the Company is the most unworked topic right now. So to speak, an advance for the future, when the Battalion and Division are so well understood and known that the authors of Scenarios will want something else

[HexCode]

The forum's topic structure is still evolving. I believe it's high time "we" take a fresh look at this topic. Here's my "big picture" thinking:

1) The [OPN] prefix is definitely outdated. After all, PGF's Library is now gone !

2) This topic deals with "historically defensible" content. More to the point, it's specific to WWII conflict. Consequently, this is [DEV] territory and, hence, the topic should be "pinned".

3) I also recommend that the topic's title be renamed to

[DEV] Scale Consistency & Scalability



4) With respect to the topic's first post, # Radoye's # great text may be immediately preceded by the following introductory text:

Half a century ago, two seminal hex-based, turn-based wargames, Blitzkrieg and Panzerblitz, launched two partially overlapping wargaming traditions. Blitzkrieg ushered in the era of Strategy Wargaming. Panzerblitz did the same for Historical Wargaming.

Two of the topmost concerns in Historical Wargaming have been how to establish geographical and magnitude consistency as well as pursue scalability across the board. The object has always been to render multiple battle situations playable under the same rules and unit specifications.

The goal of geographical consistency is to establish definitive, unchanging dimensions underlying a typical map hex. In this context, scalability poses the challenge of designing maps sporting hexes of varying dimensions while somehow tinkering with rules and unit specifications so as to keep "things" objective...

The goal of magnitude consistency is to establish definitive, unchanging interpretations of the meaning of a typical unit strength factor. In this context, scalability poses the challenge of specifying units of varying sizes while somehow designing appropriate maps so as to keep "things" objective...

The above suggestion, if implemented, will render the entire topic foundational and will significantly prolong its practical longevity.

5) Elsewhere in this forum, I wrote:

When it comes to "hardcore" historical wargaming, an actual plethora of available play system and content design options may easily become a de facto... curse ! Reason being, all around consistency and scalability representation realism's demands become THE overarching concern. To this effect, given a particular scenario or set of scenarios, invoking some such options may be grossly inappropriate.

SO, depending on the organizational scale modeled (i.e., Division, Regiment, Battalion, Company), this topic would be ideal for identifying and discussing play system features and modded "constructions" the presence of which might not be scale-appropriate.

[HexCode]

Something like a decade ago, PGF's programmer coined the following software title: "Panzer General Forever" or "PGF" for short. Clearly, "Panzer General" referred to SSI's well known wargame title which that company released in the mid-1990s. What about the "Forever" part, though ? Well, I can think of just two plausible meanings here, possibly reflecting PGF programmer's

a) Opinion: "Panzer General", being a classic wargame, will never lose its appeal.

b) Intent: to modernize the technical requirements underpinning playing "Panzer General" so that fans wouldn't need to bother with... "technically exotic things and fixes" such as DOSbox / D*FEND.

In this topic's context, preceding point (b) is manifestly irrelevant, I should think. What about preceding point (a) though ? In what way might it (or not) be relevant ? Although I could make a case for SSI's flagship play system, it would be sort of a side show; just a board wargamer's "retro" preoccupation. Therefore:

The "Forever" part essentially pertains to SSI's flagship content; yeah, POLAND, WARSAW etc and, by reasonable extension, SIDI BARRANI, EL AGHEILA etc.

It's logically impossible for one to continue posting under this topic without having the a priori benefit of an agreed upon historical time frame. # Lettos # has already done that. Happily, the historical time frame of his focus coincides with the one underlying SSI's flagship content. The same can be said about # Radoye's # interests.

So far, so good !

[HexCode]

This topic's first post contains the following quoted post paragraph (selectively truncated) by # Radoye #:

It would be a herculean task to rework the entire PG/AG SSI map catalogue to a consistent single scale . . . make more sense within the same campaign, especially with appropriate turns per day / days per turn settings) . . . if we try to stick to a consistent scale Sevastopol would be just a single hex on a map rather than a whole scenario map. Every single map would have to be redone from scratch. So IMO that ship has sailed a long time ago.

I certainly understand where # Radoye # is coming from. After all, he designs Campaigns featuring quite a few scenarios. In fact, as far as I know, all custom Campaigns playable under PGF are more or less like that (no, I'm certainly not talking about quality here ).

In my opinion, # Radoye's # commentary is eminently logical, provided one wishes to emulate the kinds of scenarios debuted by SSI. However, from the standpoint of "hardnosed historically defensible" (HHD) content design, it's rather maximalist. Let me unpack this:

1) The issue of multi-scenario Campaigns inexorably entailing play which progressively yields outcomes that are increasingly historically counterfactual and what to do about it has already been discussed at length in this forum (e.g., Coreless Campaigns).

2) Logically speaking, a multi-scenario Campaign is at most HHD as the least HHD of its constituent scenarios.

3) It's only logical that a content designer should focus on individual scenarios first. HHD Campaigns may (or not) be possible, after all.

4) Individual scenarios may not be anything like SSI's. In fact, I speculate that they won't be; reason being, these scenarios need to be HHD, not just "historically themed".

5) To the extent that a typical HHD scenario models some well defined WWII battle / operation, it's bound to feature many unique characteristics.

6) One cannot take, say, Berlin with a few battalions or, god forbid, companies !! A typical HHD scenario will feature its own timetable in turns, hex dimensions and unit stats. This is rather well trodden board wargame territory.

Bottom line: I am skeptical of attempts to somehow shoehorn SSI's "battles" into an HHD content "universe". Conversely, designers wishing to focus on crafting HHD content may have to cut the umbilical cord connecting their hobby mindset to SSI's flagship content.

[Radoye]

To be honest, i do believe it would be possible to create a HDD campaign under the PGF ruleset, but it would require some creative thinking and a significant step away from the SSI way of doing things.

The campaign would have to be focused on following a single unit - a regiment or a brigade, not larger than that (if we stick to the Battalion scale) - and follow their historical path through various battles during the war. This means the core would be small - 5-8 units at most.

Next, the Experience and Prestige would have to be tightly controlled to avoid your core becoming 5-star 15-strength monstrosity. Automatic replacements between scenarios would have to be off.

The campaign path would be intersected into several mini-campaigns.

Say, you're playing as a German invading Poland, you would have a series of smaller scale scenarios (and here we can have a consistent geographical scale from one battle to another) depicting the engagements your regiment / brigade took part in. There would be other (aux) units on the map, temporarily under your command for the particular engagement etc. You'd go from one battle to the next with little chance to upgrade your units, due to the narrow time frame this mini-campaign would take place in, and since there are no free replacements between the scenarios all your prestige would be needed to keep your core alive anyhow.

At the end of each of these mini-campaign, there would be a Rest-and-resupply scenario; the player would be given a sizeable prestige award to spend on reinforcing and upgrading their core, before the next deployment on the following mini-campaign - say, after Poland your next engagement will be in Belgium / France. And then you'd have another R&R before being deployed to take part in Operation Barbarossa. And so on.

Of course, it would still be possible to diverge from a strictly historical path - IMO, even in a single scenario play no matter how historically accurate it might be designed in its initial setup, there still can be a significant lever of divergence from history depending on player's decisions, but if the things are controlled tightly enough the opportunity for historical divergence in a campaign like this would not be much bigger than that of a single scenario.

(I've discussed these concepts in length with our friend Lettos and his views on this matter are very similar to mine.)

[HexCode]

Preliminaries

I still think this is [DEV] territory ! In any case, I'm glad that our ongoing discussion is taking place in here. Who knows ? Some other "grognard" may get "activated" and join the... cause. PGF's second decade is still young.

I know of no existing HHD custom content playable under PG1 / AG / PGF. To this effect, the present topic is all about prototypical HHD content (scenarios and campaigns alike) design. Yeah, it's all refreshingly new.

I've discussed these concepts in length with our friend Lettos and his views on this matter are very similar to mine

That's great. No harm is being done for airing all this "publicly", right ? HHD content design is a brand new, reasonably promising hobby vista. Let's make sure "we" give it the best launching pad possible.

Reasonable Assurances

Of course, it would still be possible to diverge from a strictly historical path - IMO, even in a single scenario play no matter how historically accurate it might be designed in its initial setup, there still can be a significant lever of divergence from history depending on player's decisions, but if the things are controlled tightly enough the opportunity for historical divergence in a campaign like this would not be much bigger than that of a single scenario.

From a "grognard" perspective, this is critical. No matter who the players are going to be (not excluding the AI), a key requirement must be reasonably met:

SPECULATIVE OR COUNTERFACTUAL ?

Some hobbyists are willing to entertain notions of "alternative history", provided certain "safeguards" are in place. Thus, as long as a wargame provides "assurances" that play will by necessity generate speculative (i.e., "historically plausible") outcomes, such hobbyists are willing to "tolerate" such "deviations". Otherwise, the wargame title just amounts to a... toy that generates "plainly" counterfactual outcomes. Such outcomes, some hobbyists contend, are, well, ... rubbish.

A Typical HHD Scenario

Earlier, I wrote:

Individual scenarios may not be anything like SSI's. In fact, I speculate that they wan't be; reason being, these scenarios need to be HHD, not just "historically themed".

To the extent that a typical HHD scenario models some well defined WWII battle / operation, it's bound to feature many unique characteristics.

NOW:

... you would have a series of smaller scale scenarios (and here we can have a consistent geographical scale from one battle to another)

Let's consider a typical smaller scale scenario. Besides the de rigueur HHD OoB and other requisite, unique characteristics; turn duration, unit movement and weapons specs will have to match the chosen geographical scale. Shoehorning SSI's maps into the presently envisaged design exercise (or vice versa) may not make much HHD sense. In my opinion, new maps will have to be designed.

Here's an idea. What if one were to design a large enough map to depict the entire geographical area within which the smaller scale scenarios are intended to unfold ? If so, one would be fighting under the same turn duration interpretation with one and the same set of unit movement and weapons specs. Now, "things" will likely bifurcate. For H2H play, the preceding idea may be quite workable. BUT, when it comes to the AI, the larger the scope of a scenario, the more likely it is that the AI will be grossly underperforming. SO, the old dilemma regarding meaningful dual-purpose scenarios rears its head. Consequently, when it comes to AI's rather limited capabilities, finely "chopping up" historical battles / operations may be the practical way to go.

One thing I'm very curious about is the sort of victory conditions to be assigned to each small scale scenario. Are we still talking "take Berlin" stuff ? I mean, shouldn't victory conditions be appropriate to the envisaged smallish Core ?

My intent: Hopefully, I'm not going to be misunderstood here. All I'm trying to do is focus on the prototypical concept of an HHD individual scenario first. The inevitable Inter-Related Scenario Play Mode (i.e., Campaign) won't be reasonably HHD unless its constituent components are.

[Radoye]

Yes, the old playbook would have to be ripped up and new maps would have to be designed, all to the same consistent scale, then unit parameters (range, spotting, movement) would have to be adjusted to this scale and finally when designing a scenario the number of turns per day should be set to fit all of the above (most likely somewhere in the range of several turns per day).

Of course, the scenarios would no longer be "Poland", "Norway", "Low Countries", "France", "Balkans" etc - each of those would now be a mini-campaign put together from several scenarios and would follow the path of a single Division or a Brigade size unit. Having access to unit diaries would greatly help with deciding on the campaign path.

So for example, 1. Pz.Div. fought at the Battle of Czestochowa Sep 1-4, 1939. That's scenario 1. On September 6, it took part in the Battle of Tomaszow Mazowiecki. That's scenario 2. September 8-12, forcing Vistula at Gora Kalwaria and protecting bridgeheads on the eastern bank - scenario 3. September 16-18 pushing northwest to assist in the Battle of Bzura - scenario 4. That's the first mini-campaign after which we have R&R to reinforce, refit and upgrade.

Next we would go to the Low Countries - May 10, taking Luxembourg and crossing into Belgium advancing towards Bouillon. May 13-16 forcing Meuse at Sedan and breaking through fortified French lines. Next it advanced on Amiens and arrived before Dunkirk on 24th. Another R&R.

Third mini-campaign would start June 10 by forcing the Aisne at Chateau-Porcein, punching through the Weygand Line, crossing the Marne-Rhine canal on the 13th. After following the Marne towards south for a while they turn northeast and on June 17-18 they assault the fortifications at Belfort, thus sealing in the French forces in and around the Maginot line from the rest of France. Until June 22 they conduct mop-up operations in the Southern Vosges area. R&R.

June 22 crossing the Soviet border from near Tilsit, East Prussia. June 23-27 Battle of Raseiniai in Lithuania. June 28 forcing Daugava and creating a bridgehead on the eastern bank. July 1st advancing through Kurland towards the Stalin Line, etc etc all the way until 1945 and surrendering to the Americans in Styria.

With free replacements between scenarios being switched off it would be possible to construct such a campaign path reusing the same .pgscn files that the prestige influx one receives for the R&R scenarios is directly proportionate to the player's performance in each scenario within each mini-campaign (basically, the better you perform the richer you get awarded for your R&R). So in essence each mini-campaign would sort of behave like a single SSI pg scenario, but now broken down to several smaller scale components that sequentially follow each other. You'd be following a historical path (no chance to invade England or some such) taking part in battles that the real unit you're following took part in. If you perform good, you would be awarded with prestige so you can reinforce and upgrade your army, if you don't perform you will have to make do with what you can scrape together until you're eventually killed.

Purchasing can be limited to classes appropriate to the type of unit you're leading (Infantry Division, Panzer Division etc), and you would have to make do with auxiliary units to fill the gaps. Experience can be capped to so that you don't gain your 1st stars until half-way through Low Countries and France. Scenario starting prestige and after scenario awards should be kept to minimum and the player would be only provided with an injection during the R&R phases.

It is doable and IMO it can work, but it would take a hell of a lot of effort to put it all together. You'd be starting from scratch, new maps, new eqp stats calculation, everything would have to be built anew. Basically, an entirely new game that only borrows the PGF "framework" (the exe with the built-in AI, the user interface - unless you want to redo that too - and the data file formats).

Not for me

[HexCode]

# Radoye #,

Preliminaries

I appreciate it very much that you continue interacting with me "in here". As far as my "big picture" understanding of the possible shape of HHD content is concerned, your last post made all the difference in the world.

Not for me

One need not be involved in every design activity. One can advise, playtest etc. I'm a good example of this. I play ahistorical stuff H2H. Yet, I do post "in here".

the old playbook would have to be ripped up and new maps would have to be designed, all to the same consistent scale, then unit parameters (range, spotting, movement) would have to be adjusted to this scale and finally when designing a scenario the number of turns per day should be set to fit all of the above (most likely somewhere in the range of several turns per day) . . . You'd be starting from scratch, new maps, new eqp stats calculation, everything would have to be built anew. Basically, an entirely new game that only borrows the PGF "framework" (the exe with the built-in AI, the user interface - unless you want to redo that too - and the data file formats).

Yes, I totally agree. The key question is whether # Lettos # is prepared to do all that.

Proposed Pilot Engagement

I recommend that "we" start at the... beginning. A Mini-Campaign strings together a number of Engagements. Given the overarching HHD requirement, I believe that the concept should prove itself at the sole Engagement level first. Given # Lettos' # familiarity with Third Reich and Soviet military history, modeling an Engagement within the context of, say, Barbarossa might be desirable.

Going back to my SPI wargaming days, I remember that, in grand tactical wargames, a key design practice was to represent divisions by invoking a collection of constituent battalion / company size units. Often, infantry units were battalion size while tank and artillery units were company size. No matter, # Lettos # will have to decide on an appropriate representation scheme and stay with it throughout the envisaged campaign. Before I forget -- I'm very curious to see how air units will be treated.

This is as good a time as any for me to float the following idea regarding map making. A number of Engagements are currently envisaged to be played back-to-back before a mandated pause (i.e., rest & refit). Invariably, such Engagements would be taking place within a broader geographical area. Instead of fashioning individual maps dedicated to particular Engagements, the same larger map could be used in all instances. All # Lettos # will have to do is to employ "unenterability" (i.e., neutral territory in SSI's parlance) coding for the hexes that shouldn't be "enterable" during some particular Engagement.

[Radoye]

Yes, I totally agree. The key question is whether # Lettos # is prepared to do all that.

Last time we spoke, he was producing maps like on an assembly line. The new Poland map in PGF WAW that i use is his work, he did a Manchuria map for me (not yet used - will be the final scenario in the AG Soviet campaign, i already added a Khalkhin Gol 1st scenario taken from Pacific General and am planning to finish it in Manchuria again against the Japanese), showed me a Kerch map (which i might also use at one point) and a Barbarossa map. Beautiful work, very detailed and accurrate.

Haven't touched bases with him in a couple of weeks or so, maybe there's more now.

Instead of fashioning individual maps dedicated to particular Engagements, the same larger map could be used in all instances. All # Lettos # will have to do is to employ "unenterability" (i.e., neutral territory in SSI's parlance) coding for the hexes that shouldn't be "enterable" during some particular Engagement.

Lettos and i already discussed this approach and this is likely what he will do with his Barbarossa map.

[Lettos]

So for example, 1. Pz.Div. fought at the Battle of Czestochowa Sep 1-4, 1939. That's scenario 1. On September 6, it took part in the Battle of Tomaszow Mazowiecki. That's scenario 2. September 8-12, forcing Vistula at Gora Kalwaria and protecting bridgeheads on the eastern bank - scenario 3. September 16-18 pushing northwest to assist in the Battle of Bzura - scenario 4. That's the first mini-campaign after which we have R&R to reinforce, refit and upgrade.

Next we would go to the Low Countries - May 10, taking Luxembourg and crossing into Belgium advancing towards Bouillon. May 13-16 forcing Meuse at Sedan and breaking through fortified French lines. Next it advanced on Amiens and arrived before Dunkirk on 24th. Another R&R.

Third mini-campaign would start June 10 by forcing the Aisne at Chateau-Porcein, punching through the Weygand Line, crossing the Marne-Rhine canal on the 13th. After following the Marne towards south for a while they turn northeast and on June 17-18 they assault the fortifications at Belfort, thus sealing in the French forces in and around the Maginot line from the rest of France. Until June 22 they conduct mop-up operations in the Southern Vosges area. R&R.

June 22 crossing the Soviet border from near Tilsit, East Prussia. June 23-27 Battle of Raseiniai in Lithuania. June 28 forcing Daugava and creating a bridgehead on the eastern bank. July 1st advancing through Kurland towards the Stalin Line, etc etc all the way until 1945 and surrendering to the Americans in Styria.

It is doable and IMO it can work, but it would take a hell of a lot of effort to put it all together. You'd be starting from scratch, new maps, new eqp stats calculation, everything would have to be built anew. Basically, an entirely new game that only borrows the PGF "framework" (the exe with the built-in AI, the user interface - unless you want to redo that too - and the data file formats).

Not for me

Radoye> Not for me

That's a very good approach. I wouldn't envy anyone who undertakes a campaign for ... like the Wehrmacht infantry 82nd regiment.

There is one little problem here. Our common information field.

I wanted to quote some info from a book I read
https://books.google.lv/books?id=Y-IaBQ ... &q&f=false
Online version: https://fb2.top/pehota-vermahta-na-vost ... d/part-1#1

But... There's a question here. This book in Russian is really a translation of original edition of this book: https://books.google.lv/books/about/Inf ... edir_esc=y ?

Or is it not quite accurate, and not quite a translation? Tricks of the wily Stalin? He's dead! Ah, well, someone fresher than him... or not???

Why should I believe some "Centropoligraf" 2014 edition of the book? There is NO reference to the original edition in Russian version...

In this particular case, we have a detailed combat operations diary of one regiment. By the way, according to the author in the Russian edition, "the best regiment of the Wehrmacht". But! I have no link to the source of the information.

If everything written in the book is true, then near Tula in December 1941 in the 82nd Regiment was 40-50 men in a company. This means a complete restart of the entire campaign, a point of "bifurcation" both in real life and in the game (for the campaign designer).
If everything written is a lie, then we should live peacefully in the SSI mainstream.

Again,

Radoye> Not for me

[Lettos]

Yes, I totally agree. The key question is whether # Lettos # is prepared to do all that.

Last time we spoke, he was producing maps like on an assembly line. The new Poland map in PGF WAW that i use is his work, he did a Manchuria map for me (not yet used - will be the final scenario in the AG Soviet campaign, i already added a Khalkhin Gol 1st scenario taken from Pacific General and am planning to finish it in Manchuria again against the Japanese), showed me a Kerch map (which i might also use at one point) and a Barbarossa map. Beautiful work, very detailed and accurrate.

Haven't touched bases with him in a couple of weeks or so, maybe there's more now.

Instead of fashioning individual maps dedicated to particular Engagements, the same larger map could be used in all instances. All # Lettos # will have to do is to employ "unenterability" (i.e., neutral territory in SSI's parlance) coding for the hexes that shouldn't be "enterable" during some particular Engagement.

Lettos and i already discussed this approach and this is likely what he will do with his Barbarossa map.

The problem about maps described now by Hexcode has been hanging over my head for 20-30 years. I took some steps toward solving this problem beforehand, that's all.
Question to Radoye: do you think it would be useful to publish the mentioned maps in the public domain? That would make the discussion easier with practical examples. But I don't seek to do that, based only on the logic of the discussion, and ignoring other considerations. The decision is up to you.

About "he was producing maps like on an assembly line" I was telling you how you can make maps as efficiently as possible with a couple of markers and baking pie paper. I guess I had to be born in the pre-smartphone era to work that way. Although I know full well from the inside what an A0 scanner device is.

Instead of fashioning individual maps dedicated to particular Engagements, the same larger map could be used in all instances. All # Lettos # will have to do is to employ "unenterability" (i.e., neutral territory in SSI's parlance) coding for the hexes that shouldn't be "enterable" during some particular Engagement.

It has been thought about many times. Even discussed a bit with Radoye. Yes, dividing up sections of the map with strips of neutral hexes.

But all of this is also only a small part of the big problem.

[HexCode]

Ok, obtaining 100% accurate / reliable historical information may be a tall order. However, this hasn't stopped wargame designers from authoring pretty good HHD games. At some point, one has to use his judgement and fill in the gaps... I mean, that first "H" stands for "hardnosed". Well, no matter how hard a nose is, it's still covered with flesh, right ?

# Lettos #, I wouldn't give up so easily. Also, if you're so disappointed with 5 Star General types of AI Modules, why not take a fresh look at your design interests through the prism of H2H play modes ? After all, that's what board wargaming was all about when dinosaurs like me roamed the earth...

[Radoye]

Question to Radoye: do you think it would be useful to publish the mentioned maps in the public domain? That would make the discussion easier with practical examples. But I don't seek to do that, based only on the logic of the discussion, and ignoring other considerations. The decision is up to you.

I have nothing against releasing those maps now, but they're your work so the decision is up to you. I am not going to use them immediately (you have noticed that the pace of my work is about as fast as the tectonic movement of the continental plates ), it will take some time before i'm actually ready for them. So no need to wait for me, if you wish to share them with the world i have no objections.

[Lettos]

...the pace of my work is about as fast as the tectonic movement of the continental plates )

A good term for a new subspecies of maps: PGF Tectonic

An assessment of the quality of the maps can be found here:

Last time we spoke, he was producing maps like on an assembly line. The new Poland map in PGF WAW that i use is his work, he did a Manchuria map for me (not yet used - will be the final scenario in the AG Soviet campaign, i already added a Khalkhin Gol 1st scenario taken from Pacific General and am planning to finish it in Manchuria again against the Japanese), showed me a Kerch map (which i might also use at one point) and a Barbarossa map. Beautiful work, very detailed and accurrate.

I thought there was no point in publishing the maps themselves. The images are enough.
For questions about using and making new maps, contact:
Lettos, a conventionally free PGF-Tectonic map store


Kerch and Taman Peninsulas, 1 hex = 2 km. Map size: 122 х 62 hexes
Usage: PGF-Tectonic map


Great for battalion Campaign 1941-1944:
1941-1942 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... _Peninsula
1943-1944 https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2017/ ... peninsula/


Manchoukuo, 1 hex = 15 km. Map size: 76 x 56 hexes
Usage: single map for one scenario


Source map: https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/sea ... :9s161h844

This Manchoukuo is really a very large area. The scale is chosen so as to depict the rapid fighting in the 2-3 weeks of August 1945.


North Africa Map size: 69 x 42

Usage: single map for several scenarios good known from PG1.
This map is based on an existing map007. It is an experimental map.
I intentionally deformed the map to give the units more space. Tobruk is intentionally enlarged to make a more or less long siege possible.
The same map deformation method was used by SSI in PG1 in the well-known Balkan map.



Indeed, why make an accurate map of the desert at a scale of 1 hex = 30 km (this is the scale chosen by SSI !), if it is almost impossible to place all the tank companies and batteries of 88 mm ATG on it?


"Barbarossa" 1 hex = 10 km Map size: 86 x 88

Usage: Expandable PGF-Tectonic map.
This map can easily be extended in either direction.
This is the only map that will not be "complete" for the foreseeable future. Which doesn't stop you from using it in whole or in part right now.



You can cut pieces from this map for dozens of scenarios to be created. You could, for example, divide this map with a line of neutral hexes slightly diagonally, simultaneously playing two scenarios for Army Group North and Center. Eventually you could add an Army Group South, and even draw Lapland and Murmansk.

--- When making the Kerch-Taman and Barbarossa maps, I used WW2 topographic and physical maps whenever possible.---

[Lettos]

Before I forget -- I'm very curious to see how air units will be treated.

SSI came up with this particular air combat system, and there's not much I can change here.
But the historicism... how can you do without it if everything else is historical?
Let the parameters of Fuel, MVT of air units be such, to at least somehow reflect the following reality:

- Fighters and tactical bombers did not fly too far from their airfields
- Fighters can fly faster than bombers
- Slower planes of the same class flew slower than faster planes
- Level Bombers would fly far, have very high MVT, but have minimal AMMO (such as we already have in Equipment WAW), or less AMMO than tactical aviation

If the chosen scale of 1 hex = 10 km, and 1 turn = 1 day,
then:

FUEL

Tac Bombers and Fighters

Liddell Hart about the Bf109-E

"The official data that the range of these aircraft at cruising speed is 412 miles has proven to be incorrect in practice. The actual range of this aircraft was a little over 100 miles, so that such an aircraft could fly from Pas de Calais or from the Cotentin Peninsula to London, but it had very little time left for combat. In other words, it could remain in the air for only 95 minutes, which gave it only 75-80 minutes of combat flying time." (Chapter 8, "Battle for England")
History of the Second World War (London, Weidenfeld Nicolson, 1970)
Translated by DEEPL from Russian edition http://militera.lib.ru/h/liddel-hart/08.html

The Soviet fighters were in the same situation.

Fighter Aviation Combat Manual (NIA-45). Moscow, Voenizdat, 1945. ("Наставление по боевым действиям истребительной авиации (НИА-45)")
"The depth of escort was roughly determined by the flight speed of the covered aircraft multiplied by half the time the fighters could stay in the air if they flew at 0.8 to 0.85 maximum minus the time for takeoff, assembly, climb, 15 minutes of combat, and a 10% reserve. Thus, the maximum depth of escort for attack aircraft was 130 - 140 km, and for bombers - 150 - 160 km."
Translated by DEEPL.
Source: http://militera.lib.ru/science/skomoroh ... ky/03.html

Combat range specified in the aircraft data sheet must be halved.
For example, the Combat Range is 800 km. In reality it is 400 km = 40 hexes.

Level Bombers

The situation here is different. Long flight, then relatively fast drop bombs, then long flight again. That's why
Fuel = Combat Range * 0.9


AMMO

Tac Bombers and Fighters

Within the SSI model, I'm perfectly happy with numbers 5-8-10. Some planes have more, others have less.

Level Bombers

3-4. Not 1 just because the model doesn't separate bomb and cannon armament. An airplane that dropped bombs should not be left without AMMO if attacked by enemy fighters.


MVT

Tac Bombers and Fighters

I've already written somewhere in the OoB thread: a cruising speed of 450 km/h is taken as 12-13.
Every 50 km/h up or down equals MVT +/- 1.

Level Bombers

For this class MVT=20-25-30
You can calculate by a primitive formula:
MVT = Cruising Speed / 10 (or 15)


If you select a different scale and other number of turns per day,
multiply FUEL and MVT by factor = 10 / (Turns per day * selected scale in km)

That is, at a scale of 1 hex = 2 km, and 2 turns per day, multiply by "2.5".

Yes, the MVT of Tac Bombers and Fighters will be a few tens, 20-40, for Level Bombers - 50 and more, and the FUEL for all Air Classes will be almost unlimited.

All of this, to my deepest regret, is generally a patch on a patch.

Other opinions on how to make it all even better are definitely welcome!

[HexCode]

# Lettos #

Preliminaries

SSI came up with this particular air combat system, and there's not much I can change here . . . All of this, to my deepest regret, is generally a patch on a patch.

Ok, the half-filled glass is half-full and half-empty simultaneously:

A) You aren't attempting to "shoehorn" your project into SSI's flagship content.

B) You are attempting to "shoehorn" your project into PGF's play system.

Way back in the mid-1990s, "grognards" almost universally considered PG1-DOS to be a... "beer & pretzels" wargame. Their critique of air unit matters was particularly vociferous, even biting.

In any case, like in real war, one has to make due with whatever resources are at hand. As for wonder weapons, well, they may never come...

Combat Attrition Rates

Many years ago, some PG1-DOS hobbyists started experimenting with play under conditions whereby units' Defense values were significantly increased. Their aim was to lower all around combat attrition rates.

Given # Radoye's # conception of a typical Engagement's turn duration representation (i.e., a few hours), wouldn't it make sense to "seriously" look into this issue ?

[Lettos]

Combat episode of December 1941, near Moscow. Useful to read in terms of scaling combat operations.

Battles on those days were unsuccessful. One of the regiments for the fifth day attacked Kukolki, a village of thirty houses, 15-20 kilometers from Sukhinichi. It was a stronghold with bunkers, fortified with ice in front of the embrasures and with hidden communication passages. The village was slightly elevated above the adjacent snowfield, from which our troops were rising. Behind the village a strip of woods was darkening.

After a fire raid, the infantry would rise in two rifle battalions, march and fall, met with dagger fire from machine guns. Ours lay low, while the Germans moved openly from one firing point to another and continued to fire. Ours burrowed into the snow, covering the bodies of their dead comrades. The attack was stalling. The deep snow became a place to sleep. The wounded were evacuated.

In the morning everything was repeated again and with the same result. Attacking head-on, the infantry suffered casualties, not bringing the victory over the garrison entrenched in the docks a single step closer.

The order came: to stop the attacks.

The unit and division commanders were recalled. New commanders came to us.

Within several days the division lost about six hundred men killed and wounded. It was taken back and moved to another area.

- Kukolki was taken all the same - junior lieutenant Molov, commander of the battery control platoon, told me on the march. - Only not us, of course, but our neighbors. We were up to our necks in the task.

On our left the guardsmen fought. Platoon of Guards scouts numbering 19 men, in camouflage cloaks, at night stealthily approached a German stronghold, removed the slumbering sentries, entered the village and defeated the resting garrison of unsuspecting Germans, without losing a single man of their own. The task, entrusted to fresh, but inexperienced units, was accomplished by a single platoon of Guardsmen.

It was a good lesson: fight with skill, not numbers.

Translated by DEEPL.COM

Лопатин С. С. Живая память: Записки фронтовика. — Свердловск: Средне-Уральское книжное издательство, 1988. — 256 с. ISBN 5-7529-0034-4.
Source: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/lopatin_ss/01.html

[Lettos]

B) You are attempting to "shoehorn" your project into PGF's play system.

I can take another system and cram my "historical" ideas into it. Anything is possible

Way back in the mid-1990s, "grognards" almost universally considered PG1-DOS to be a... "beer & pretzels" wargame. Their critique of air unit matters was particularly vociferous, even biting.

In any case, like in real war, one has to make due with whatever resources are at hand. As for wonder weapons, well, they may never come...

The Air units in SSI games are so fantastically bad that it makes absolutely no sense to criticize it. The same applies to naval units. Somehow it works - and so far it's more or less okay.

Combat Attrition Rates

Many years ago, some PG1-DOS hobbyists started experimenting with play under conditions whereby units' Defense values were significantly increased. Their aim was to lower all around combat attrition rates.

Given # Radoye's # conception of a typical Engagement's turn duration representation (i.e., a few hours), wouldn't it make sense to "seriously" look into this issue ?

Increase Defense? That would force you to redo all attack parameters of all units... That's a lot of work with questionable results.

I would have gone the other way.
What is a unit's STR, that sacred "ten"? Why not do as it was in reality, equating STR to the number of men/tanks in the unit?

Under pre-war concepts, a division was given a section of the front. But on the one hand there was a division of 16 thousand men, and sometimes an additional regiment was added to reinforce, and on the other hand - 11 thousand should be on the mobilization plan, but in reality 7-8 thousand in peacetime.
Hit an infantry unit STR=8 (thousand) with artillery first, and then a unit STR=18 (thousand) with EXP=100-200.
One army had a company of 120 and the other had a company of 200. Same as the divisional scale. STR=20 vs. STR=12, and also your turn first . There would be virtually no losses for the attackers.
Of course, STR=18 after the fifth to tenth strike will inevitably melt to 10-12. Well, that is the pre-war mobilization, and the effect of a surprise attack, when one is ready for war, and the other is still only going to prepare.

[HexCode]

A Foundational Design Approach Bifurcation

I wrote:

Given # Radoye's # conception of a typical Engagement's turn duration representation (i.e., a few hours), wouldn't it make sense to "seriously" look into this issue ?

Increase Defense? That would force you to redo all attack parameters of all units... That's a lot of work with questionable results.

Splendid ! For the first time "in here", we've come across a foundational bifurcation: Does one design for "a priori historicity" or for "post facto historicity effect" ?

To my knowledge, the main effort put into rendering 5 Star General wargame content more historically defensible has been the careful, methodical fashioning of unit stats. However, such unit stats weren't Engagement / Scenario -specific. They were applicable throughout an entire campaign; often multiple campaigns. Here one comes across quite a few Efile examples infused with "a priori historicity".

Back to Unit Strength Factor Attrition

Currently, the very concept of a tightly designed, HHD Engagement is being explored. One of the key elements identified is the necessary introduction of appropriately unique, Engagement-specific elements. To this effect, the Engagement's tempo (single turn representation) is logically connected to the frequency and density of combat events. In turn, unit sizes may be attrited at rates grossly, historically counterfactual. Hence the potential need for tweaking the design to shoot for a "post facto historicity effect".

Relatedly, under conditions of prestige scarcity, it may matter a lot how often a unit's attrited strength size need be dealt with. Also, the harder it is for units to be outright eliminated, the more likely it is that certain Engagements may actually fit the HHD bill better.

Who are the real "problem children" here ?

a) PGF's play system's fixation on Strength Factor (SF) TEN (10) units and the attendant engine crude automatism in implementing Replacements.

b) PGF's unit combat resolution formulas which are historically (and tempo) agnostic...

Again and again: "Shoehorning" HHD content into PGF's play system requires quite a bit of work; too much work, perhaps. It's precisely this hard reality that has propelled me into starting off by exploring the Engagement level. In order for some campaign to emerge, the designer will have to... "survive" the design of a few, back-to-back Engagements first !

[Lettos]

b) PGF's unit combat resolution formulas which are historically (and tempo) agnostic...

Reading the book

Autor: Bidermann, Gottlob H.
Titel: ... und litt an meiner Seite! - Krim - Kurland mit der 132. Infanterie-Division 1941-45.
RU: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/german/bidermann_gh/08.html
EN: https://books.apple.com/us/audiobook/in ... 1424925757

and find in it a Soviet propaganda leaflet compiled from the exact information of a surrendered officer and soldiers from another company in the same regiment. The data relates to the company's losses and the battles in which the author took part and described them in his book.

Here are some facts from the tragic history of your company:

November 2-7, 1941.

During the battle of Bakhchisarai (in the Crimea) the company lost at least 62 soldiers out of a total of 180 men. The company was reinforced and after a short break was thrown into battle for Sevastopol. After this phase of fighting only 16 men remained.

In September 1942 the company was re-formed, its losses were replenished on Volkhov front and it went into battle near Gaitolovo on the Mga. After those battles only 15 men were left from 100 men.

On October 11, 1943.

The 7th Company had already been withdrawn to the rear when it was again ordered to support the 121st Air Field Division in a hurry. Your commanders unnecessarily threw you into counterattacks that cost you heavy losses in defeat. The 7th Company was repulsed and left a third of its soldiers lying on the battlefield.

DEEPL translation

Assume that this is a series of four mini-scenarios.

1) November 2-7, 1941 "Bakhchisarai"
6 days = ... 18-24 turns? Or 12 is enough?
STR=18 reduced to STR=12

Company was reinforced.
2) June 1942 "Sevastopol"
7-10 days.
STR=15-18. Reduced to STR=1-2.

Company was reinforced to STR=10.

3) September 1942 "Battle near Gaitolovo".
STR reduced to 1-2.

Author wrote about battle:

On the 22nd September 510 men were killed in the battle, including 7 officers, 8 other officers were wounded and one was missing. The strength of the four battalions dropped to a thousand men in total, which tells us that the first attack on Czernia had cost our troops 30 percent of their losses.

Between 22 September and 7 October our battalion lost a total of 62 men killed, 280 wounded and 30 missing. About 20-30 lightly wounded and sick were left with the battalion, so the battalion's combat strength was about 50 men.

Company was reinforced again to STR= ... about 10, not more. Because the strength of the 4 battalions before the previous scenario was 1000 + 500 = 1500 men, or 375 per battalion, i.e. 100 in each of the three companies + other units. And this number was considered normal for the start of a counter-offensive.
There were fewer reinforcements in 1943 than in 1942. So we can consider STR=8 before 4th scenario.

4) October 1943. Another week of fighting. That's 15-20 turns
STR=8 reduced by third, i.e. STR=5-6.


This company was bombed and shelled with artillery. The company withstood several tank attacks and damaged and burned about 20 tanks. The company repelled several infantry attacks.
The company had not run out of ammunition. The company did not receive any reinforcements. However, the company was still a combat unit.

The New formula and Attack/Defense parameters should reflect all of this truthfully.

[Radoye]

Yes, the MVT of Tac Bombers and Fighters will be a few tens, 20-40, for Level Bombers - 50 and more, and the FUEL for all Air Classes will be almost unlimited.

Actually, MOV in the range of 30-60 would already be the order of the day if we implement the same movement formula as used for ground units to air units too (derived from speed). So if we keep to the same movement scale we're already there.

However, i believe for air units movement should mainly be a function of range rather than outright speed (speed can still figure in the calculation though). That would allow us to model situations with fighter escorts not being able to follow bombers to their targets.

Now - the big question: Should air units movement allowance conform more with other units movement allowance, which basically would bean the air units could go far further than ground units, or should it be done to a separate scale? Or, to rephrase, should it be in the range of "few tens"* or closer to what we have now?

*) There is more than one approach that can get us to the "few tens" territory - one would be to use the same scale as for the ground units and calculate from speed (top or cruising), the other is to calculate from fuel, basically to assume that the unit can fly out to their maximum range and then back to base which would set the movement at 1/2 fuel or so (which, in most cases, will once again get us into the "few tens").



I would like to hear everyone's opinions on this matter. I've been looking into air units stats for a while now and can't make up my mind on certain things so having a fresh look from aside would be of a great help. There are two things to decide here:

1. Do we want air movement close(r) to SSI values (10-20) or more in scale with ground movement (20-60) or somewhere in between?

2. Do we want air movement purely to be a function of speed (fighters can go farther than bombers) or range (bombers can go farther than fighters)?

Once these questions are settled, it would be easier to massage the formulas to conform.

[Lettos]

However, i believe for air units movement should mainly be a function of range rather than outright speed (speed can still figure in the calculation though). That would allow us to model situations with fighter escorts not being able to follow bombers to their targets.

Now - the big question: Should air units movement allowance conform more with other units movement allowance, which basically would bean the air units could go far further than ground units, or should it be done to a separate scale? Or, to rephrase, should it be in the range of "few tens"* or closer to what we have now?

Look at my post again: viewtopic.php?f=95&t=516#p10126

Neither speed nor fuel capacity are determining factors. The main factor is the actual Combat Range.
SSI has called the Combat Range the term FUEL to make it easier to understand for those new to the game.

The point of FUEL, as I understand it, is to prevent a certain class of aircraft from flying as far as the gamer/modder can send it deep behind enemy lines, based on what he read on Wikipedia about maximum combat range and saw in the game in the FUEL parameter.

Here we have to decide for ourselves - should we trust Liddell Hart and the Soviet manuals for bombers and fighters, or the mythical technical parameters from Wikipedia?

Speed and fuel reserve from the performance data sheet are only auxiliary modifiers.
Well to make the planes a little different, not more...
I personally don't want to see some PZL11, Po-2 or Gladiator in the game carrying almost the same MA as the Bf109E.

The main difference in aircraft speed is stored in the other two SSI parameters, Air Defense and Air Attack.

A bomber flying almost as fast as a fighter gives the fighter little chance to second attack.
A fighter flying faster than an enemy fighter must have a higher Air Attack parameter.
Otherwise, if only the armament is taken into account, it would appear that the Hurricane I is a super attack fighter...
And if we talk only about aircraft armour in relation to Air Defense, then Japanese aircraft should have zero Air Defense...

[Radoye]

The main difference in aircraft speed is stored in the other two SSI parameters, Air Defense and Air Attack.

A bomber flying almost as fast as a fighter gives the fighter little chance to second attack.
A fighter flying faster than an enemy fighter must have a higher Air Attack parameter.
Otherwise, if only the armament is taken into account, it would appear that the Hurricane I is a super attack fighter...
And if we talk only about aircraft armour in relation to Air Defense, then Japanese aircraft should have zero Air Defense...

This is all correct, and i'd mention another parameter where speed should figure very significantly - Initiative.

And of course "fuel" is not the capacity of the fuel tanks in liters - not for planes, not for ground units - it's how far can it go before it needs to be resupplied. I mean, 10 l of fuel in a Fiat and in a Ferrari is not the same amount of fuel (even though mathematically it is), one will take you much farther than the other. It's all relative, as a certain mustachioed physicist used to say

Re: Liddell-Hart:

"The official data that the range of these aircraft at cruising speed is 412 miles has proven to be incorrect in practice. The actual range of this aircraft was a little over 100 miles, so that such an aircraft could fly from Pas de Calais or from the Cotentin Peninsula to London, but it had very little time left for combat. In other words, it could remain in the air for only 95 minutes, which gave it only 75-80 minutes of combat flying time."

If we agree that the 410 mile / 660 km official combat range is indeed inflated, we shall attempt to calculate it from the numbers offered here:

109E cruise speed = 482 km/h and a total endurance of 95 minutes gives us ~763 km as a theoretical maximum. So to get to Liddel-Hart's number of "a little over 100 miles" we would have to divide this by 4 - we would get ~190 km or ~118 miles. OK that can work.

Plugging this into the formula for fuel calculation for the ground units would give us 39 fuel. In which case movement of around 20-22 (50-55% of "fuel") would do.

OK so i guess i'll have to start looking for endurance (how much time in the air) data

[Lettos]

If we agree that the 410 mile / 660 km official combat range is indeed inflated, we shall attempt to calculate it from the numbers offered here:

109E cruise speed = 482 km/h and a total endurance of 95 minutes gives us ~763 km as a theoretical maximum. So to get to Liddel-Hart's number of "a little over 100 miles" we would have to divide this by 4 - we would get ~190 km or ~118 miles. OK that can work.

Liddel Hart had the right maths calculation.
The fighter still had to get back. So 100+100 = 200 miles. Half of the maximum combat range.

OK so i guess i'll have to start looking for endurance (how much time in the air) data

You don't have to do that! Because it makes no sense in terms of the physics of the internal combustion engine. See below.

And of course "fuel" is not the capacity of the fuel tanks in liters - not for planes, not for ground units - it's how far can it go before it needs to be resupplied. I mean, 10 l of fuel in a Fiat and in a Ferrari is not the same amount of fuel (even though mathematically it is), one will take you much farther than the other. It's all relative, as a certain mustachioed physicist used to say

Fill the car with a full tank and a few more litres in the canister . On the motorway, press the accelerator pedal to the limit. Reduce the speed to 40 km/h. Put the accelerator pedal to the floor again. And so many times. Drive until the car stops. Then another tank and press the pedal to halfway. Compare the time until the engine stops. Will the engine run the same amount of time?
The running time of an engine depends on its revolutions per minute, doesn't it?

Plugging this into the formula for fuel calculation for the ground units would give us 39 fuel. In which case movement of around 20-22 (50-55% of "fuel") would do.

No.
Suppose a fighter plane has 90 minutes of engine time at cruising speed.
1) 8-10 % fuel reserve.
2) Time for take-off and landing. 5 minutes probably.
On takeoff, the fighter has to wait for the wingman, another pair of fighters or the whole squadron of 7-11 planes, and only then fly the mission.
At landing, all 12 aircraft will not land at the same time. The runway does not extend in width.
3) Flight height. The higher an aircraft flies, the less fuel it will use because of less air resistance.
4) When escorting bombers, fighters at the beginning of the war flew at bomber speed. And they realised that while this is an economical mode in terms of fuel consumption, it is also suicidal for fighters. They did not have time to gain speed in a surprise attack. And an attack in the sky is almost always sudden. You had to fly faster, to the right and left, up and down - just to have saving speed in case of an attack.
The same was true of simply barraging fighter patrols over territory. The Soviet pilots were flying at low speeds at first, and did not have time to gain speed. That is why by 1943 a rule was introduced - barrage speed should be 0.8-0.85 of maximum.
5) Time for actual combat with enemy fighters. It was counted as 15 minutes.

Taking all this into account, it goes something like this:
MA = 1/3 of FUEL

1/3 - flight "To"
1/3 - battles, reserve, take-off, landing
1/3 - flight "Back to Home"

In real fuel consumption air battle during 15 minutes asked much more fuel than flight on cruising speed. So by real fuel consumption above mentioned parts means:
1/4 - flight "To"
1/10 or something like this - take-off, landing
2/5 - fuel for battle and reserve
1/4 - flight "Back to Home"

SSI knew all this maths and made a very similar wheel in PG1:) Looks they were consulted by a real military expert.

But in the game, the fighter sort of hovers over the combat area, and does a few strikes. In PGF the fighter doesn't even have a "fuel penalty" for hovering. As far as I remember, PG1 had such a penalty for standing still. I hope I'm not mistaken.

This is all correct, and i'd mention another parameter where speed should figure very significantly - Initiative.

Yes, sure!

[Radoye]

Liddel Hart had the right maths calculation.
The fighter still had to get back. So 100+100 = 200 miles. Half of the maximum combat range.

Right, sorry!

OK so i guess i'll have to start looking for endurance (how much time in the air) data

You don't have to do that! Because it makes no sense in terms of the physics of the internal combustion engine. See below.

And of course "fuel" is not the capacity of the fuel tanks in liters - not for planes, not for ground units - it's how far can it go before it needs to be resupplied. I mean, 10 l of fuel in a Fiat and in a Ferrari is not the same amount of fuel (even though mathematically it is), one will take you much farther than the other. It's all relative, as a certain mustachioed physicist used to say

Fill the car with a full tank and a few more litres in the canister . On the motorway, press the accelerator pedal to the limit. Reduce the speed to 40 km/h. Put the accelerator pedal to the floor again. And so many times. Drive until the car stops. Then another tank and press the pedal to halfway. Compare the time until the engine stops. Will the engine run the same amount of time?
The running time of an engine depends on its revolutions per minute, doesn't it?

We're assuming flight at ideal cruise speed for maximum endurance.

(And my example is still valid - i'm pretty sure a V12 Ferrari would go through 10 liters of fuel faster on idle rpm than a Fiat 500 at full throttle. Cylinder capacity has something to do with it too

Plugging this into the formula for fuel calculation for the ground units would give us 39 fuel. In which case movement of around 20-22 (50-55% of "fuel") would do.

No.
Suppose a fighter plane has 90 minutes of engine time at cruising speed.
1) 8-10 % fuel reserve.
2) Time for take-off and landing. 5 minutes probably.
On takeoff, the fighter has to wait for the wingman, another pair of fighters or the whole squadron of 7-11 planes, and only then fly the mission.
At landing, all 12 aircraft will not land at the same time. The runway does not extend in width.
3) Flight height. The higher an aircraft flies, the less fuel it will use because of less air resistance.
4) When escorting bombers, fighters at the beginning of the war flew at bomber speed. And they realised that while this is an economical mode in terms of fuel consumption, it is also suicidal for fighters. They did not have time to gain speed in a surprise attack. And an attack in the sky is almost always sudden. You had to fly faster, to the right and left, up and down - just to have saving speed in case of an attack.
The same was true of simply barraging fighter patrols over territory. The Soviet pilots were flying at low speeds at first, and did not have time to gain speed. That is why by 1943 a rule was introduced - barrage speed should be 0.8-0.85 of maximum.
5) Time for actual combat with enemy fighters. It was counted as 15 minutes.

Taking all this into account, it goes something like this:
MA = 1/3 of FUEL

1/3 - flight "To"
1/3 - battles, reserve, take-off, landing
1/3 - flight "Back to Home"

In real fuel consumption air battle during 15 minutes asked much more fuel than flight on cruising speed. So by real fuel consumption above mentioned parts means:
1/4 - flight "To"
1/10 or something like this - take-off, landing
2/5 - fuel for battle and reserve
1/4 - flight "Back to Home"

SSI knew all this maths and made a very similar wheel in PG1:) Looks they were consulted by a real military expert.

But in the game, the fighter sort of hovers over the combat area, and does a few strikes. In PGF the fighter doesn't even have a "fuel penalty" for hovering. As far as I remember, PG1 had such a penalty for standing still. I hope I'm not mistaken.

The take off / landing / combat fuel reserve, while very important in real life, it's irrelevant under the limitations of the game engine. As you correctly observed, in the game the "fuel" is being spent only while moving to and back. If we agree that "fuel" represents maximal distance the plane (or a squadron of them) is able to fly to their target and back, then movement should be somewhere around 1/2 of "fuel". We might go 1/2 * "fuel" + 1 or 2 if we want the player to live dangerously, or we can be nice and set it at 1/2 * "fuel" - 1 or 2 so that they are always safe.

(in this particular case i'm leaning towards the "nice" option )

[Lettos]

We're assuming flight at ideal cruise speed for maximum endurance.

(And my example is still valid - i'm pretty sure a V12 Ferrari would go through 10 liters of fuel faster on idle rpm than a Fiat 500 at full throttle. Cylinder capacity has something to do with it too

Yes, of course. Everything makes a difference there. Turbocharging, boosted engine modes; extra dump tanks creating air resistance. The weight of the aircraft along the 'To' and 'Back' paths. Too complicated a theory for a primitive SSI model

The take off / landing / combat fuel reserve, while very important in real life, it's irrelevant under the limitations of the game engine. As you correctly observed, in the game the "fuel" is being spent only while moving to and back. If we agree that "fuel" represents maximal distance the plane (or a squadron of them) is able to fly to their target and back, then movement should be somewhere around 1/2 of "fuel". We might go 1/2 * "fuel" + 1 or 2 if we want the player to live dangerously, or we can be nice and set it at 1/2 * "fuel" - 1 or 2 so that they are always safe.

(in this particular case i'm leaning towards the "nice" option )

Yes, I like the 'nice' option much better too.

What do we have as a result, if we consider the same example with the Bf109E?

660km / 2 = 33 FUEL
33 / 2 = 16.5 - 1 or 2 = 15.5 or 14.5 MA

I am completely happy with this at this stage. It can be corrected more precisely later.

It all fits surprisingly well with the MA parameters in PG1.
Since in PG1 there was also fuel consumption when standing still, SSI counted 16.5 - 4 or 5 = 12 or 13 MA

Oh, and not to forget in the Eastern European scenarios about the numerous unnamed temporary field airfields that were 30-40km from the front line. On the map of the Kerch Peninsula viewtopic.php?f=95&t=516#p10125 I have depicted all such airfields that the Red Army built in preparation for a failed offensive in 1942. There were many airfields!

[Lettos]

# Lettos #

Both # Radoye # and I are trying to support your custom content design desires and activities. However, the time may have come for you to decide what your "red lines" are going to be regarding historicity.

Up to this point in time, the following preliminary ideas and approaches have been put on the table:

Retrograde Kriegsspiel
Dynamic Kriegsspiel
HHD Engagements
HHD Mini-Campaigns
Doing "it" like # Radoye #
Deviating into geographical or force composition randomness
Contemplating doing your "thing" under wargames other than PGF

That's quite a list. Would you care to reflect on the above and come up with a desirable direction which will allow these discussions to take place within the context of a sharper defined design concept space ? By the way, this topic is supposed to focus on scenario design scale and scaling issues. Are such issues still of active interest ? If not, any other design issues could easily be accommodated under your very own [DEV] topic.

# Hexcode #!
Answered here: viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&p=10186#p10186

[Lettos]

But in the game, the fighter sort of hovers over the combat area, and does a few strikes. In PGF the fighter doesn't even have a "fuel penalty" for hovering. As far as I remember, PG1 had such a penalty for standing still. I hope I'm not mistaken.

The take off / landing / combat fuel reserve, while very important in real life, it's irrelevant under the limitations of the game engine. As you correctly observed, in the game the "fuel" is being spent only while moving to and back. If we agree that "fuel" represents maximal distance the plane (or a squadron of them) is able to fly to their target and back, then movement should be somewhere around 1/2 of "fuel". We might go 1/2 * "fuel" + 1 or 2 if we want the player to live dangerously, or we can be nice and set it at 1/2 * "fuel" - 1 or 2 so that they are always safe.

(in this particular case i'm leaning towards the "nice" option )

I apologise, I was wrong.

viewtopic.php?f=95&p=10197#p10197
From PGF's Library:
"No matter how much or how little they move, air units (other than air transports) "consume" a minimum number of Fuel Points equal to half their Movement Allowance (rounded down), every turn. This provision somewhat limits their "hang time" over hexes."

So an prposed nice safe option

we can be nice and set it at 1/2 * "fuel" - 1 or 2 so that they are always safe

to be realistically safe, must have a margin of at least half of MA

MA = Combat Range in km / (4 * Hex scale in km)
FUEL = Combat Range in km / (2 * Hex scale in km) + MA/2

Example for Bf109E and 1 Hex = 10 km:
MA = 660 / (4 * 10) = 16.5 = 16
FUEL = 660 / (2 * 10) + 16/2 = 41

I even like this horror. Very historic - it flies fast but not far

[Lettos]

6) One cannot take, say, Berlin with a few battalions or, god forbid, companies !! A typical HHD scenario will feature its own timetable in turns, hex dimensions and unit stats. This is rather well trodden board wargame territory.

If one starts carving Snake-town and its immediate surroundings out of the Eastern European Plain, and calling this scenario "One page from the heroic journey of the NNN Division in Barbarossa", why is it impossible to take Berlin with several battalions?
In April 1945 the regiments and battalions were tasked with taking a few blocks, a factory, a zoo, three bridges, etc.
Draw a map of part of the city, and... companies, let's go!

Something like that map. Rivers, parks, factories, detached houses amongst forests, lakes, small hills, etc. etc.
Only all city blocks have Terrain type not "city", but 34 Rough Desert, so that tanks don't run through them.

[Radoye]

Slightly off topic but might still be relevant to this discussion - in 1941, Yugoslav capital Belgrade was captured by 6 (six) German SS soldiers from Das Reich reconnaissance company.

(The city was declared an Open City and was not intended to be defended anyhow, but still...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Klingenberg

[Lettos]

If one starts carving Snake-town and its immediate surroundings out of the Eastern European Plain, and calling this scenario "One page from the heroic journey of the NNN Division in Barbarossa", why is it impossible to take Berlin with several battalions?

Actually, it's not. My repeated references to "Moscow / Berlin" were simply intended to highlight a widespread player mindset gainfully exploited by SSI way back then. In essence, the human player sought glory for having singlehandedly won the war.

You understood my irony perfectly!

Although not often discussed, PG1-SEVASTOPOL and PG1-CRETE provide proto-examples of what scenario design could be like under PGF. From a HHD perspective, it's all in the geographical and unit representational scale consistency.

By the way, many of the written materials that came with yesteryear's board wargames can be found on the internet (invariably in PDF format). Some historical scenario designers have been known to consult such... superannuated documentation (e.g., OoB) on occasion.

I've already written that Crete and Norway will either be thrown out altogether, or I'll make a company scenario with zones divided by neutral hexes. Give the von Kleist tankers a rest before Barbarossa!
And Sevastopol... is a good example! We discussed it with Radoye, and so as a result of discussion and reflection I now suggest at least something more or less implementable in PGF on a battalion scale.

And the six occupiers in Belgrade, who arrived on a railway train carriage...
Yes, this is a very good example for Adi, who forgot to open the railway lines for the Soviet army!

[Lettos]

In post "Kriegsspiel: Variational Aspects" viewtopic.php?f=10&p=10528&sid=17583d06 ... f63#p10528 Hexcode wrote:

Weather Conditions
One may wish to experiment with weather conditions he might view as alternatively plausible.

For a battalion scenario of 1-2-3-4 days duration, i.e. with a turnover equal to 2 hours, (8-32 turns) we should speak not about "wish to experiment", but about the absolute necessity of taking the weather under the control of the author of the scenario.

For example, it rains for two turns (4 hours).
There is, of course, such a heavy rain that the ground in 4 hours is soaked to the state of mud.
But it does not happen that this soaked ground dries up in 2-4 hours!

But snow and frost... do I really need to talk here about how a river can't freeze in 4 hours to allow a tank can drive over the ice?
And that even if there was such a terrible frost, that ice can't melt in 2 hours???

And this snow in PG1/PGF, which forms impassable snow drifts in two to four hours, and then melts in 2 hours and leaves no dirt behind?
Even if I forget the time scale of the battalion, and go to the SSI PG1 scale of 1 turn = 1 day, this whole climate model supposedly simulating Mud and Frost is wildest nonsense!
Have these SSI guys ever seen 1 meter deep snow at all??? And seen that snow melt???
I think the SSI guys were making a war toy about the desert, and then decided - let's also glue a war in Western Europe and on the Eastern Front to the North African scenarios! That would sell so well!
Because clear weather, rain and clouds are done quite well...

For the battalion scenario taking place on the Eastern Front in October-November, you can safely set the surface condition to Mud. For the winter scenario, set Frost.
This can be done in the exe file. Just set the movement parameters for Dry as for Mud/Frost, and it may still look like Dry on the map. And at the same time forget about the movement of tanks on the frozen rivers and swamps - such miracles happened, but very rarely. As a rule, such movement on rivers required serious additional preparation (several days) of the ice at the crossing point.

Or is it possible to set the same weather at once for all time in the exe?

[Lettos]

Is there a difference in whether a Battleship fires its main caliber for an hour at a battalion, or a company, or a division? Or how do you saw a fifth off a heavy cruiser?

[HexCode]

Lettos,

Is there a difference in whether a Battleship fires its main caliber for an hour at a battalion, or a company, or a division? Or how do you saw a fifth off a heavy cruiser?

Let's face it. SSI never really got down to designing "grognard" warfare models; hence, the "beer & pretzels player" moniker...

Historically, most players never bothered to think about such... "philosophical" matters. For them, it has always been the "plane", the "ship", the "gun" and so on.

When it comes to "warship" conceptualization, there are two main options here I can think of:

1) Each Strength Factor (SF) represents a self-contained warship. As a result of combat, the warship might be suppressed or eliminated.

2) Each SF represents a warship's "potential effectiveness unit". A warship's potential effectiveness is abstractly conceived of by "thinking" of its SFs, in toto.

[Lettos]

Lettos,

Is there a difference in whether a Battleship fires its main caliber for an hour at a battalion, or a company, or a division? Or how do you saw a fifth off a heavy cruiser?

Let's face it. SSI never really got down to designing "grognard" warfare models; hence, the "beer & pretzels player" moniker...

Historically, most players never bothered to think about such... "philosophical" matters. For them, it has always been the "plane", the "ship", the "gun" and so on.

When it comes to "warship" conceptualization, there are two main options here I can think of:

1) Each Strength Factor (SF) represents a self-contained warship. As a result of combat, the warship might be suppressed or eliminated.

2) Each SF represents a warship's "potential effectiveness unit". A warship's potential effectiveness is abstractly conceived of by "thinking" of its SFs, in toto.

I realize that... and yet I made an icon with two torpedo boats to represent a micro squadron of the mosquito fleet. To see on one map battleship and next to one torpedo boat with dead weight 90 tonns - it is already beyond the philosophical boundary of aesthetics, good and evil....

[Radoye]

With Pacgen (i know, there he goes again ) the destroyer and light cruiser classes represented flotillas, i.e. several units of same kind. These received replacements etc just like land and air units, would suffer from suppression etc. Here strength points represent additional ships (not necessarily 1:1).

Submarines, heavy cruisers, battleships and aircraft carriers represented single ships. These would undergo repair rather than receive replacements, could suffer critical hits that would affect their performance (make them immobile, or unable to shoot etc) or could be suddenly destroyed by a magazine explosion or some such. Here strength points represent combat effectiveness.

Unfortunately the naval combat mechanics in PGF are rather primitive in comparison, so we must make do with what we have.

[Lettos]

With Pacgen (i know, there he goes again ) the destroyer and light cruiser classes represented flotillas, i.e. several units of same kind. These received replacements etc just like land and air units, would suffer from suppression etc. Here strength points represent additional ships (not necessarily 1:1).

Submarines, heavy cruisers, battleships and aircraft carriers represented single ships. These would undergo repair rather than receive replacements, could suffer critical hits that would affect their performance (make them immobile, or unable to shoot etc) or could be suddenly destroyed by a magazine explosion or some such. Here strength points represent combat effectiveness.

Unfortunately the naval combat mechanics in PGF are rather primitive in comparison, so we must make do with what we have.

Question: is there a scenario in PacGen (whether vanilla or made by modders) that involves a major naval artillery battle? And to experiment, the course of the battle in that scenario should be well known to you. The point of the experiment you could do is to introduce new ship parameters into PacGen, which I'm currently working on. Will the battle become unbalanced, or on the contrary, will there be interesting combat?

[Radoye]

If you're asking does PacGen have purely naval scenarios, the answer is yes, both in vanilla and in custom made (i believe there's one in Steve Strayer's Plan Z campaign just like you ask - however, it has been a while since i ran PacGen, it doesn't go along well with modern PCs). But, the PacGen unit eqp parameters don't copy to PG / PGF 1:1. There are more unit classes, target types, attack / defense stats, it is possible to specify base unit strength and many more. There are also day / night turns, each with their own rules, different terrain types including deep and shallow ocean, impassable reefs... So the mechanics of the game especially regarding naval combat are very different from PGF. What we have in PGF is a small subset of what can be done in PacGen, and while it is possible to fairly simply copy things from PGF to PacGen (you can fit 1/2 liter of water in a 1l bottle) the other way is significantly more complex...

[Radoye]

Actually, the PGF WaW project originated as a conversion of PacGen eqp to PGF, trying to do the best approximation i could where stats available in PGF were insufficient; but, i was not happy with the results so i started fiddling with it, then things started to grow, and from all that a new plan and a new goal have emerged. Thus WaW was born...