Gallery.   Posted by Referee.Group: 0
Referee
 GM, 8 posts
Fri 10 Aug 2012
at 15:15
Gallery
Post OOC Chatter or Commentary here.
Referee
 GM, 10 posts
Fri 10 Aug 2012
at 19:46
Re: Gallery
Russia:
>how to apply column shifts (I used them as 'global shifts' for the entire cycle
Could you explain more what you mean?  There is only one place that the shift can be applied, the combat results table.


I applied a 3 column shift for SADC during their attack in the first combat cycle (making a 2:1 a 5:1) and had the hostile impose a 1 column shift to the left (making it a 4:1).

During the Red forces attack I applied the same column shifts... 3 to the right and 1 to the left keeping them as global shifts for the cycle.

Russia:
>thinking that damage should be based on the combat strength
>of the opposite side and not a flat percentage.
But that would be doubly applying the ratio of size, it is what goes into coming up with the odds in the first place


Except it isn't a ratio of size but a ratio of power\effectiveness.  It's an area to look at because it runs straight into the age old argument of quality vs quantity.  Should a mechanized brigade be able to pacify roughly 10 brigades worth of armed rebels (50k green infantry) in a single cycle...assuming that they'll nearly always have at least one column shift advantage?

On the converse should a inferior force be able to inflict 20% casualties on a lucky roll (as far down as 1:5) on the opposing force no matter how many brigades are involved?  For example a single mechanized brigade attacked by at least 50 rebel units (a quarter of a million troops and probably more since the brigade would have column shifts).  Yeah extreme example but not impossible (China in Korea for instance).

Something to consider at the very least.  Anyway, will resolve round 2 shortly.
Referee
 GM, 12 posts
Fri 10 Aug 2012
at 20:26
Re: Gallery
Russia:
>1 month to deal with a situation on par with Somalia (or even messier) seems a bit quick
If you go much longer then it raises reasonable questions about time to bring in reinforcements and new builds etc, etc.

>Also looking at making 'Artillery' a special ability and SAM
>a sub ability with 'artillery' the prereq.
What would be the benefit?  I have always though of some artillery and SAM included within any unit, the separate units that we list are only those formations which are large concentrations of artillery and SAM.

>Highly doubtful the dice roller hiccups up a spread like that again.
<shrug> It is combat

What I want to know is a breakdown of what actions on your part took x time ( y% of your time).  I worry that what takes an unacceptable amount of time is damage allocation.


As far as bringing up reinforcements, this may be an apples and oranges situation.  Essentially Zimbabwe is a better armed and trained Somalia facing a less effective (but still superior) intervention force.  It's not quite a conventional war and not quite a guerrilla one...where the rules in place are more for a conventional war.

I used a 'rehabilitated' Juju (the guy is kicked out of the ANC for now but the ANC is trending his direction...if he moderates his position a little I think he stands good odds to come back) to explain why South Africa would put it's hand into the hornet's nest and the mission drift.  Bringing up troop numbers from the original force deployment\mission...well we pretty much only really have Iraq and Afghanistan as recent historical examples for big redeployments for these kinds of things but the cycle seems roughly to be 3 months for heavier forces from a logistical perspective.  Looking back on similar historical situations... forces bring up reinforcement at a slower rate than their raw movement rates would indicate (at least if you want to do something other than shell coastal settlements or bomb them from the air;-).

As far as artillery...I don't really want to create a whole new category of 'self-propelled artillery' units and there are a number of different types...from foot infantry motar maggots;-) to MLRS or even something along the lines of the cancelled Crusader.  Essentially viewing each unit a brigade level formation with a focused specialty (so the artillery brigade won't need around 3 units\brigades of normal infantry to protect it).

I'm really just outlining a few things but not making any hard decision for now.

As far as time spent... I'm not familiar with these mil rules yet and work was a bit busier this week (worked late twice this past week whereas the previous week was a bit easier).  I'll get through this turn and we'll look at things before next turn starts.  I may find an old avalon hill game with some good ideas to yoink (or at least keep the Good Ideas Fairy busy).... but overall the philosophy of this game I do really want to trend towards automating as much as we can on the excel sheet and find a happy balance between realism and simplicity.
Referee
 GM, 14 posts
Fri 10 Aug 2012
at 21:09
Re: Gallery
Well SADC is done.  Going to finish up the other listed news items first and let this sit for a moment for you guys to look over before I approach Kurdistan, Iran and the other related items.
Russia
 player, 2 posts
Fri 10 Aug 2012
at 22:11
Re: Gallery
In reply to Referee (msg # 3):

You know, one easy thing we could do to address your timeline issue is state in section 8.5 that some (50%?) of the Insurgent units would have 'Stealth' ability , meaning they do not have to engage in combat unless they want to.
.
.
.
and this is why it is important that we conduct dress rehearsals like this, the paragraphs that explain the above about Stealth ability (and what CCC ability can do to find them) got lost when we dropped the whole section on detailed combat.  Will work on fixing that.
Russia
 player, 3 posts
Mon 13 Aug 2012
at 18:44
Re: Gallery
Referee:
Russia:
>thinking that damage should be based on the combat strength
>of the opposite side and not a flat percentage.
But that would be doubly applying the ratio of size, it is what goes into coming up with the odds in the first place


Except it isn't a ratio of size but a ratio of power\effectiveness.

Let me rephrase my objection to be more clear.  "But that would be doubly applying the ratio of combat strength to damage allocation.  The combat results table, by having different results for each different ratio of combat strength, already includes having damage based on the combat strength of the opposite side.  You would be right if the table in 12.5 consisted of only 1 column"