Slitherine

I've always thought that units move too slowly in this game, particularly when in friendly terrain and away from ZOCs.

Units moving in 'friendly' terrain can move in columns, take advantage of road signs, maps, local knowledge, etc. By contrast, units moving into enemy territory need to provide screens, check for ambushes, and are moving in terrain they may not be immediately familiar with.

It should, for example, usually possible for a retreating unit to stay ahead of a chasing unit, if they are of the same type e.g. two infantry corps.

I would propose that infantry that moves entirely in friendly terrain, where no part of the movement, except the original starting position, is inside an enemy ZOC, gets an additional 1MP. For mech, I'd add 2MP. And for armor, add 3MP.

I like it. Moving in friendly terrain is a different thing than moving in moving enemy territory. However, I would add 2MP to both armour and mech, not 3MP to armour and 2MP to mech. No reason to do otherwise.

Yes, on reflection, +2 for both mech and armor makes sense.

Remember these are corps sized units. So the movement factor of 6 represents about 300km which is alot in those days.

That's 15 km per day. Perfectly possible.

maybe considering the size also you are talking 1939 to 1945 time period not by today's armies

I think a sustained pace of 20 miles or 30 km a day would be reasonable in good weather on decent roads, with a mix of transportation -- train, mechanized, horse, and soldiers on foot.

The Allies, with lot's of trucks and plenty of gas, could probably have moved a lot faster. You can easily imagine a corps of infantry being moved up by road from Brest to Paris within a 20 day period, provided it is in friendly territory.

I've been looking for some historical references that might illuminate -- anybody have any ideas?

This would be a major change. People is simply used to current movement allowances. What you propose makes sense but the current system also works well. It was discussed before to change movement allowances of armoured units to 5 and infantry units to 3. But since this would have been a major change finally it was not implemented. No need to change this IMO.

I'll file that in the 'this will upset the delicate balance of the game' category.

Seriously, though, there's been A LOT of 'major changes' to the game, as you will have noticed.

The other important question is –– does this make the game better?

I was thinking about this, and another way to do the 'rule' would be to:

a) Increase movement rate of land units by about half -- so infantry would be able to move 6, and mech to move 8, and armor to 9.

b) Add a 0.5 MP cost each time that a unit moves into 'enemy' held terrain.

Some examples:

1) An infantry unit moving into clear enemy held terrain, but without any enemy units nearby would require 1MP for each hex, plus 0.5 MP for the 'enemy terrain penalty'. That would mean it could move 4 hexes – which is exactly as things are now.

2) In the same circumstances, an armor unit would be able to travel 6 hexes, and a mech unit 5 hexes.

3) An infantry unit traveling through 'friendly' clear terrain would be able to move 6 spaces, mechanized would be 8, and armor would be 9.

All the usual penalties for weather, terrain and so on would be added on top, as usual.

Is it easy in Java to implement such 'movement path' checking? And isn't it complicating the game?

To complicate more. Western Europe had much better infrastructure than other parts of the continent (the more to the East the worse) so I don't think Germans should be impeded in France or Allies in Germany.

Thanks Kragdob –– Western Europe did have better roads, but not universally. It also has a lot of clear hexes, so this is a reasonably good approximation.

From the users perspective, this will be very simple –– all they will see is the hexes that a unit can move to, just like now.

In terms of the implementation –– typically, if they idea can be logically summarized, it can be implemented.

metolius wrote:Thanks Kragdob –– Western Europe did have better roads, but not universally. It also has a lot of clear hexes, so this is a reasonably good approximation.

From the users perspective, this will be very simple –– all they will see is the hexes that a unit can move to, just like now.

In terms of the implementation –– typically, if they idea can be logically summarized, it can be implemented.

Anyway, I think in corps scale significance of 'locals support' is low. Knowing the paths through the woods can be good on squad level but not on ARM corps level. In this case what matters mostly is terrain type.

But impact of better infrastructure in Germany, France and UK could be added. Soviet even prepared for that by making BT tank (replaced later by t-34). After moving through Poland those tanks could get rid of tracks and were supposed to move on wheels on German highways.

I didn't like any option (I don't like proposition, but I don't care about Morris' "strategies" aswell), so placed no vote.

Thing is that it is totally unneeded feature to start with. You have rail to deliver units far from front very fast already.

Units moving in 'friendly' terrain can move in columns, take advantage of road signs, maps, local knowledge, etc. By contrast, units moving into enemy territory need to provide screens, check for ambushes, and are moving in terrain they may not be immediately familiar with.

1. what is local knowledge? We assume that any soldier drafted for any country have knowledge of any patch of land within this country?
2. we assume that local map is something impossible to get for hostile armies?
3. any need to check for ambushes and provide screens is represented by ZoCs. When we walk a highway we walk a highway - no matter in our home country or overseas.

It should, for example, usually possible for a retreating unit to stay ahead of a chasing unit, if they are of the same type e.g. two infantry corps.

Why is should be possible? Its fun to crush entire frontline if opposing commander lost right moment to retreat in good order with ZoC protection. Also if units will get this bonus move points it will be unable to chase corps even with tank during Barbarossa for example. Great.

Plaid wrote: 1.. what is local knowledge? We assume that any soldier drafted for any country have knowledge of any patch of land within this country?
2. we assume that local map is something impossible to get for hostile armies?
3. any need to check for ambushes and provide screens is represented by ZoCs. When we walk a highway we walk a highway - no matter in our home country or overseas.

Maps are hardly the point -- they were super unreliable in WWII, anyway, especially on the eastern front. For BOTH sides.

More to the point, in the field, you have a better idea of what is behind you than what is ahead of you. Your rear units are moving around the rear, your supplies are coming through the rear, you have supply depots in the rear. You know a lot about the rear. Not so much about what is on the other side of the line.

ZoCs as implemented do NOT represent the uncertainty here. If you are moving in enemy occupied territory, you are ALWAYS wondering whats around the next corner. When you are in friendly occupied territory, much less so.

In other words, a highway is NOT just a highway. Just a very simple example – when you are RETREATING down a road, it's pretty easy to mine it. The attackers typically need to spend a lot more time clearing mines than the defenders need to put them out.

It should, for example, usually possible for a retreating unit to stay ahead of a chasing unit, if they are of the same type e.g. two infantry corps.

Why is should be possible? Its fun to crush entire frontline if opposing commander lost right moment to retreat in good order with ZoC protection. Also if units will get this bonus move points it will be unable to chase corps even with tank during Barbarossa for example. Great.

Fun? Sure, it is 'fun' to crush the entire frontline of the enemy. I'm not sure that's much of an argument for how things should be set up.