Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!decwrl!uunet!gistdev!andy From: andy@gistdev.gist.com (Andy Warinner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games Subject: Re: review on Halls of Montezuma Message-ID: <913@gistdev.gist.com> Date: 1 Jun 90 15:26:27 GMT References: , Organization: Global Information Systems Technology Inc., Savoy, IL Lines: 45 wk0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Wai Sung Kok) writes: >it is correct to say that the corp commmander does not control the >movement of the unit, but there will be time >when corp commander will want to give specific movement instruction , >like going across desert instead of >using the road, don't forget that the quickest way to a place is usually >the most heavy guarded as well. In Halls of Montezuma and Panzer Battles, the two biggest factors in unit movement are divison objectives and terrain features. Units will move to objectives by the quickest route. If you are really frustrated with a unit's movement, add division objectives to the scenario. You can also add "hidden roads" to further channel unit movements. >on the point about using Tac air on follow up unit, please read up on >the US Army Airland Battle 2000 concept, >current Nato thinking is to use both Artillery and air support to strike >the secondary unit, and you can't do this >in HoM, and please don't say that they don't do this in WWII, a wargame >should let you try different doctrint. Kind of like "What if the Germans had tactical nukes in Operation Zitadel?" (the assault on the Kursk salient) ;-). Actually, using off-board support on non-engaged units is an interesting idea. In practice, I don't think it is within the scope of the game. Tactical support is really just additional strength points as far as the combat calculations go. Simulating operational support would have to take into account if the support was artillery or air support. Operational artillery support would be pretty ineffective. Without spotters, the best artillery can do is stick a pin in a map and fire. From WWI to Vietnam, interdiction fire is minimally effective within the corps-level scope. Operational air support is another matter. It would be more effective but it would affect attributes like divisional supply and administration rather than casualties in individual battalions. Overall, I don't think operational support really fits into the corps-level scope of HoM and PB. Of course you can simulate the effects of operational support by reducing divisional supply and administration values. This would simulate the fact that operational or strategic support is not under control of the corps commander. Andrew Warinner | "Semper ubi sub ubi" - J. Caesar GIST, Inc. | Standard | EMAIL: andy@gistdev.gist.com disclaimer... | {uunet, uiucuxc}!gistdev!andy