1. Geographic Carrying Capacity:
A rather abstract and yet down to earth concept. There has been little formal acknowledgment of this principle by any wargame (to my knowledge) outside of what appears to be an arbitrary stacking limit. To achieve an understanding of what a given geographical settings Carrying Capacity should be, I use Gibraltar as a model. Gibraltars peace-time population is nearly 30,000, and at that number it is one of the most dense populations in the world. It has roughly 8 miles of coastline, 2.5 sq. mi. of space, and a unique mountainous rock as a kind of natural fortress looming over the straits with miles of tunneling in and about it. To get an understanding of a given areas war-time emergency Carrying Capacity, I obtain the number (inductively) virtue the hexagon and the number 6, representing the individual surrounded by 6 points of objective environment, multiplied by the peace-time population Carrying Capacity. Given that Gibraltars peace-time C.C. is a population no greater than 35,000, then 35,000 x 6 = 210,000. If the average infantry division is 20,000, then there would be a 10 division limit. In more specific numbers, an area of 27,848,400 sq. ft. or 1 sq. mi. would, by these standards, impart the following statistic: given 60% of the average square mile of land-surface space is able to be humanly garrisoned, then with maximum C.C. there is one soldier per every 198 sq. ft. + equipment and whatever peace-time population is present. That is fairly maxed-out by my laymans terms.
I had noticed from other peoples posting that Gibraltar can be garrisoned way above what may in fact be realistic, and hope if true, that some attention might be given the matter, and a realistic stacking limit be set.
2. Ultra.
I have not seen any mention of it. To simulate Ultra, the normal fog of war should be lifted in a given area and be viewable from a distance - including enemy land, air, and sea units. It should be an earned Tech available to both sides of the war.
3. Combined Arms (justified?)
Modifiers in this instance may be more applicable under more specific conditions. As I understand that a Panzer division, and for example, is already combined arms to some extent, why should there necessarily be a combined arms benefit if stacked with Infantry or even Mechanized Inf.? If I attack a purely armored stack of divisions (and to what extent they are pure armor) with a Tank div. and Mech div. what benefit is there, in terms of initial confrontation at least, in having small-arms fire as the attacker? Tanks were designed to negate small-arms, so why would the combined arms attacker necessarily have a benefit when attacking armor? If it is a rule prompted by game balance, such that the games design wants to encourage more than the production of tanks, then let realism dictate the necessity. Certain types of units perform better in certain types of terrain, and that is the primary reason you wouldnt want a steam-roller army. Tanks suffer attacking cities and forests, Infantry suffers attacking hills and mountains, Mechanized Infantry doesnt suffer attacking hills, but suffers attacking mountains and forests, etc. But then if you can afford it, and it works for you, and its realistic, why not build 90% armor. Why not? Because of combined-arms benefit? It surface-seems to me fallacious. But, what I do know is the wide and profound impact that a modification such as combined-arms has on a games tactical and strategic constitution should be given realistic credence.
Afterall, game-balance itself means that the game, in this instance, is not necessarily realistic nor historic because otherwise this other thing over here given greater ramifications doesnt work historically and/or realistically. But, if its game-balance, what is broke without small-arms advantageously attacking tanks?
A rather abstract and yet down to earth concept. There has been little formal acknowledgment of this principle by any wargame (to my knowledge) outside of what appears to be an arbitrary stacking limit. To achieve an understanding of what a given geographical settings Carrying Capacity should be, I use Gibraltar as a model. Gibraltars peace-time population is nearly 30,000, and at that number it is one of the most dense populations in the world. It has roughly 8 miles of coastline, 2.5 sq. mi. of space, and a unique mountainous rock as a kind of natural fortress looming over the straits with miles of tunneling in and about it. To get an understanding of a given areas war-time emergency Carrying Capacity, I obtain the number (inductively) virtue the hexagon and the number 6, representing the individual surrounded by 6 points of objective environment, multiplied by the peace-time population Carrying Capacity. Given that Gibraltars peace-time C.C. is a population no greater than 35,000, then 35,000 x 6 = 210,000. If the average infantry division is 20,000, then there would be a 10 division limit. In more specific numbers, an area of 27,848,400 sq. ft. or 1 sq. mi. would, by these standards, impart the following statistic: given 60% of the average square mile of land-surface space is able to be humanly garrisoned, then with maximum C.C. there is one soldier per every 198 sq. ft. + equipment and whatever peace-time population is present. That is fairly maxed-out by my laymans terms.
I had noticed from other peoples posting that Gibraltar can be garrisoned way above what may in fact be realistic, and hope if true, that some attention might be given the matter, and a realistic stacking limit be set.
2. Ultra.
I have not seen any mention of it. To simulate Ultra, the normal fog of war should be lifted in a given area and be viewable from a distance - including enemy land, air, and sea units. It should be an earned Tech available to both sides of the war.
3. Combined Arms (justified?)
Modifiers in this instance may be more applicable under more specific conditions. As I understand that a Panzer division, and for example, is already combined arms to some extent, why should there necessarily be a combined arms benefit if stacked with Infantry or even Mechanized Inf.? If I attack a purely armored stack of divisions (and to what extent they are pure armor) with a Tank div. and Mech div. what benefit is there, in terms of initial confrontation at least, in having small-arms fire as the attacker? Tanks were designed to negate small-arms, so why would the combined arms attacker necessarily have a benefit when attacking armor? If it is a rule prompted by game balance, such that the games design wants to encourage more than the production of tanks, then let realism dictate the necessity. Certain types of units perform better in certain types of terrain, and that is the primary reason you wouldnt want a steam-roller army. Tanks suffer attacking cities and forests, Infantry suffers attacking hills and mountains, Mechanized Infantry doesnt suffer attacking hills, but suffers attacking mountains and forests, etc. But then if you can afford it, and it works for you, and its realistic, why not build 90% armor. Why not? Because of combined-arms benefit? It surface-seems to me fallacious. But, what I do know is the wide and profound impact that a modification such as combined-arms has on a games tactical and strategic constitution should be given realistic credence.
Afterall, game-balance itself means that the game, in this instance, is not necessarily realistic nor historic because otherwise this other thing over here given greater ramifications doesnt work historically and/or realistically. But, if its game-balance, what is broke without small-arms advantageously attacking tanks?