HQ Support Units

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

HQ Support Units

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> HQ Support Units

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

HQ Support Units - 6/19/2006 8:04:04 AM

fbastos

Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline

Hey, I'm giving a shot in the "Barbarossa Tactical 4.1" scenario, from Piero Falotti, and I noticed that the 13th Panzer Div HQ only has 2 support units, per the screenshot below.

As such, I think that this formation is screwed for TOAW III, right? I mean, the formation has a formation supply proficiency of 100%, but because the HQ has 2 support units (and nothing more), its units will not be supplied, is that correct?

Also, the manual says:

"When you set the formation supply distribution efficiency for the formation (including use of the global change functions in the editor) the editor will automatically recalculate the proper number of support squads for all HQ units affected by the change."

so I reckon that I can go to the Editor and do a global change on all formations to have them at 100% supply proficiency... do you think that would fix that?

Regards!
F.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by fbastos -- 6/19/2006 8:08:01 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: HQ Support Units - 6/19/2006 11:55:53 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

As such, I think that this formation is screwed for TOAW III, right? I mean, the formation has a formation supply proficiency of 100%, but because the HQ has 2 support units (and nothing more), its units will not be supplied, is that correct?

Well, they will only receive very little supply.

Took a look at the scenario. This problem does occur in several places, and the designer seems to have intended for formation supply levels to be 100% across the board. So your solution would be the best choice in this case.

I just wonder, if a scenario has this kind of major error (several key formations are affected) which has gone undetected, what other problems might be lurking elsewhere? Frankly, if you really must play Barbarossa at 10km/hex, I'd go for McBride's Drang Nach Osten.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 6/19/2006 12:05:39 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to fbastos)

Post #: 2

RE: HQ Support Units - 6/19/2006 8:44:54 PM

fbastos

Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline

Yeah, several HQs are that way... perhaps this is on purpose, given that this scenario was designed for ACOW?

I kinda love this scenario, as it has a lot of good research put into it; for example, it is the only scenario that I noticed has the Nachtigall partisans, what is a measure of the level of detail that Falloti put into it. It definitely has some shortcomings, though, like the 2nd Panzer Div should be in the Balkans on Jun-1941 rather than in the soviet front.

But all for all I would love to see this scenario working well on TOAW III.

Appreciate you looking into this, Golden, thank you.

F.

_____________________________

I'm running out of jokes...

(in reply to fbastos)

Post #: 3

RE: HQ Support Units - 6/20/2006 12:54:57 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Yeah, several HQs are that way... perhaps this is on purpose, given that this scenario was designed for ACOW?

This feature works exactly the same way in COW. I doubt the scenario was deliberately designed this way, since the formations concerned are crippled by it.

quote:

I kinda love this scenario, as it has a lot of good research put into it; for example, it is the only scenario that I noticed has the Nachtigall partisans, what is a measure of the level of detail that Falloti put into it. It definitely has some shortcomings, though, like the 2nd Panzer Div should be in the Balkans on Jun-1941 rather than in the soviet front.

Take a look at these two cases. Which unit is more significant- and therefore more important to get right? As I said, if you want to play Barbarossa at 10km/hex, Drang Nach Osten is probably your best bet.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to fbastos)

Post #: 4

RE: HQ Support Units - 6/21/2006 10:34:32 AM

Pocus

Posts: 1185
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: offline

What is the bigger eastern front scenario playable against the PO?

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 5

RE: HQ Support Units - 6/21/2006 12:51:45 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pocus
What is the bigger eastern front scenario playable against the PO?�

There is the classic scenario Barbarosa '41. Is that the one you're thinking of?

(in reply to Pocus)

Post #: 6

RE: HQ Support Units - 6/21/2006 2:27:37 PM

Pocus

Posts: 1185
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: offline

Mmmh, no chances to have a scenario which can be played alone during the whole war I suppose?

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 7

RE: HQ Support Units - 6/21/2006 11:06:21 PM

Menschenfresser

Posts: 252
Joined: 3/26/2004
From: United States
Status: offline

If any one's feeling spunky, they could add objectives to FitE and play as the Soviets. Then you'd have what you want.

It probably wouldn't be much of a challenge for anyone but a total noob...and given the size of the scenario, by the time winter fell, you, like your comrads, would no longer be noobs.

_____________________________

Make wargames, not war.

(in reply to Pocus)

Post #: 8