Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Combined Arms

 
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 >> Combined Arms Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Combined Arms - 8/10/2006 7:16:11 PM   
LewFisher


Posts: 66
Joined: 8/18/2003
From: Reno, Nevada
Status: offline 		Is there a combined ams effect in TOW lll? A scenario I am playing mentions it, but I can't find it in the rules.

_____________________________

Lew Fisher
Post #: 1
RE: Combined Arms - 8/10/2006 7:19:25 PM   
Chuck2


Posts: 830
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline 		It's basically up to the player to use his infantry, artillery, armor, and aircraft to achieve the "combined arms" effect. Players need to learn the assets and liabilities of the different types of equipment to use them properly.

_____________________________


(in reply to LewFisher)
Post #: 2
RE: Combined Arms - 8/10/2006 7:26:38 PM   
LewFisher


Posts: 66
Joined: 8/18/2003
From: Reno, Nevada
Status: offline 		Oh, sure, I understand that, but there is no specific combined arms rule?

_____________________________

Lew Fisher

(in reply to Chuck2)
Post #: 3
RE: Combined Arms - 8/10/2006 8:36:14 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline 		No, as there is no "magic formula" in real life, either.

(in reply to LewFisher)
Post #: 4
RE: Combined Arms - 8/10/2006 8:51:16 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

No, as there is no "magic formula" in real life, either.


Dang, there goes my magic formula project.

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 5
RE: Combined Arms - 8/10/2006 8:52:46 PM   
LewFisher


Posts: 66
Joined: 8/18/2003
From: Reno, Nevada
Status: offline 		It wasn't a stupid question. Many games gives a bonus if you attack pure armour with armour and infantry.
BTY, I got the idea from 13.6 - the scenario guide for Plan Martin by Daniel Mc Bride. He says "this avoids the "ant factor" for the most part, and gives some scope for "combined arms" benefits for intact regiments or brigades, and for overuns in particular." This statement lead me to believe there was a combined arms rule?

_____________________________

Lew Fisher

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 6
Combined Arms - 8/10/2006 8:57:51 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		As part of my combined arms program I propose that we put artillery on board aircraft.  Oh wait, somebody's already done that.  Here's a 105 howitzer firing from an AC-130:


(in reply to LewFisher)
Post #: 7
Combined Arms - 8/10/2006 9:00:50 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Imagine how much different WWII would have been if B-17 gunners had had miniguns:


(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 8
RE: Combined Arms - 8/10/2006 10:13:03 PM   
Industrial


Posts: 143
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Imagine how much different WWII would have been if B-17 gunners had had miniguns:




By that time the germans would have probably perfected their Wasserfall AntiAir Missile and would just shoot down your minigun equipped B-17's from the safety of their bunkers, while having a beer and eating their Sauerkraut

_____________________________

"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

Henry Alfred Kissinger

<--- aka: Kraut

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 9
RE: Combined Arms - 8/11/2006 4:53:42 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LewFisher

It wasn't a stupid question. Many games gives a bonus if you attack pure armour with armour and infantry.
BTY, I got the idea from 13.6 - the scenario guide for Plan Martin by Daniel Mc Bride. He says "this avoids the "ant factor" for the most part, and gives some scope for "combined arms" benefits for intact regiments or brigades, and for overuns in particular." This statement lead me to believe there was a combined arms rule?


I thought it was a very valid question.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to LewFisher)
Post #: 10
RE: Combined Arms - 8/11/2006 5:08:11 PM   
Chuck2


Posts: 830
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid


quote:

ORIGINAL: LewFisher

It wasn't a stupid question. Many games gives a bonus if you attack pure armour with armour and infantry.
BTY, I got the idea from 13.6 - the scenario guide for Plan Martin by Daniel Mc Bride. He says "this avoids the "ant factor" for the most part, and gives some scope for "combined arms" benefits for intact regiments or brigades, and for overuns in particular." This statement lead me to believe there was a combined arms rule?


I thought it was a very valid question.


It's a good question. I'm not sure how this is handled except through the infantry having AT weapons. The combat routines are very complex though and there may be some benefit applied there. I do know that attacking with passive equipment against armor is a bad idea unless active equipment is used to support the attack.

_____________________________


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 11
RE: Combined Arms - 8/11/2006 6:17:16 PM   
hank

 

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline 		... very valid ? imho

One thing I had to get used to with TOAW was that most units are "combined arms" units with mixes of rifle squads; AT; arty; transport; etc ... of course depending on the scenario ... in fact its very sce specific.  When you play the divisional level sce's like Barbarossa, they have all kinds of combined arms units.  ... and on the other end of the spectrum, battles that are broken into company level units may be more "pure" in their weaponry (i.e., a tank battalion may be all tanks with a few pieces of support equipment.

I have to look at a bunch of units for each sce I play to see how "combined arms' the units are. 

HQ's are another good example of a "combined unit" since they are support units but also have arty with engineers with rifle squads with etc etc ...  in some sce's. 

I'm still trying to figure it all out.  But this question could be discussed much more.  Good ? I thought.

Plus I'm not sure I understand yet if there is a combined arms advantage to the attacker.  ??

hank

(in reply to Chuck2)
Post #: 12
RE: Combined Arms - 8/11/2006 6:29:09 PM   
TOCarroll


Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline 		There is not a specific combined arms rule, but by attacking or defending with an appropriate mixture of armour, artiller, infantry, engineers, HQ, ect, you get the bet of an optimal attack (or defense). The units are in command control (supply/HQ), AP attack against armour, HE against soft targets, engineers & rivers, ect. I've beat myself do death enough times in Russia and North Africa to know not to hit AT troops with pure armour, bombard fortifications before attacking, value of air support. I think (A] IT WAS A VERY VALAD QUESTION and B] The game simulates combinmed arms (both internal to the units, and by unit type {actually unit attack/defense factors and special abilities} very well without a special rule.

_____________________________

"Ideological conviction will trump logistics, numbers, and firepower every time"
J. Stalin, 1936-1941...A. Hitler, 1933-1945. W. Churchill (very rarely, and usually in North Africa). F. D. Roosvelt (smart enough to let the generals run the war).

(in reply to hank)
Post #: 13
RE: Combined Arms - 8/11/2006 6:36:24 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline 		Nobody ever said that the question wasn't "valid" or called it "stupid". The question was essentially answered by Chuck in the first reply. It is up to the players to achieve the benefits of "combined arms" based on the tactical task at hand, by setting the appropriately equipped units to attack a particular defensive position. Or, to set up their defenses, such that various attacking force compositions are adequately countered. That is combined arms.

My comment was that there is no magic formula in real-life, and likewise, none in the game. So, there are no [If A+I+T, then attack*x] artificial boosts to represent a "combined arms effect".

(in reply to hank)
Post #: 14
RE: Combined Arms - 8/11/2006 11:19:08 PM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Nobody ever said that the question wasn't "valid" or called it "stupid".


Actually your reply did contain distinctly sarcastic flavor which could easily be misinterpreted.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 15
RE: Combined Arms - 8/11/2006 11:59:23 PM   
JoeRockhead


Posts: 38
Joined: 7/26/2004
Status: offline 		There goes that darn "non-emotional" internet communication style again. Always gets people in trouble.

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 16
RE: Combined Arms - 8/12/2006 12:00:17 AM   
TOCarroll


Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline 		I didn't think you were sarcastic, just telling a (fairly) noob that it was a fair question, and paraphrasing some of the other answers. It's really more like a penalty for not using combined arms, as the PO & other humans will.

_____________________________

"Ideological conviction will trump logistics, numbers, and firepower every time"
J. Stalin, 1936-1941...A. Hitler, 1933-1945. W. Churchill (very rarely, and usually in North Africa). F. D. Roosvelt (smart enough to let the generals run the war).

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 17
RE: Combined Arms - 8/12/2006 12:13:59 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Actually your reply did contain distinctly sarcastic flavor which could easily be misinterpreted.

Next time I'll use less paprika, so that the flavor isn't so distinct...

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 18
RE: Combined Arms - 8/12/2006 12:24:01 AM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline 		Oh no! Keep the paprika . . . can't make a proper dish of goulash without good Hungarian paprika.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 19
RE: Combined Arms - 8/12/2006 6:37:13 AM   
MikeC_81

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 8/1/2006
Status: offline 		Does anyone have some information on how shots are calculated and how each piece of equipement decides what it is going to shoot at?

For example if there is a fairly pure tank unit in front of me I want to attack.  Can I send in my infantry along with my armor so that the infantry soak up some of the shots from the tanks?  Or do the tanks know to shoot my tanks and the only way I am going to minimize losses is to move more tanks in so that my tanks take out their tanks faster before they can shoot me up as much?

The system is much different from Toaw 1.  For example I find WWII tanks nearly impervious to infantry now and I can often send them in backed by lots of artillery and slaughter infantry without AT even if I don't have grunts to back up the tanks. 

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 20
RE: Combined Arms - 8/12/2006 1:52:56 PM   
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline 		This type of bonus are necessary for games in which units are distinguish by labels. In TOAW units are built on equipment, so in most scenarios they are already combined arms, however I have noticed that units with armour equipment only, say a Tank Bn, have rather strange behaviour in combat, and the same could be said for units composed of, for instance, selfpropelled AA equipment only. They tend to be impervious to attacks, and to suck lots of combat rounds if of high proficiency. I remember in an scenario in which I attacked for 3 turns a single german AA Bn with several Soviet Divisions and they held heavy casualties without being able to take the hex! In my scenarios I add other non armour equipment  to Tank Bns to make them behave more reasonably.

(in reply to MikeC_81)
Post #: 21
RE: Combined Arms - 8/12/2006 7:02:11 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		There probably should be a combined arms effect for armor and infantry. Infantry alone is exposed. Armor alone is subject to close assault. Together, the infantry can advance in shelter behind the tanks and the tanks are protected from close assault. But implementing it will be complicated.

There actually is a combined-arms effect in TOAW - for artillery. Bombard alone at x1 or bombard in support of an assault at x4.

Unfortunately, there is no test of the ground assault unit's nature. Players have learned to exploit this via "ant attacks", using relatively tiny, throwaway units just to get the artillery bonus and suck supply from defenders. Fixing this is a current programming priority.

But any combined arms effect for armor and infantry would incur the same issue. It probably could be resolved just by counting tanks and squads - not enough tanks, no benefit for the infantry; not enough squads, no benefit for the tanks, etc.

Another major problem is that TOAW does not actually model close assault on tanks. By that, I mean sticky bombs, molotov coctails, grenade down the hatch, etc. Currently, tanks can only be knocked out via AT weapons. (This is why, in my late WWII scenarios, I bump up the AT level of front-line squads, to cover close assault ability). Any combined arms effect would need to impact close assault effects, and that can't happen until TOAW gets some.

And finally, close assault skills were not present over the entire period-range of TOAW. Probably not available anywhere through 1941. Probably not available universally until 1944. Perhaps the Soviets were first, everyone else catching on eventually. So close assault ability will have to be a force parameter.

(in reply to Iñaki Harrizabalagatar)
Post #: 22
RE: Combined Arms - 8/13/2006 2:06:36 AM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		[deleted by author]

< Message edited by murx -- 8/13/2006 2:13:34 AM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 23
RE: Combined Arms - 8/14/2006 6:29:53 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline 		[Deleting messages is really catching on]

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 8/14/2006 6:32:47 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to LewFisher)
Post #: 24
RE: Combined Arms - 8/14/2006 7:21:59 PM   
Chuck2


Posts: 830
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline 		[deleted again]

< Message edited by Chuck2 -- 8/14/2006 7:23:18 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 25
RE: Combined Arms - 8/14/2006 7:42:14 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline 		If it's one thing that pisses me off, it's deleting messages. I'd tell you just how much, but then I'd probably have to delete my post...

(in reply to Chuck2)
Post #: 26
RE: Combined Arms - 8/14/2006 8:35:39 PM   
golden delicious


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

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

If it's one thing that pisses me off, it's deleting messages. I'd tell you just how much, but then I'd probably have to delete my post...


What bothers me is not being able to delete messages. Having those three blank ones above just makes us all look like idiots. It would be much cleaner if we could have removed them outright.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 27
RE: Combined Arms - 8/14/2006 8:36:54 PM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2366
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline 		..back to the plot..

..Combined arms use really depends on the scen design, in those where sub-units are present, pure AT, pure art, etc then a given hex has to contain units of each type to function well, guns without infantry to guard them run risks, inf battallions without AT have problems, and so on, at larger scales, division size units and up, it's less important as the unit already contains all the bits..

_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 28
RE: Combined Arms - 8/14/2006 8:57:43 PM   
Catch21

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 4/13/2006
From: Dublin
Status: offline 		(To maybe clarify) I think this Q came from the 2WIN New Player Tourney, where I think it does impact. Putting a bicycle unit in a town by itself and digging in won't last long, but add a few SPGs and some engineers to help you dig and there you still have it- an impregnable strongpoint.

As mentioned above it's of course up to scenario designers as to how they wish to implement, if at all. I think very scale-dependent.

_____________________________

Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
(J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

(in reply to a white rabbit)
Post #: 29
RE: Combined Arms - 8/14/2006 9:38:01 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

If it's one thing that pisses me off, it's deleting messages. I'd tell you just how much, but then I'd probably have to delete my post...


What bothers me is not being able to delete messages. Having those three blank ones above just makes us all look like idiots. It would be much cleaner if we could have removed them outright.

My problem is that I always feel like the punchline in that old joke,

Q: How do you keep a moron in suspense?
A:...
...
...
...
...
...

when I look at a bunch of deleted posts, and spend too much time wandering what it was that they might have said in the first place...

Oh well...curiosity, cats, and bouncing betties...

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Combined Arms Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.031