Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Passive Defense??

 
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 >> The War Room >> Passive Defense?? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Passive Defense?? - 8/22/2006 3:31:54 AM   
TOCarroll


Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline 		In a COW scenario (Operation Blau) the notes state that armour units have been adjusted to "Passive Defense" so that, unless accompanied by infantry, they can be easily infiltrated. What does passive defense mean in this conotation? It looks like the defense factor against a pure infantry attack is low, but does it also imply that units moving adjacent will not suffer a disengagement penalty?

Tom OC

_____________________________

"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).
Post #: 1
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/22/2006 6:20:54 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline 		This can only be done with an equipment editor, by changing an attribute of the equipment. This would then require the use of the modified executable in order to play. Since it is a CoW question, that's as far as I'll go on about it for now, since after all, I'm not here to sell you CoW, or support it...

(in reply to TOCarroll)
Post #: 2
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/22/2006 2:42:06 PM   
TOCarroll


Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline 		I don't want to know how to change an attribute. I just want to know what is the difference between an active defender and a passive defender.

_____________________________

"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 JAMiAM)
Post #: 3
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/22/2006 4:42:27 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline 		Oh...I misunderstood the thrust of your question. You were asking about the connotation of equipment being changed to passive defender in a CoW scenario, so I assumed that you were interested in the hows, and whys, of doing that (changing of the attribute) as opposed to a simple definition that you missed by not searching the terms "passive defender" and "flank" in the manual. The section on flank attacks should answer the question of what's the difference between active defenders and passive defenders.

(in reply to TOCarroll)
Post #: 4
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/22/2006 5:04:02 PM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2366
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline 		..in defence: active defenders counter-attack (sort of) passive defenders don't, also passive defenders get chopped up more in flank/rear attacks, a useful fact for representing the rear ranks in pike phalanxes...

..in attack: passive defenders don't

_____________________________

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

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 5
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/22/2006 9:28:56 PM   
golden delicious


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

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..in defence: active defenders counter-attack (sort of) passive defenders don't, also passive defenders get chopped up more in flank/rear attacks,


More to the point, passive defender's don't count toward the active defence strength of the unit. Units with low numbers of active defenders are more vulnerable to RBC (I think this is the intention of the designer in this case) and they will also contribute less to the density penalty.

quote:

..in attack: passive defenders don't


You're wrong. I don't think passive defenders fight any differently at all on the attack.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 8/22/2006 9:30:50 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to a white rabbit)
Post #: 6
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/23/2006 1:57:05 AM   
JAMiAM

 

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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

...in attack: passive defenders don't


You're wrong. I don't think passive defenders fight any differently at all on the attack.

I'm not quite sure what Richard was trying to say here, but passive defender equipment, when in an attacking unit, is shielded from direct fire casualties, unless the unit subjects itself to a flank penalty.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 7
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/23/2006 2:08:23 AM   
TOCarroll


Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline 		Yeah! The scenario in question had tanks as passive defenders. However, their attacking stats were impressive. Not only that, but the were sheilded unless flanked. I think (based on JamiAm's input) that the attempt to make pure armour more vulnerable to infiltration by infantry actually made it more powerful.

A good example of Murphy's Law of Unintended Consequences!

_____________________________

"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 JAMiAM)
Post #: 8
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/23/2006 2:24:49 AM   
golden delicious


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

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I'm not quite sure what Richard was trying to say here, but passive defender equipment, when in an attacking unit, is shielded from direct fire casualties, unless the unit subjects itself to a flank penalty.


OK. Just so long as Richard's wrong. That's the main thing.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 9
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/23/2006 2:25:43 AM   
golden delicious


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

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

Yeah! The scenario in question had tanks as passive defenders. However, their attacking stats were impressive. Not only that, but the were sheilded unless flanked. I think (based on JamiAm's input) that the attempt to make pure armour more vulnerable to infiltration by infantry actually made it more powerful.


I expect you'll find that passive defenders attacking alone will take casualties.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to TOCarroll)
Post #: 10
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/23/2006 3:39:21 AM   
rhinobones

 

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

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
. . . passive defender equipment, when in an attacking unit, is shielded from direct fire casualties, unless the unit subjects itself to a flank penalty.


Let’s see if I understand this correctly. You are saying that the passive defender equipment is embedded in a unit (which also contains active defenders/attackers I presume) that is conducting an attack. The passive defender equipment is shielded from direct fire unless the unit (that would be the attacking unit) suffers a flank penalty.

Is this right?

If so, under what circumstances does an attacking unit subject itself to a flank penalty? Thought only defending units were subject to flank penalties.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 11
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/23/2006 3:48:53 AM   
JAMiAM

 

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

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
. . . passive defender equipment, when in an attacking unit, is shielded from direct fire casualties, unless the unit subjects itself to a flank penalty.


Let’s see if I understand this correctly. You are saying that the passive defender equipment is embedded in a unit (which also contains active defenders/attackers I presume) that is conducting an attack. The passive defender equipment is shielded from direct fire unless the unit (that would be the attacking unit) suffers a flank penalty.

Is this right?


That is correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
If so, under what circumstances does an attacking unit subject itself to a flank penalty? Thought only defending units were subject to flank penalties.

When I revised the manual section on "Flanks and Rear Areas" I did include the criteria for the penalty being assessed, both for attackers and defenders. If there is anything in that section that, after reading, needs further clarification, I'd be happy to answer those questions.

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 12
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/23/2006 3:50:09 AM   
JAMiAM

 

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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
OK. Just so long as Richard's wrong. That's the main thing.

roflmao!

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 13
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/23/2006 6:00:50 AM   
rhinobones

 

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

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
. . . after reading, needs further clarification, I'd be happy to answer those questions.


Guess you're not in the mood tonight.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 14
RE: Passive Defense?? - 8/23/2006 8:09:40 AM   
JAMiAM

 

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

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
. . . after reading, needs further clarification, I'd be happy to answer those questions.


Guess you're not in the mood tonight.

Maybe tomorrow night, honey. I've got a headache...

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> Passive Defense?? Page: [1]
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

0.734