Unit stance and damage

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Unit stance and damage

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] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Unit stance and damage

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Unit stance and damage - 3/23/2001 5:48:00 AM

Pack Rat

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline

Does having your unit in the defend stance have anything to do with how much damage you might recieve from enemy fire. I can't imagine that it does, but thought I'd like to know for sure. If I've just got done advancing a unit and change the statis to defend it takes time for this to go into effect right?

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 3/23/2001 5:56:00 AM

MindSpy

Posts: 272
Joined: 5/13/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Pack Rat: Does having your unit in the defend stance have anything to do with how much damage you might recieve from enemy fire. I can't imagine that it does, but thought I'd like to know for sure. If I've just got done advancing a unit and change the statis to defend it takes time for this to go into effect right?

MINDSPY DEFEND stance limits loses. Advance stance does not inhibit loses. IN SP3 the first switch to DEFEND does not confer upon your units the same degree of protection as a full turn of in DEFEND mode. You will recall that the ICON for in DEFEND units changed as time spent in DEFEND increased to a maximal value at which point no further benefits could be derived. It is much like moving one hex and taking fire. The loses are great. However moving two hexes and taking fire the loses are even greater. It is not possible to move one hex take fire and then move one hex and still recieve the benefits of limited open ground or other movement. Time spent preparing to defend or take the shot has always provided improved percentages in SPWAW and SP3 the question version to version is how much and are there any new changes. MINDSPY

_____________________________

(in reply to Pack Rat)

Post #: 2

- 3/23/2001 6:15:00 AM

Pack Rat

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline

Thanks for the fast response. So if I've got this correctly, there IS an immediate effect for changing to the defend mode. Yeah I knew over time your position got better even if you didn't change the statis from advance. Mind you I'm asking about games without C&C on. If one recieves a benifit for changing the stance and since it takes nothing away movement wise, I would respectfuly suggest that like the idea about tanks using movement points for turning the front armor, changing the unit stance should cost movement points. Maybe in a future version or game.

_____________________________

(in reply to Pack Rat)

Post #: 3

- 3/23/2001 6:47:00 AM

john g

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Pack Rat: Thanks for the fast response. So if I've got this correctly, there IS an immediate effect for changing to the defend mode. Yeah I knew over time your position got better even if you didn't change the statis from advance. Mind you I'm asking about games without C&C on. If one recieves a benifit for changing the stance and since it takes nothing away movement wise, I would respectfuly suggest that like the idea about tanks using movement points for turning the front armor, changing the unit stance should cost movement points. Maybe in a future version or game.

Remeber a unit gets a better chance for special op fires if in defend mode. I disagree with using movement points to change mode, with full C&C using the orders to do so handles it just fine. If you don't play with C&C yet you just don't have a handle on how great this game is. I can't imagine playing without it. You lose quite a bit of flexability when you can't just order a unit anywhere, and then have it change mode, call in all the artillery you have, etc. With just a few orders available you have to plan ahead and not waste what orders you are getting each turn. thanks, John.

_____________________________

(in reply to Pack Rat)

Post #: 4

- 3/23/2001 7:01:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Actually the above is correct when C&C is on. With C&C off there is no need to change stance because any unit that dos not move is treated as if in defend stance (and will automatically try to get "in cover"). Defend stance itself only confers limited advantages, mostly related to OPFIRE because the unit is assumed to be oriented to overwatch and not to getting anywhere. These are instant upon changing to "defend" and don't get any better with time. The defensive protection benefits accrue when the unit is "in cover" units only become "in cover" if in defense stance and pass an experience (that is higher if adjacent to an enginer unit). Sometimes a poor quality unit will take 3 or 4 turns to finally get "in cover" while a good unit may do it the next turn. Infantry "in cover" close assault much better than those not "in-cover" and those hidden are best of all. Benefits accrue upon going "in cover" and do not change over time.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Pack Rat)

Post #: 5

- 3/23/2001 7:30:00 AM

Pack Rat

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by john g: I disagree with using movement points to change mode, with full C&C using the orders to do so handles it just fine. If you don't play with C&C yet you just don't have a handle on how great this game is. .

I really really don't want to get into the C&C debate. I think it is a great game even though I don't choose to use it. All I would call your attention to is, changing to a defend from advance stance is a very time consumming thing. To allow one the ability to change just cause the lieutenant said so without the action needed to do so, being represented by lose of movement points, maybe needs to be looked at in a future version or to bare in mind for a future game. Damn chances were you had dig his stinking foxhole too. Let me amend the first sentance. I don't mind debating C&C as long as seperating players apart by what they prefer to play and tagging labels on them as less then good people or the hinting that that have no clue as to what is good for them and like minded statements are left out. You didn't do this, it's just that some do and it burns me up every time I see it. My rant for the day :)

_____________________________

(in reply to Pack Rat)

Post #: 6

- 3/23/2001 7:32:00 AM

Pack Rat

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Actually the above is correct when C&C is on. With C&C off there is no need to change stance because any unit that dos not move is treated as if in defend stance (and will automatically try to get "in cover"). .

Thanks, that's what I thought, but got to wondering about it after reading the C&C threads.

_____________________________

(in reply to Pack Rat)

Post #: 7

- 3/24/2001 2:23:00 AM

Fabs

Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000
From: London, U.K.
Status: offline

Pack Rat, like you I don't use CC. My reason is that I don't understand it. People who do get a chance to experience SPWAW in a different dimension. I would love it if someone could explain how to use this complex feature so that I stopped fearing it and started appreciating it. I agree with you that if anyone "puts down" those of us who for one reason or another don't use CC they are not doing anything particularly useful. I don't mind being competently educated, though.

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to Pack Rat)

Post #: 8

- 3/24/2001 4:21:00 AM

Antonius

Posts: 209
Joined: 6/6/2000
From: Saint Arnoult en Yvelines FRANCE
Status: offline

In solo games I have C&C on, in PBEM and on-line games I always accept reaquests to have C&C off. I found C&C very cumbersome until I found that changing a formation's stance is best done by right-clicking on the HQ unit and click on "change this unit only" to get "change whole formation" and then issue the stance order. It is also very important to know that units that are not in command will have their objective updated as soon as command is re-established but will not have their status updated. To learn the mechanics I played a hot-seat game against my-self so I could concentrate on how it works. Adapting tactics and playing habits takes more time since you have to get used to assess the command situation (how many orders ? are units out of command ? which formations might need a higher echelon's orders most ?) at the start of each turn, allow some time to regroup formations after each major fight and take ttime to accumulate orders before undertaking order-expensive attacks like popping-up.

_____________________________

Wargamo, ergo sum

(in reply to Pack Rat)

Post #: 9

- 3/24/2001 4:40:00 AM

MindSpy

Posts: 272
Joined: 5/13/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Antonius: In solo games I have C&C on, in PBEM and on-line games I always accept reaquests to have C&C off. I found C&C very cumbersome until I found that changing a formation's stance is best done by right-clicking on the HQ unit and click on "change this unit only" to get "change whole formation" and then issue the stance order. It is also very important to know that units that are not in command will have their objective updated as soon as command is re-established but will not have their status updated. To learn the mechanics I played a hot-seat game against my-self so I could concentrate on how it works. Adapting tactics and playing habits takes more time since you have to get used to assess the command situation (how many orders ? are units out of command ? which formations might need a higher echelon's orders most ?) at the start of each turn, allow some time to regroup formations after each major fight and take ttime to accumulate orders before undertaking order-expensive attacks like popping-up.

MINDSPY Perfection! MINDSPY

_____________________________

(in reply to Pack Rat)

Post #: 10

- 3/24/2001 2:11:00 PM

Latka

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Honolulu, HI, USA
Status: offline

Speaking of C&C... I'd love to learn how to use it. I ran through the tutorial with it on once (last year sometime), and it seemed to work ok - but when I tried to duplicate my efforts in a scenario or campaign, I never got far. ...and the blasted buggers were goin out of radio range all the time :) I'll have to give it another go. I mean, they're all "linked" to the higher HQ, not running around like individual rambos. -Andy (Currently getting his little German butt kicked by the Polish army and those friggin' 37(38?)mm guns on the scout cars.)

_____________________________

(in reply to Pack Rat)

Post #: 11

- 3/24/2001 2:59:00 PM

Pack Rat

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Latka: I'll have to give it another go. I mean, they're all "linked" to the higher HQ, not running around like individual rambos. -Andy (Currently getting his little German butt kicked by the Polish army and those friggin' 37(38?)mm guns on the scout cars.)

What game are we playing? Running around like Rambo? I currently have way too many squads of German infantry getting turned into toast by American artillery in a pbem game. No way am I going to save them as long as the artillery barrage continues. Now if playing with C&C on gave me the ability to give them an order to use common sense and retreat you'd have an instant C&C convert. But C&C doesn't work like that and I have to ask myself why not. Instead you get a generic number of orders that aren't specific in the least. I'm all for a C&C for WAW or a future Matrix game, but model it better. Make it real, make it stand up to real combat, put some common sense into it. Sounds to me like you could use some of those Rambo's in your game. I know I could.

_____________________________

(in reply to Pack Rat)

Post #: 12

- 3/24/2001 3:35:00 PM

Latka

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Honolulu, HI, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Sounds to me like you could use some of those Rambo's in your game. I know I could.

Hahahha... My little PaK guns (37mm I think...and of course, like a dolt I didn't buy trucks to haul 'em with so my troopers are sweatin' em around the board!), anyway, my little AT guns are puttin' up a good fight, but they draw considerable heat from the friggin' thousands of scout cars around the map. Then again, if those guys push through my line my 88s should be able to finally get some shots in!

_____________________________

(in reply to Pack Rat)

Post #: 13

- 3/27/2001 12:37:00 AM

O de B

Posts: 136
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: France, Paris
Status: offline

What i like with the C&C is that the section is more meaningful with it. In SP1/2 i usually ended with formations spread on all the map because i never really see the benefits of keeping units close to their HQ. With C&C there is a real reason to keep them close : orders. A unit Offline is almost useless, it can just sit there or keep on the previous order. Also assigning Objectives helps to keep the formation together.

_____________________________

(in reply to Pack Rat)

Post #: 14