Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (Full Version)

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



Message

RobertWevodau -> Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 3:56:41 PM)

Hi All,

I'm trying TOAW III for the first time. I never played it in any of it's previous versions. I'm working through the manual and the Korea '50-'51 tutorial, which I believe was part of TOAW COW. My question relates to the "Plan an Attack" window as it relates to the attack from 5,37 into 5,38. The attacking units are NK 6th Div 15th Infantry and 5th Artillery. The Attack Strength of the 15th Inf is 9 + 3 and for the 5th Artillery is 7. I can't reconcile these strength with what shows up in the "Plan an Attack" window.

First of all, my screen shows an "Our Attack" value of (17 + 5), (with both units participating and irrespective of loss tolerance) while the Tutorial Documentation notes show an "Our Attack" value of (13 + 4). Why is there a difference?

Perhaps more importantly, I can't figure out how either (17 + 5) or (13 + 4) results from base values of (9 + 3) for the infantry and 7 for the artillery.

Finally, with (17+5) attack versus a presumed defense of 4, the probability of success is only listed as "fair". It would seem to me to be better than "fair" for this situation. What is a reasonable Attack/Defense ratio for a successful attack? I think I remember from the manual that 3/1 is reasonable, but I'm not sure.

If I can't understand this simple combat, I know I will never be able to understand the far more complex attack situations that can arise in this game.

By the way - the game looks like it will be a lot of fun once I get a handle on it.

Thanks,
Robert



AstroCat -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 4:28:40 PM)

I am pretty new to the game as well. Unfortunately, I've found many parts of the game's UI to be very counter-intuitive and hard to manage. The information is often vague and undocumented, and in addition not easily available. Areas such as replacements, reinforcements, units supply and overall supply, combat indicators (such as you mentioned), combat results, terrain modifiers, weather, etc... almost everything so far, and I'm sure I'll find more, the more I play the game.

I do like the game, but it seems it is one of the most un-user friendly User Interfaces I've ever encountered. The way information is provided is way too hard for someone to come in to the game and try and get a handle on. I see this as a major deterrent of bringing new blood in to this game. I shouldn't have to do so much work to get the basic information needed to play the game. Look and I'm willing to do my homework but this game makes it like a puzzle just to get basic information. It's sad because this game could be so cool if it was eaier to work with.




hank -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 4:59:24 PM)

I would have to agree that there could be a lot of graphical things done to help understand all the details of game play.

from simple things like:  adding buttons like the HQ button that brings all HQ's to the top of the stack ... I would like to see buttons like this for armor and arty and a few other things ... instead you have to click through a stack to find your armor

there's so much text to wade through to really get a handle on what's happening ... what the condition of your troops are ... supply conditions ... readiness ... etc. ... even a window with status bars showing critical info in a graphic format would be nice

But so far ... none of this is maker or breaker to me.  I'm just determined to learn all I can because this game's been considered for years to be the best operational strategy game.  Lots of people play this game so it can't be too difficult ... patience and persistence is the key



Catch21 -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 5:25:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank
patience and persistence is the key

Absolutely. It's a high learning curve.

I originally bought this bargain basement in the early days of TOAW I. From a board wargaming background. Tried it- too complex. I let it sit around for a year before I picked it up again and tried to get through the detail. Then I read http://www.wargamer.com/toaw/scenplay/strategy.htm and realized what a masterpiece it was- all your board wargames in one computerized package and a machine to handle the calcs.

Read the tutorials and all the articles you can find. It will take a while. Maybe take it as a personal challenge to join what I find a fairly interesting community.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 5:30:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RWevodau
...my screen shows an "Our Attack" value of (17 + 5), (with both units participating and irrespective of loss tolerance) while the Tutorial Documentation notes show an "Our Attack" value of (13 + 4). Why is there a difference?

Perhaps more importantly, I can't figure out how either (17 + 5) or (13 + 4) results from base values of (9 + 3) for the infantry and 7 for the artillery....


There are two numbers relating to the attack strength ( AP and AT ) and there is only one number relating to the defense strength. I'm putting together a picture to help explain a typical attack ( sorry, it's kinda busy for a picture explaining attacks, but.... ) :

[img]http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/6818/attackexplained3bz.gif[/img]



golden delicious -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 5:37:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RWevodau

If I can't understand this simple combat, I know I will never be able to understand the far more complex attack situations that can arise in this game.


My short answer is, don't worry too much about the numbers. They're only a rough guide anyway. Turn off your targetting computer and use the force.

Go with what you think will work. Usually much better than relying on any formula or the attack planning dialogue.



Catch21 -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 5:44:19 PM)

Surely you mean 'The Force'.[;)]



golden delicious -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 5:47:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Staff

Surely you mean 'The Force'.[;)]


How do you know if Alec Guiness is capitalising it?



RobertWevodau -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 6:44:28 PM)

Thanks to everyone for the fast responses. The consensus seems to be that there is no defined way to get to the combined attack strength from the individual unit strengths, and the information on the "Plan an Attack" window is more qualitative than quantitative. I can accept that and move on, but I am very puzzled by that. Why wouldn't the combined Attack Strength shown be derived from the individual unit strengths, and in a way that could be understood and duplicated by the player? Strange.

Larryfulkerson - thank you for the diagram. That does help. But in your example the numbers work as I would expect them to work. I am aware that the first number is AP and the second number is AT, and that there is a single defensive number, but the Tutorial is not showing the same relationship between individual unit strengths and combined Attack Strength as your example. That is my question. Why not? I am not obsessive about the numbers, and I don't intend to re-calculate every individual combat situation after I learn the basics of the game, but I am in the early learning stage and I think an understanding to the relationship between individual unit strength and combined Attack/Defense strength is a fundamental skill to acquire.

And why is my result different than what is shown in the Tutorial documentation? Is there a random factor involved in going from individual strengths to combined strength? This would be useful to know as well.

Thanks again.

Robert



ralphtricky -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 6:54:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

from simple things like: adding buttons like the HQ button that brings all HQ's to the top of the stack ... I would like to see buttons like this for armor and arty and a few other things ... instead you have to click through a stack to find your armor

there's so much text to wade through to really get a handle on what's happening ... what the condition of your troops are ... supply conditions ... readiness ... etc. ... even a window with status bars showing critical info in a graphic format would be nice

Push the HQ button a second time, and the Artillery comes to the front<g>

If you're playing at least 1024x768 with the start menu bar to one side, or set to auto-hide, you will see a box below the unit bos that lists they proficiency, readiness and suppy of the unit<g>



ralphtricky -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 6:59:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RWevodau

Hi All,

I'm trying TOAW III for the first time. I never played it in any of it's previous versions. I'm working through the manual and the Korea '50-'51 tutorial, which I believe was part of TOAW COW. My question relates to the "Plan an Attack" window as it relates to the attack from 5,37 into 5,38. The attacking units are NK 6th Div 15th Infantry and 5th Artillery. The Attack Strength of the 15th Inf is 9 + 3 and for the 5th Artillery is 7. I can't reconcile these strength with what shows up in the "Plan an Attack" window.

First of all, my screen shows an "Our Attack" value of (17 + 5), (with both units participating and irrespective of loss tolerance) while the Tutorial Documentation notes show an "Our Attack" value of (13 + 4). Why is there a difference?

Perhaps more importantly, I can't figure out how either (17 + 5) or (13 + 4) results from base values of (9 + 3) for the infantry and 7 for the artillery.

Finally, with (17+5) attack versus a presumed defense of 4, the probability of success is only listed as "fair". It would seem to me to be better than "fair" for this situation. What is a reasonable Attack/Defense ratio for a successful attack? I think I remember from the manual that 3/1 is reasonable, but I'm not sure.

If I can't understand this simple combat, I know I will never be able to understand the far more complex attack situations that can arise in this game.

By the way - the game looks like it will be a lot of fun once I get a handle on it.

Thanks,
Robert

The tutorial wasn't updated for TOAW III, that's why it doesn't have the same values.

I'm not sure off-hand why the combined AP strength is +5 The Artillery probably provides some residual AP support. The +17 is probably because almost everything is stored as integers and truncated.

The odds are probably 'fair' because you're attacking an infantry unit, in which case, the odds are 5 to 4.

Ralph



RobertWevodau -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 9:44:06 PM)

Ralph,

Now I'm more confused[:)]

The total attack (infantry + artillery) is showing 17 total strength against an enemy defending infantry with (presumed) 4 defense. How is that a 5/4 attack? Even if I just count the infantry strength it is 9/4. What am I missing here? What is the value of the "Our Attack" number on the "Plan an Attack" window if it is so far off?

Thanks,
Robert



Catch21 -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 10:07:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RWevodau
How is that a 5/4 attack? Even if I just count the infantry strength it is 9/4. What am I missing here? What is the value of the "Our Attack" number on the "Plan an Attack" window if it is so far off?

Are you from a boardgaming background? AH. SPI. GDW. If the answer is yes it might help in allowing those of us who've 'walked into the light' and transitioned to better answer your Qs.



ralphtricky -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 10:24:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RWevodau

Ralph,

Now I'm more confused[:)]

The total attack (infantry + artillery) is showing 17 total strength against an enemy defending infantry with (presumed) 4 defense. How is that a 5/4 attack? Even if I just count the infantry strength it is 9/4. What am I missing here? What is the value of the "Our Attack" number on the "Plan an Attack" window if it is so far off?

Thanks,
Robert

TOAW doesn't look at the numbers. The numbers are only helpful to humans. It actually does unit by unit combat. That means that that impressive AT number is totally useless when fighting infantry, and the odds are going to be closer to 5 to 4 since the AT weapons are almost useless against infantry.[:-]

If you put the command toawlog on the command line when launching TOAW, it will give you a sense of the calculations that are occuring under the hood. It seems to be a love it ot hate it kind of thing. I love it since I believe that it is a much richer model than the standard CRTs used in boardgames. Some people hate it since they can't calculate exact odds.[8|]

Thet's why you see joking (I think) references to 'The Force'[:D]

That's also why you see people talking about it taking a long time to learn to play the game well, you also need to learn some history, strategy and tactics.

My reccomendation is to forget a lot of what you know or expect, and just play making reasonable choices. We really need an 'Idiot's guide' that gives the bare basics of how to play, and encourages people to play for a while before reading the entire manual.

Ralph



Catch21 -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/8/2006 11:58:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Thet's why you see joking (I think) references to 'The Force'[:D]

Oh, believe me, we're not joking about 'The Force'. And I've just read an Idiot's Guide- I called it 'TOAW for Dummies' since someone kindly forwarded me a copy of the 'Anonymous Heroics' tutorial since I don't have the game itself yet.

If we're talking CRT's here for those who remember them or still use them, that's the beauty of the system IMO. It forces you to forget them (unless you want to be bogged down in a mass of incredible detail- and you can with the game switches if you wish) and focus on what to do, what to use, when, where and how.

It releases you from all the tedium of odds calcs, though there are some pointers on how the logic works if you look in the manual- terrain effects for example.

So essentially if you get with the program it forces you to think like a battlefield commander. Forget a lot of # crunching. Think objectives, what have I got, how best to use it, what's the opposition like and how am I going to win.



RobertWevodau -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 1:21:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


TOAW doesn't look at the numbers. The numbers are only helpful to humans. It actually does unit by unit combat. That means that that impressive AT number is totally useless when fighting infantry, and the odds are going to be closer to 5 to 4 since the AT weapons are almost useless against infantry.[:-]

If you put the command toawlog on the command line when launching TOAW, it will give you a sense of the calculations that are occuring under the hood. It seems to be a love it ot hate it kind of thing. I love it since I believe that it is a much richer model than the standard CRTs used in boardgames. Some people hate it since they can't calculate exact odds.[8|]

Thet's why you see joking (I think) references to 'The Force'[:D]

That's also why you see people talking about it taking a long time to learn to play the game well, you also need to learn some history, strategy and tactics.

My reccomendation is to forget a lot of what you know or expect, and just play making reasonable choices. We really need an 'Idiot's guide' that gives the bare basics of how to play, and encourages people to play for a while before reading the entire manual.



Ralph

I guess the heart of my question is: How is it "helpful to humans"? I undertand that there is no CRT, but I believe that the total attack value (compared to defense value) should be a useful piece of information to the player. I also realize the AT value is useless against infantry. But I can't interpret what I see as a 17:4 ratio (which doesn't count the AT value) as really only 5:4, even as a qualitative piece of information. That's what I am striving to learn.

And General Staff, Yes, I am from a board gaming background (mostly SPI titles), but I have played many computer war games also. (Battleground Series, West Front, the old SSI Gettysburg Game, HTTR and a few others). I do not have an expectation that there is a precise CRT with specific odds and results in TAOW; I'm just trying to understand, in a qualitative manner, the information presented to me on the "Plan an Attack" window.

Anyway, thanks to all for your help. I will go on and play a few games against the PO and see if I can get the hang of it.

Robert



JAMiAM -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 2:16:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RWevodau
But I can't interpret what I see as a 17:4 ratio (which doesn't count the AT value) as really only 5:4, even as a qualitative piece of information. That's what I am striving to learn.

I'm not sure how Ralph is calculating that either, unless he's looking at something else entirely, in which event we have a case of apples and oranges. The 17:4 ratio that you see is the ratio of raw AP strengths, unmodified by any possible terrain or deployment bonuses. The defensive strengths of the SK units would be modified for it being in a forest hex, and that does not show up in the Attack planner. However, those mods apply on a per piece basis for the units, and will be x2 for infantry type equipment, and x1.5 for static equipment.

This, of course, results in a weighted value, dependent upon what assigned equipment is actually in the units. The attack planner simply goes with the raw, scaled, rounded integer values shown on the counters, and not the "true" totals based on all the various combat modifiers, and totaled up internally.



golden delicious -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 2:52:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RWevodau

I guess the heart of my question is: How is it "helpful to humans"? I undertand that there is no CRT, but I believe that the total attack value (compared to defense value) should be a useful piece of information to the player.


It is- up to a point. A unit with 20 "attack" (actually anti-personnel strength) will be quite a bit more lethal than one with 10. If it was 15 and 14... well, it would depend.

quote:

But I can't interpret what I see as a 17:4 ratio (which doesn't count the AT value) as really only 5:4, even as a qualitative piece of information. That's what I am striving to learn.


I think Ralph missed the artillery regiment.



Catch21 -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 3:33:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
quote:

ORIGINAL: General Staff
Surely you mean 'The Force'.[;)]

How do you know if Alec Guiness is capitalising it?

It's just said with such energy. Maybe I should have used bold and italics instead. I'm sure alec guiness wouldn't mind.[;)]

Off-topic I think there's a point when you realize 'The Force' is with you and you just float away from the Attack Planning Dialogue and can pretty much figure it out by yourself. Not precisely or exactly but well enough to sort out most situations. I've rarely used it in ACOW.

I'd even argue it's one of the biggest barriers to new players because they're relying on it, not themselves, as to how combat rounds are spent and therefore not understanding a crucial mechanic. It took me a long time to get past this and I'm not at all mathematically minded.



AstroCat -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 4:21:26 AM)

See this is were I feel this game's UI really fails and does a disservice to not only the game but the genre as well. It's a computer not a boardgame! If you are on a hex it should include the terrain info and give you some clear easy to discern information. This game has way too much under the hood "voodoo" and too many pieces of information that do not mean anything that they say.

It's like the game is trying to be vague and deliberately misleading on purpose. Why make a game that is not clear?

For example it's like saying your attack strength is "X" but unknown to you there are like 20 other factors that we aren't going to tell you and you must somehow figure out on your own and without any information. When I look in the window in the upper right corner and see my stats and then I click on the unit and see my stats and they are different, the reasons why should be clear.

Supply is horrible like this. I want to know how much supply I'm getting per turn, this game acts that is for some reason a big secret. Reinforcements, who's getting them? When will the unit be ready to fight again? No way, the games not telling! Why? It says how many per turn you are going to get but not who's going get them.

Nothing in this game seems to be as it seems. Why does it have to be like this? What is the purpose of making the game hard to play? Can't it be a good game if it has clear rules?
This games biggest flaw is getting useful information to the player.

I want to like this game, so much about the idea of this game seems just awesome, but the mechanics seem a mess to someone who has not grown up with this game from the beginning.



ralphtricky -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 4:27:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: RWevodau
But I can't interpret what I see as a 17:4 ratio (which doesn't count the AT value) as really only 5:4, even as a qualitative piece of information. That's what I am striving to learn.

I'm not sure how Ralph is calculating that either, unless he's looking at something else entirely, in which event we have a case of apples and oranges. The 17:4 ratio that you see is the ratio of raw AP strengths, unmodified by any possible terrain or deployment bonuses.

I got the two values swapped. The original comment was

Finally, with (17+5) attack versus a presumed defense of 4, the probability of success is only listed as "fair".

I'm not sure how that dialog calculates that result, if he was attacking tanks, the anti-armor value is 5 against a 4 defense might give a fair.

Ralph



*Lava* -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 4:43:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

We really need an 'Idiot's guide' that gives the bare basics of how to play, and encourages people to play for a while before reading the entire manual.


Hi!

I was working on an interactive tutorial scenario for the game.

I use the "news" section to give instructions to the player and then on the turn he goes and does it. Seemed pretty easy to do, but I got sidetracked by a larger scenario I'm working on.

Are you all interested in me finishing the tutorial? Seems someone with more knowledge would probably do it better, but if you want it from an "idiots" point of view, perhaps I'm your man.

[;)]

Ray (alias Lava)



golden delicious -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 5:54:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Staff

Off-topic I think there's a point when you realize 'The Force' is with you and you just float away from the Attack Planning Dialogue and can pretty much figure it out by yourself.


As an addendum, I still find the planning screen useful for assigning support, particularly if there's a lot of it split between several attacks. It's also good for seeing every unit you have assigned to an attack all at once.



golden delicious -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 6:00:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AstroCat

See this is were I feel this game's UI really fails and does a disservice to not only the game but the genre as well. It's a computer not a boardgame! If you are on a hex it should include the terrain info and give you some clear easy to discern information. This game has way too much under the hood "voodoo" and too many pieces of information that do not mean anything that they say.


Well, there's making the game easier to grasp, and then there's taking away from the immersive aspect where you have to be able to understand the "under the hood voodoo". No-one told Rommel what the attack factor of 7. Panzer was. He just did what he thought would work. If all you had to do to win tactically was add units to the attack planning dialogue until the odds changed to "good", the game would be much worse for it.

quote:

Why make a game that is not clear?


War's not clear.

quote:

Supply is horrible like this. I want to know how much supply I'm getting per turn, this game acts that is for some reason a big secret.


This could be fairly easily improved. Replace the place in the unit report where it says "supplied" with a number showing the level of supply the unit received that turn. Obviously, unsupplied units could still say "unsupplied" just to be clear. This specific information isn't often very useful but it would be reasonable to have it in there.

quote:

Reinforcements, who's getting them?


Presumably you mean replacements. This is a bit more complicated as there is a hell of a lot going on in the replacements system.

quote:

When will the unit be ready to fight again?


Define ready. This is a classic example of where you have to make up your own mind. A unit in a poor supply state which has taken losses might be ripe to be pulled out of the line to rest. There again, your opponent might be in even worse state- in which case it's damn the red lights- full speed ahead!

quote:

Can't it be a good game if it has clear rules?


There are clear rules. Very, very complicated clear rules.



ralphtricky -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 6:53:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: AstroCat

See this is were I feel this game's UI really fails and does a disservice to not only the game but the genre as well. It's a computer not a boardgame! If you are on a hex it should include the terrain info and give you some clear easy to discern information. This game has way too much under the hood "voodoo" and too many pieces of information that do not mean anything that they say.


Well, there's making the game easier to grasp, and then there's taking away from the immersive aspect where you have to be able to understand the "under the hood voodoo". No-one told Rommel what the attack factor of 7. Panzer was. He just did what he thought would work. If all you had to do to win tactically was add units to the attack planning dialogue until the odds changed to "good", the game would be much worse for it.

I wouldn't mind exposing the effects of weather and terrain, though, if I can figure out a clean way to do it. I think that part is something that could be helped by being made more obvious. I agree that having everything in the calculations on the combat planning dialog is a bad idea.
quote:


quote:

Can't it be a good game if it has clear rules?

There are clear rules. Very, very complicated clear rules.

I like that one!



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 11:09:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RWevodau

First of all, my screen shows an "Our Attack" value of (17 + 5), (with both units participating and irrespective of loss tolerance) while the Tutorial Documentation notes show an "Our Attack" value of (13 + 4). Why is there a difference?


Because when I made the screen shot for the tutorial, I used a "limited attack" for the artillery unit, halving its contribution. My mistake. I guess we'll have to fix that eventually.

quote:

Perhaps more importantly, I can't figure out how either (17 + 5) or (13 + 4) results from base values of (9 + 3) for the infantry and 7 for the artillery.


9 + 7 + (1 +3)/2 = 18. Since the left side of the equation contains roundiing, it's within reason that the real total would be 17.



Catch21 -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 12:56:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AstroCat
Supply is horrible like this. I want to know how much supply I'm getting per turn, this game acts that is for some reason a big secret. Reinforcements, who's getting them? When will the unit be ready to fight again? No way, the games not telling! Why? It says how many per turn you are going to get but not who's going get them.

Steve Knowlton's article, which I think is still valid or someone correct me, has an excellent IMO section on supply. Find it here: http://www.wargamer.com/toaw/scenplay/strategy.htm

Reinforcements. There is a reinforcements schedule you can look at to see what you're getting and when and where. Replacements. There's an article on this at http://www.tdg.nu/articles/design%20articles/Replacements%20&%20Reconstitution.htm which explains in some mathematical detail exactly how it works. Not for the faint-hearted but written exactly to get to the heart of the 'secret' and as the result of a disastrous game loss.

A lot of information is deliberately not precise, but that's usually how war works, so I think it's the beauty of the system in simulating it. Do you ever know exactly what you're up against down to the last man? And your first casualty is always going to be your plan. Adapt or die.

Hope this helps.



a white rabbit -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 1:46:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Staff

Off-topic I think there's a point when you realize 'The Force' is with you and you just float away from the Attack Planning Dialogue and can pretty much figure it out by yourself.


As an addendum, I still find the planning screen useful for assigning support, particularly if there's a lot of it split between several attacks. It's also good for seeing every unit you have assigned to an attack all at once.


..mmm, especially the air in complex scens, beats zooming around the map trying to find stuff



Catch21 -> RE: Tutorial (Korea) "Plan an Attack" Questions (7/9/2006 4:03:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
quote:

ORIGINAL: General Staff
Off-topic I think there's a point when you realize 'The Force' is with you and you just float away from the Attack Planning Dialogue and can pretty much figure it out by yourself.

As an addendum, I still find the planning screen useful for assigning support, particularly if there's a lot of it split between several attacks. It's also good for seeing every unit you have assigned to an attack all at once.

Yes, agreed, it does have its uses. Scenario-dependent maybe but I'd take this statement back since I do use it in specific situations and scenarios- some more than others, and can often depend on whether you're offensive or defensive player. And it is helpful in checking who's supposed to be doing what to who and with whose help.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.96875