Combined Arms

Combined Arms (Full Version)

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

Message

LewFisher -> Combined Arms (8/10/2006 7:16:11 PM)
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. [&:]

Chuck2 -> RE: Combined Arms (8/10/2006 7:19:25 PM)
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.

LewFisher -> RE: Combined Arms (8/10/2006 7:26:38 PM)
Oh, sure, I understand that, but there is no specific combined arms rule?

JAMiAM -> RE: Combined Arms (8/10/2006 8:36:14 PM)
No, as there is no "magic formula" in real life, either.

Sonny -> RE: Combined Arms (8/10/2006 8:51:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM No, as there is no "magic formula" in real life, either. Dang, there goes my magic formula project.[:(]

LewFisher -> RE: Combined Arms (8/10/2006 8:52:46 PM)
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?[X(]

larryfulkerson -> Combined Arms (8/10/2006 8:57:51 PM)
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: [img]http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/1016/ac130h6568105blastna6.jpg[/img]

larryfulkerson -> Combined Arms (8/10/2006 9:00:50 PM)
Imagine how much different WWII would have been if B-17 gunners had had miniguns: [img]http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/200/viet66ss1.jpg[/img]

Industrial -> RE: Combined Arms (8/10/2006 10:13:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson Imagine how much different WWII would have been if B-17 gunners had had miniguns: [img]http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/200/viet66ss1.jpg[/img] 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 [:D]

siRkid -> RE: Combined Arms (8/11/2006 4:53:42 PM)
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?[X(] I thought it was a very valid question.

Chuck2 -> RE: Combined Arms (8/11/2006 5:08:11 PM)
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?[X(] 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.

hank -> RE: Combined Arms (8/11/2006 6:17:16 PM)
... 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

TOCarroll -> RE: Combined Arms (8/11/2006 6:29:09 PM)
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.

JAMiAM -> RE: Combined Arms (8/11/2006 6:36:24 PM)
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".

rhinobones -> RE: Combined Arms (8/11/2006 11:19:08 PM)
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

JoeRockhead -> RE: Combined Arms (8/11/2006 11:59:23 PM)
There goes that darn "non-emotional" internet communication style again. Always gets people in trouble. [;)]

TOCarroll -> RE: Combined Arms (8/12/2006 12:00:17 AM)
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.

JAMiAM -> RE: Combined Arms (8/12/2006 12:13:59 AM)
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...[;)]

rhinobones -> RE: Combined Arms (8/12/2006 12:24:01 AM)
Oh no! Keep the paprika . . . can't make a proper dish of goulash without good Hungarian paprika. Regards, RhinoBones

MikeC_81 -> RE: Combined Arms (8/12/2006 6:37:13 AM)
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.

I�aki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Combined Arms (8/12/2006 1:52:56 PM)
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.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Combined Arms (8/12/2006 7:02:11 PM)
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.

murx -> RE: Combined Arms (8/13/2006 2:06:36 AM)
[deleted by author]

golden delicious -> RE: Combined Arms (8/14/2006 6:29:53 PM)
[Deleting messages is really catching on]

Chuck2 -> RE: Combined Arms (8/14/2006 7:21:59 PM)
[deleted again]

JAMiAM -> RE: Combined Arms (8/14/2006 7:42:14 PM)
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...[:D]

golden delicious -> RE: Combined Arms (8/14/2006 8:35:39 PM)
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...[:D] 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.

a white rabbit -> RE: Combined Arms (8/14/2006 8:36:54 PM)
..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..

Catch21 -> RE: Combined Arms (8/14/2006 8:57:43 PM)
(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.

JAMiAM -> RE: Combined Arms (8/14/2006 9:38:01 PM)
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...[:D] 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...

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6875