Combat Modifiers in AWD (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided



Message

Joel Billings -> Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/2/2006 10:50:42 PM)

Here's a part of the manual for AWD that covers combat modifiers. It gives you an idea of some of the new items in AWD. Most of this will make sense to WaW players.


DICE ROLL MODIFIERS TO COMBAT ATTACKS
Several conditions can cause an adjustment to a Firing Unit’s dice roll total as follows (these are cumulative within each shot fired by one Firing Unit against one Target Unit):

Negative Modifiers
-1 Target Unit is a land unit in a Defending Force in a Rough Terrain region.

-1 Firing Unit is an air unit shooting, in air-to-air combat, at a Target Unit that is an air unit defending in a land region friendly to the Target Unit.

-2 Firing ground unit shooting at a Target ground unit that is part of the defending force and the defending force has a working rail unit (no damage or level 1 damage) in the battle region.

-2 Target Unit is Veteran (see section 5.7)

-4 Target Unit is Elite (see section 5.7)

-5 Firing naval unit bombarding a land region that does not contain a friendly ground unit.

-2 per unit Firing Unit is Op-firing at a unit amphibiously invading, a +2 modifier for each phasing player unit already in the region being invaded (see section 8.2.3 for details).

-1, -2, or -3 Dispersed Submarines - Whenever a non-phasing Submarine Fleet is the Target Unit, the number of Submarine Fleets in the region (that is, ONLY Submarine Fleets of the player whose Fleets are being fired on) is counted up before the combat begins. If only one Submarine Fleet is in the region, the unit firing at the sub gets a -3 to it's die roll, if 2 subs are in the region, the sub gets a -2 to it's die roll, if there are 3 subs, it gets a -1 to it's die roll, if four or more there is no modifier. Phasing subs get no bonus (this modifier is intended to cut down the lethality of hunter-killer attacks versus non-concentrated subs).

- Firing Unit Suppression Modifier Suppressed units suffer a die roll modifier when firing in combat. A number between 1 and the number of suppression points of the Firing Unit at the start of the current Combat Phase is randomly subtracted from the die roll.

- IPs The number of Interdiction Points of the Firing Unit (see section 7.1.14 for more details)

- AHL Attack Help Level – Subtract the Attack Help Level of the Target Unit

Positive Modifiers
+ Critical Hit Modifier All shots fired have a 5% chance to score a Critical Hit. If a critical hit is scored, a number equal to the target’s unmodified Evasion rating times its unmodified Durability is added to the attacker’s die roll.

+4 Firing Unit is Elite. (see section 5.7)

+3 Blitzkrieg/Combined Arms - Firing ground units shooting at ground units that are part of the Defending Force, if all of the following conditions are met: 1)at the beginning of the combat the attacker has at least ONE air unit (not including fighter units), ONE armor unit, ONE artillery unit, and ONE infantry unit 2) the defender does not also have ONE unit of each of these four types 3) the Attacking Force has at least as many armor units as the Defending Force.

+2 Firing Unit is Veteran (see section 5.7)

+2 AA Support Bonus– If the Firing Unit is a flak unit firing at an air unit and the number of flak units exceeds the number of enemy air units in the battle (see section 8.7.5 for more details).

+1 Firing Unit achieves Signals Intelligence advantage (see section 9.3).

+Target Unit Suppression Modifier 1/3 (rounded down) of the suppression points of the Target Unit at the start of the current Combat Phase is added to the die roll.

+ IPs The number of Interdiction Points of the Target Unit(see section 7.1.14 for more details).

+ AHL Attack Help Level – Add the Attack Help Level of the Firing Unit




MODIFIERS TO A TARGET UNIT’S EVASION RATING DURING COMBAT
For each shot fired by one Firing Unit against one Target Unit, these modifiers are cumulative and applied to the Target Unit’s Evasion rating.

Negative Modifiers
-1 Unit in Defending Force in a Politically Frozen region that is attacked (surprise rule)

-1 Unit is Amphibiously Invading

-1 Unit is Unsupplied

-1 German unit in a cold weather Soviet Nationality region during the first winter turn following a German declaration of war with the Soviet Union.

-1 Unit is an Air or Naval Unit and has been previously fired upon by a different Firing Unit during this turn*

Positive Modifiers
+1 Unit in Attacking Force in a Politically Frozen region (surprise rule)

+1 Firing Unit is Unsupplied

+1 Firing Unit Damaged during a previous combat round of the current combat (i.e. unit damaged by artillery at range 2 that is now firing at an enemy at range 1)

+2 Firing Unit Destroyed during a previous combat round of the current combat (supersedes +1 for being Damaged)

+1 Unit in Defending Force in a region that is fortified (Gibraltar is an example of this) and the attack is a General Attack

+1 Unit in Defending Force in a cold weather region during a winter turn (unless a German unit in a cold weather Soviet Nationality region during the first winter turn following a German declaration of war with the Soviet Union)

+1 Unit in Defending Force and the Firing Unit is German in a cold weather Soviet Nationality region during the first winter turn following a German declaration of war with the Soviet Union.



MrQuiet -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/3/2006 4:56:58 PM)

Hi Joel thanks for posting some meaty info on the new game. Looking very foward to playing it.
A couple observations.

quote:

If only one Submarine Fleet is in the region, the unit firing at the sub gets a -3 to it's die roll, if 2 subs are in the region, the sub gets a -2 to it's die roll,


I think the part in bold text was meant to say the firing unit gets a -2 to its die roll

quote:

-2 per unit Firing Unit is Op-firing at a unit amphibiously invading, a +2 modifier for each phasing player unit already in the region being invaded (see section 8.2.3 for details


This one is a bit confuseing.
At first translation it looks like it says artillary will get -2 per unit when opfiring on a unit amph invading, but if they have units in your area you will get a +2 for each unit already in the reagion? That does not make sense and probably not the right translation. Might want to rewrite that rule to be more easily understood. I suppose section 8.2.3 probably clears up the confusion.

quote:

+1 Unit in Defending Force in a region that is fortified (Gibraltar is an example of this) and the attack is a General Attack

+1 Unit in Defending Force in a cold weather region during a winter turn (unless a German unit in a cold weather Soviet Nationality region during the first winter turn following a German declaration of war with the Soviet Union)


I never understood why these 2 rules applied to air units. How would a fortified territory or winter cold give an advantage to defending air units?


quote:

-2 Firing ground unit shooting at a Target ground unit that is part of the defending force and the defending force has a working rail unit (no damage or level 1 damage) in the battle region.


This is an excellent strategic addidion to the game.

quote:

+3 Blitzkrieg/Combined Arms - Firing ground units shooting at ground units that are part of the Defending Force, if all of the following conditions are met: 1)at the beginning of the combat the attacker has at least ONE air unit (not including fighter units), ONE armor unit, ONE artillery unit, and ONE infantry unit 2) the defender does not also have ONE unit of each of these four types 3) the Attacking Force has at least as many armor units as the Defending Force.


Great Job this rule is something that the game really needed in my opionion.



Grotius -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/3/2006 5:13:49 PM)

Looks cool. I also had the question about the sub's die roll (and in any case it should says "its", not "it's").

On Blitzkrieg: fighters don't count for the defender, either?



Joel Billings -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/4/2006 3:32:03 AM)

Good posts. You guys should be testers/editors. I started this thread simultaneously with posting the manual for the testers to review (hopefully they would have caught the things you noticed, we'll correct the rules). Keep in mind the statement at the top about die roll modifiers being applied to the Firing Unit's die roll. Here are revised rules:

Dispersed Submarines - Whenever a non-phasing Submarine Fleet is the Target Unit, the number of Submarine Fleets in the region (that is, ONLY Submarine Fleets of the player whose Fleets are being fired on) is counted up before the combat begins. If only one Submarine Fleet is in the region, the unit firing at the sub gets a -3 to its die roll, if 2 subs are in the region, the Firing unit gets a -2 to its die roll, if there are 3 subs, it gets a -1 to its die roll, if four or more there is no modifier. Phasing subs get no bonus (this modifier is intended to cut down the lethality of hunter-killer attacks versus non-concentrated subs).

Firing Unit is Op-firing at a unit amphibiously invading, a -2 modifier for each phasing player unit already in the region being invaded (see section 8.2.3 for details).


8.2.3 says:
8.2.3 OP-FIRE AT UNITS AMPHIBIOUSLY INVADING
Artillery and air units in regions that are amphibiously invaded have a special Op-Fire ability as follows:

- Each Artillery and Air unit gets to Op-Fire at the instant a unit attempts to invade its region. This Op-Fire is at the combat unit that is invading (not at the transport).

- For each enemy ground unit already in the region being invaded at the moment an Artillery or Air unit fires, two is subtracted from the die roll of the firing unit (the modifier is called “Opportunity Fire Enemy units in region”).

For example, two Artillery units in a region defending against an invasion already have one attacking enemy Airborne unit in its region. The attacker moves an Infantry into the region from a Transport Fleet. The first Artillery unit shoots at the Infantry unit. Two is subtracted from the attacking Artillery unit’s die roll due to the enemy Airborne unit in the region. The Artillery unit fires and causes six Suppression Points to the attacking Infantry unit. The second Artillery unit fires also subtracting two and causes an additional five Suppression Points. The attacker then moves another unit into the region from another Transport Fleet. The first Artillery unit fires but has four subtracted from it’s attack die roll (as there are now two enemy units in the region). The second Artillery than fires also subtracting four.

Air units performing this kind of Op-Fire against enemy units landing will also first fire at the Transport Fleets at sea via the other Op-Fire rules (adjacent region to same region Op-Fire).



Yes, fighters do not count for the Combined Arms bonus, you need to have a bomber type or carrier air unit.

Here's another small tidbit (you now select the type of infrastructure you wish to target, factory, rail or resource):

8.7.1 AIR UNIT LAND ATTACK ADJUSTMENTS CAUSED BY TARGET TYPE
The following adjustments are made for air units attacking fixed target types:

- Tactical Bomber and Carrier Air units have their Land Attack ratings reduced by one when attacking rail targets.
- Tactical Bomber, Fighter, and Carrier Air units have their Land Attack ratings reduced by three when attacking Resource Centers or Factories.
- Fighter Air units have their Land Attack ratings increased by one when attacking Airfields.






MrQuiet -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/5/2006 12:30:00 AM)

quote:

Good posts. You guys should be testers/editors.


Sign me UP!

quote:

8.7.1 AIR UNIT LAND ATTACK ADJUSTMENTS CAUSED BY TARGET TYPE
The following adjustments are made for air units attacking fixed target types:

- Tactical Bomber and Carrier Air units have their Land Attack ratings reduced by one when attacking rail targets.
- Tactical Bomber, Fighter, and Carrier Air units have their Land Attack ratings reduced by three when attacking Resource Centers or Factories.
- Fighter Air units have their Land Attack ratings increased by one when attacking Airfields


I like this.
Since Heavy Bomber is not mentioned I am going to assume it is the King of Infrastructure Destruction.

Thanks for info.
All new rules are eagarly pondered.

-MrQuiet



Joel Billings -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/5/2006 1:07:18 AM)

Starting Land Attack Values in 1939:

World Power-----Heavy Bomber-----Tac Bomber----Carrier Air------Fighter
Germany---------------4---------------------5---------------3----------------2
Japan-------------------3---------------------5---------------4----------------2
SU/WA/China----------4---------------------5---------------4----------------2



Grotius -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/5/2006 9:15:38 AM)

Cool. I hope these rules encourage more use of tactical bombers. I tend to neglect them in GGWaW.



Petiloup -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/5/2006 10:12:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Starting Land Attack Values in 1939:

World Power-----Heavy Bomber-----Tac Bomber----Carrier Air------Fighter
Germany---------------4---------------------5---------------3----------------2
Japan-------------------3---------------------5---------------4----------------2
SU/WA/China----------4---------------------5---------------4----------------2



Not sure if I'm the only one, but in 1939 are we supposed to believe the Allies at any Tactical bomber as good as the Stukas assuming the He111, Do17 and other Junkers are part of Heavy Bombers. Even in 1940 there was nothing during the France campaign that did match the efficiency of those Stukas.

For my part GE Hvy Bomber could go to 3 as well but GE Tac Bombers should be the only one at 5 to show the new deadly combination of air support and ground forces that let to the Blitzkrieg.



Heinz Guderian -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/6/2006 10:15:22 AM)

Glad to see rough terrain will confer a bonus to defenders, if anything it sould be a -2 imo, an elite unit attacking in rough will barely notice the -1, Rough terrain presents formidable chanellenges for *any* attacking force, even elite ones. - Operations Polarfuchs and Platinfuchs,provide good examples of how rough terrain can greatly hinder an attacker relying on speed and mobility, and of course favor a defender. One of the things Ive felt WaW lacked was any sort of general terrain modifiers. Was wondering, but was any sort of consideration given to assigning region wide zone bonuses in a more general way throughout the world? Western Germany of course gets a bonus for West wall, other zones could be assigned values more or less on there general geography. Such bonuses would make things a little more complex for attackers who right now in WaW pretty much get a free ride regardless of the terrain there fighting in. For example, Italys mountainous terrain greatly simplified German defences and hindered rapid allied movement. Likewise the Alps are a formidable obstactle in there own right. A small force could hold off a much larger one -again the current map does not really reflect these and other natural features of the terrain all that well. Likewise in the pacific, Jungle figthing is difficult as well, and tends to favor the defender. In the Pacific, the terrain tended to be somewhat of an equalizer for Japan as her forces had fallen behind the times techologically. 

Some examples, Spain, Yugoslavia, Northern Italy, Romania -Mountainous +2 
Western France, Great Britain, Low Countries Southern Italy (Most Western Russian Regions)- Rolling plains -No modifer
Indo-China -Indonesia , Most Pacific Islands- Jungle. +1 to defence?
Pripet Marshes-always kind of felt that area should be considered a 'region' zone myself, given its virtually impassable to major miltary forces.
Built up or "Urban' Regions. -Heavily urbanized regions where it could be said its a predominate feature of the area-Not as good a  fortified region-but sort of a 'Diet Fortified Area'- North Eastern USA , Japan(Japan's regions could actually be considered Mountainous AND Urban for defensive purposes, serve as  possible examples.
Desert zones- maybe a negative for *all* forces -weither attacking or defending, to reflect the difficulties inherant conducting modern warfare in such an enviroment

Just some thoughts I had, Even given Waw Macro-scopic focus, i think theres room to include general terrain modifers, would make things more realistic as they stand now-without adding a large complexity layer





Uncle_Joe -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/6/2006 11:08:26 AM)

quote:

Not sure if I'm the only one, but in 1939 are we supposed to believe the Allies at any Tactical bomber as good as the Stukas assuming the He111, Do17 and other Junkers are part of Heavy Bombers. Even in 1940 there was nothing during the France campaign that did match the efficiency of those Stukas.

For my part GE Hvy Bomber could go to 3 as well but GE Tac Bombers should be the only one at 5 to show the new deadly combination of air support and ground forces that let to the Blitzkrieg.


In the game, TacAir represents more than just Close Air Support. Its a 3 month turn of air ops so I think Allied aircraft could still accompish their missions. Since air attacks vs units are now resolved as 'bombardment attacks', the difference of a die here and there is less meaningful. But those dice are very meaningful when attacking things like rail lines or airfields--missions which Allied and Japanese aircraft could probably still have been just as effective at.

One of the real benefits of having early TacAir is for the new Combined Arms bonus. That allows for the Blitzkreig effects quite well, especially since that +3 is pretty telling on the lower tech early war units. The Allies will not be able to achieve a combined arms bonus until Su40 at the absolute earliest and even that would be difficult to pull off against the Germans at that stage. In my experience, France usually falls in Sp40 so if Germany attacks France 'on schedule', then she will be rewarded with the CA bonus that the Allies cannot match at that time.



Petiloup -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/7/2006 6:46:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

quote:

One of the real benefits of having early TacAir is for the new Combined Arms bonus. That allows for the Blitzkreig effects quite well, especially since that +3 is pretty telling on the lower tech early war units. The Allies will not be able to achieve a combined arms bonus until Su40 at the absolute earliest and even that would be difficult to pull off against the Germans at that stage. In my experience, France usually falls in Sp40 so if Germany attacks France 'on schedule', then she will be rewarded with the CA bonus that the Allies cannot match at that time.


Ok I see your point by saying Land Attack value is not just about bombing troops. Now if we speak about 1940 and look at the battle of France the general perception is that the Lutwaffe was to be seen everywhere while Allied aircrafts barely. Now speaking about bombing targets like infrastructure you can look at the episode of bombings the bridges over the Meuse and see how inefficient the Fairey Battle were (think it was the name of the plane doing those if I'm correct). So still the Allied were lagging behind at least with Tac Bombers on those missions. The British used the Wellington planes quite well but if an He-111 is to be considered heavy bomber then those as well. Which goes back to my point that GE Tac Air by plane quality or training or just by tactics/strategy were a lot more efficient in 1940/1941.

Now I can't see if this should be expressed in the game by a value difference because as you said it's a 3 months turn and a strategic game so sometimes the kind of logic above is not easy to translate and keep a play balance.

Thanks for the reply.



MrQuiet -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/20/2006 9:07:52 PM)

Hi Joel:

I was wondering if in the spirit of this thread you could make another thread and post any new rules related to Navys includeing Subs and Transports?

Thanks:
-MrQuiet



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/20/2006 11:46:07 PM)

The biggest difference regarding Subs is that they get the new -3 to be hit if they are alone during an enemy turn (with a smaller bonus if there are more than one in an area). This means that they can go to sea and potentially survive the turn. In practice, it generally means that you just need to throw more ASW at them, but if you surge a large number of subs in a turn its going to be hard to get them all if they disperse.

Hand in hand with that, Subs now have a harder time engaging surface fleets. If they select a fleet as a target, there is good chance (66% I believe) that they 'fail to engage'. This prevents subs from challenging surface fleet for naval supremacy like modern nuclear attack subs.

As far as Transports, there are more restricting on Amphib ops now. Its much harder to make long-distance invasions. Coupled with the removal of lethal sea and air bombardment, it makes invasions much more difficult (ie, it used to be that you bombed the enemy out of existence and then simply walked into the empty coastline).

Transports are also a little more necessary now for collecting overseas resources since resource can now only trace over rail or transports (not like in WaW where they could trace over any friendly territory). This mostly impacts Africa for the WAllies....in WaW it generally only took one TR to allow most of Africa to get their resource to the WAllies. Now it requires quite a few more.

I dont know if that was what you were looking for or not, but that is some of the highlights of the differences between WaW and AWD for TRs and Subs.



Heinz Guderian -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/21/2006 4:27:37 AM)

Yes one of the 'oddities' that crops up in seaborne invasions in WaW is that you really dont require 'forward stageing areas' for amphib landing attempts. Britain of course is really one big stageing area for D-Day, at least in reailty. Likewise in the east-Okinawa was caputure for that very reason, the Allies *needed* (not wanted) a area large enough and with the infastructure to serve as a foward base for both Air Raids and a possible invasion of Japan itself. *But* the way WaW handles that whole issue, you just run a stack of transports 4 deep back to the US Mainland and or whatever suits current need and thats how 'invasions' work. Nice if you can have airbase in range to help reduce defences (carriers iuf you dont) but if your not faceing a big defence you can bypass all the messy forward stageing area issue. Which in reality was a necessicty, the US for example could have attempted a cross-atlantic assault on WE if they had to, but the odds of success would be very low indeed.

To compare

Amphibious Landing attempts

Forward Bases\Stageing areas

Reality: Requirement, Supplies men, ships and equipment needed to be pre-positioned well in advance. The closer the area and the more advanced the local infastructure-the Better. Naval Superority required.

WaW: Desireable, but not strictly necessary. Supplies Units can be moved along ocean lanes daisy chained much in the manner of a 'ocean going railroad'. In short the invasion 'really' orginates out the Mainland USA itself(or Britain, Japan etc) This tends to make(long range) invasions along sea lines a somewhat trivial undertaking, esp. once naval superiority is established. For example without Britain the US could opt for a landing in Morroco from North America directly. Nothing in reality or WaW should prevent this. However it could be debated even if successful at landing in strength, wheither such a venture could serve as a beachhead for the liberation of a Europe\Britain under axis control. Or to put it another way, as long as you have the transports you can pretty much move or do anything you want, even if it fell well outside the abilites of the power in question(to realistically) do so.

Air Power in support of Sea-borne invasions.
Reality: Requirement
Waw: Not quite as clear cut as above, closer to reality here. Its really situational. The better defended the more you need air support. Lightly defended areas, you dont. Again the need for forward bases is mimimalized. If you dont succeed at 1st, just have 'your sea-railway' back to home country keep attacking till damage or victory gets you your landing. Air makes it little easier and faster-but again depending on the situation you can get away without it


On a issue related to gameplay(and) above, one thing that would also be worth considering is stacking limits of tiny regions. IE islands, gibralter Malta etc. As is currently stands, you can stack just stupid amounts of men and planes onto islands and areas that could never hope to handle them in fact. I think that too would benifit realism. One VS AI game pretty much the entire air forces in britain retreated to the...azores? I let them remain there and build up for a while-they had a huge force there almost rivalling the forces in(formerly Allied Britain)-seemed a tad goofy that....



Petiloup -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/21/2006 6:25:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heinz Guderian

On a issue related to gameplay(and) above, one thing that would also be worth considering is stacking limits of tiny regions. IE islands, gibralter Malta etc. As is currently stands, you can stack just stupid amounts of men and planes onto islands and areas that could never hope to handle them in fact. I think that too would benifit realism. One VS AI game pretty much the entire air forces in britain retreated to the...azores? I let them remain there and build up for a while-they had a huge force there almost rivalling the forces in(formerly Allied Britain)-seemed a tad goofy that....


The problem with different stacking limit per region is that you give an advantage to the attack by limiting the stacking of the defense.

To compensate you should limit the stacking of the attack as how can you justify to invade a place with 6 units if 3 only can stack in defense. Easy for ground troops as they must stay after the invasion but what about air units who rebase back where they come from? If you put a limit of 3 air units in Gibraltar then how can you justify attacking with 10 air units.

Of course one can say the attack is rotating over a 3 months turn but then why the defender can't use those 3 months to bring reinforcements?

All in all we shouldn't look at logic but game mechanics here and limiting stacking would create unbalance in the game I believe because we have 3 months turn without any reaction phase in between.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/21/2006 6:26:13 AM)

Unfortunately, no stacking limits for AWD. I believe the idea was toyed with early on, but not really feasible in the engine.



Heinz Guderian -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/23/2006 10:42:49 PM)

quote:

The problem with different stacking limit per region is that you give an advantage to the attack by limiting the stacking of the defense


Sorry Polo, gonna have to call you on this non-sequitor here too (didnt catch this one till now) sorry[sm=00000030.gif]. Im not sure exactly 'why' this should be a defined as a problem. 'Tiny' regions in WaW do in fact posses un-realistically large offensive and defensive abilities. Girbralter, Malta ,Azores, Wake Island are a few examples. If these regions can only accomodate limited forces, then they will be naturally susecptable to attack from numerically superior forces. Again why this should be a problem from a game-play PoV im not exactly certain, it certainly does not lack from a realism angle. In the case of islands with limited land\logistical abilties, then the focus falls on naval units to buttress local defence, that is also what would happen if the objective were worthwhile enough. If you(the defender) cannot establish local naval superiorty in the defence of a tiny region.....ummm tough...thats why we call it war. As its currently stands there is nothing preventing a 500,000 man garrison in Gibraltor or Multiple thousands of planes based out of the Azores to harrass a german dominated Eruope. Wake Island or any other number of tiny atolls could serve as supply bases\assembly areas for just huge invasions and so on. Additionally im not sure how again that limiting stacking in 'selected' zones would unblance anything, if a region is the size of a postage stamp, giveing it unlimited land and air stacking is if anything else......an ImBalAnCE itself(and argueably a greater one at that imo).

It must be my silly addiction to logic that keeps makeing me saying such silly things [8|] 



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/24/2006 7:48:16 PM)

The good news on Gibraltar is that is no longer an easy way into Spain. You can move directly from Spain to Gib, but not vice versa anymore.



Petiloup -> RE: Combat Modifiers in AWD (9/26/2006 12:25:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heinz Guderian

quote:


It must be my silly addiction to logic that keeps makeing me saying such silly things [8|] 


No you are right in your statements as long as we speak about real world but in a game as WAW we can't think logically anymore or the game doesn't make sense at all.

1/ There are 7 Panzers units in France in 1940 but in reality it was about the same number of Divisions so 1 Panzer units in WAW equals 1 division but then it's not true for infantries anymore. What's the ratio? ... any logical explanation?

2/ In WAW you can attack with AA only just to kill air units because they fire first... any logical explanation? (AWD seems to attend this issue).

3/ You can invade a region without anyone doing anything about it, no planes attacking the landing troops, no fleet rushing to meet the attacking fleet, no reserves moving by rail to contain the invaders... any logical explanation?.

4/ You need to link transports to a fleet to move it and after using the transport for this purpose they are sitting ducks. Germany used raiders a lot and they were able to supply them without needing a convoy to the middle of the Atlantic... any logical explanation?

5/ There is the FOW but I can count the number of torpedoes in each of my ennemy subs... any logical explanation?

6/ Germany had 1 unit of Para in 1940 which in reality was not a lot of troops but enough to take bridges and forts but in WAW you can take a whole region of Russia with it and control it... any logical explanation?

7/ You can control Yugoslavia with 3 militias but in reality the Axis couldn't get rid of Tito even sending SS units to fight his partisans army... any logical explanation?

and we can continue on and on and on, this is a strategic game and at this level there are results that are illogical, we just have to live with those.

So what about stacking? do we need to find a system calculating stacking depending on the surface in square meter that is usable taking into account mountains, desert, swamps, icecap and then define a number of troops that can be inside at one time.

Because we speak about Gibraltar but that in Greenland we can keep any large army is also something to be seen. Or look at the Caucasus and you'll understand there are not many way to attack this region and those ways are easy to defend but in WAW it's all the same.

As I say it's not logical and you are right about it but this is the price to pay for a strategic playable game and if we don't like it then we should look at a different kind of game.

At last it seems the wish of the designers to create a fun game to play, not too complex and that is play balanced and taking into account the importance of Gibraltar not limiting the stacking is doing exactly that, giving some play balance.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875