Force "loss" orders

Force "loss" orders (Full Version)

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

Message

B/snafu -> Force "loss" orders (7/22/2007 8:49:58 PM)
Maybe this has been asked before. Is it possible (or even worth the developers time) to included a right menu click or hotkey that could give a player an option to set all of his units in a scenario to "ignore,limit, or minimal losses" at the begining of a turn with one click in an upcoming patch or next installment?? I usually place all my land units on "ignore losses" at the beginning of a scenario (i think one of the tutorial recommends it) then I chose the loss level I want for individual units during the turn that I attck with or so on. It would reduce a lot of clicks and time at the beginning (especially in the larger unit counter density scens) of a game while setting up your first turn. I know it's pretty inconsequential--just was curious.

Karri -> RE: Force "loss" orders (7/22/2007 9:24:42 PM)
True dat, right now there's no point having units on defence on anything else than ignore losses, so especially for larger scenarios this would be nice.

golden delicious -> RE: Force "loss" orders (7/23/2007 11:42:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Karri True dat, right now there's no point having units on defence on anything else than ignore losses, Well, if you can afford to retreat and the enemy is going to be delivering a lot of firepower to your front line then you might not want your units to all be annihilated in place.

FaneFlugt -> RE: Force "loss" orders (7/23/2007 12:30:51 PM)
Wont Putting Troops on ignore loss, result in it becoming more likely that they will rout or go into reorganisation? Thereby handicapping you in the subsequent turn?

BillLottJr -> RE: Force "loss" orders (7/23/2007 6:02:12 PM)
Speaking of loss settings, I think it should be at least an optional rule the a player shouldn't be able to change the loss settings on routed units. A routed unit should be at minimize loss. Does that seem reasonable to you guys?

JAMiAM -> RE: Force "loss" orders (7/23/2007 6:48:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill II Speaking of loss settings, I think it should be at least an optional rule the a player shouldn't be able to change the loss settings on routed units. A routed unit should be at minimize loss. Does that seem reasonable to you guys? Routed units are unusable in the current player turn, so changing loss settings on them is really not going to take any effect until the next opposing player turn. Also, due to the currently existing player asymmetries, unless you're playing solo with variable initiative, the second player is the only one that would be negatively affected by your proposed change, and he has enough deficits against him already.

Karri -> RE: Force "loss" orders (7/23/2007 6:53:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Well, if you can afford to retreat and the enemy is going to be delivering a lot of firepower to your front line then you might not want your units to all be annihilated in place. It's unlikely they will be annihilated, rather forced to retreat and or routed. Whetever your unit is destroyed or forced back the end result is same; your line is broken. And in TOAW that is all that matters. If you place the defending unit on minimize or limit losses it is more likely to retreat. Granted it is in better shape probaply, but the problem is that it is no longer dug in. And when it is not dug in, it makes no difference if the unit has 50 ot 100 rifle squads, it will be overwhelmed anyways. Through my experience there's no point placing units on defence to anything else than ignore losses. I mean in theory you would for example want fight a delaying battle. You'd place your units on minimize losses and pull back after giving and taking some casualties. But this doesn't work. When you pull back that one hex, it creates a whole in your line. The enemy will pour through it...so instead if your unit is on ignore losses that hole might never come, and even if it does chances are that it will take most of the turn for your enemy to make it, thus using all breakthrough possibilities...and you can reinforce next turn. quote: ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt.DK Wont Putting Troops on ignore loss, result in it becoming more likely that they will rout or go into reorganisation? Thereby handicapping you in the subsequent turn? Yes, but what is the alternative? When you place the unit on ignore losses you make sure it fights until it cannot fight no more. And notice, it does so in dig-in/entreched/fortified positions. Place them on minimise/limit losses and they will pull out...essentially trading a good defensive position for what? Possibility of moving next turn? As I see it, the unit either fights and dies where it stands, or fights and dies in a worse position(since it is in mobile status after retreating, thus having no defence bonuses), in the end making the situation worse for you.

golden delicious -> RE: Force "loss" orders (7/24/2007 1:21:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Karri It's unlikely they will be annihilated, rather forced to retreat and or routed. Whetever your unit is destroyed or forced back the end result is same; your line is broken. This is a bit of a one-dimensional view. Suppose your line is two hexes deep? Perhaps it's a scenario where the other player is unlikely to get another round? Suppose it's an early period scenario and exploitation is difficult? Suppose troop density is too low for true "lines" to appear at all? Moreover, the unit retreating may not break your line at all, especially if it's on the corner. If it's still in good condition (which it will be if it retreated on minimise losses rather than taking another round of artillery bashing before being broken), it will still force the attacker to fight again. I'd say it's a question of your opponents capabilities; if his force is very mobile, you want ignore losses; if it has a lot of firepower, you want limit or minimise losses. quote: If you place the defending unit on minimize or limit losses it is more likely to retreat. Granted it is in better shape probaply, but the problem is that it is no longer dug in. And when it is not dug in, it makes no difference if the unit has 50 ot 100 rifle squads, it will be overwhelmed anyways. Defending status doesn't make a huge difference- not like entrenched or fortified. If the terrain is rough then the difference is smaller still.

Karri -> RE: Force "loss" orders (7/24/2007 4:56:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious This is a bit of a one-dimensional view. Suppose your line is two hexes deep? Then you'd want to make sure the enemy exhausts his forces as much as possible in the first line. Remember that whetever there's 1 or 9 untis in a hex when they get attacked all participate in the combat and thus are subject to readiness and supply losses. Whileas if they are in 9 separate hexes they will all fight their own battles. quote: Perhaps it's a scenario where the other player is unlikely to get another round? Then you'd want to make sure you keep that hex by setting the unit on ignore losses. quote: Suppose it's an early period scenario and exploitation is difficult? The exploitation is difficult as long as you have a solid line. Although I must admit that I have not played the 'late period' scenarios so that is something I don't know about. quote: Suppose troop density is too low for true "lines" to appear at all? WHat would then be the benefit of minimize or limit losses? quote: Moreover, the unit retreating may not break your line at all, especially if it's on the corner. If it's still in good condition (which it will be if it retreated on minimise losses rather than taking another round of artillery bashing before being broken), it will still force the attacker to fight again. However it has lost it's D/E/F status. Remember that for example infantry gain 8x defensive strenght in fortified status. Even if the unit loses half of it's equipment it's still better off than withdrawing after a quarter of losses. Granted, in a few instances for example positions you can afford/want to lose you can use minimise or limit losses. But those positions are a rare exception. quote: I'd say it's a question of your opponents capabilities; if his force is very mobile, you want ignore losses; if it has a lot of firepower, you want limit or minimise losses. I don't see how limit/minimise will work in case of massive firepower. He will just move his arty units one step forwards and you've just lost the D/E/F status. quote: Defending status doesn't make a huge difference- not like entrenched or fortified. If the terrain is rough then the difference is smaller still. Can't recall exact numbers but the difference is still in most cases values*2.

ralphtricky -> RE: Force "loss" orders (7/24/2007 5:33:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Karri quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Defending status doesn't make a huge difference- not like entrenched or fortified. If the terrain is rough then the difference is smaller still. Can't recall exact numbers but the difference is still in most cases values*2. The effectes are on page 38 of the manual. They AREN"T CUMULATIVE. If you're in almost anything but clear terrain, then defending probably won't do anything to help. Entrenching may and may not, and fortification, especially for infantry, helps a lot. Ralph

golden delicious -> RE: Force "loss" orders (7/24/2007 6:36:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Karri Then you'd want to make sure the enemy exhausts his forces as much as possible in the first line. He won't. He'll attack with light forces and loads of artillery, obliterating the unit if it's careless enough to stay in place. Once it gets to your second line, his artillery is out of range. Then it's time for ignore losses. quote: Then you'd want to make sure you keep that hex by setting the unit on ignore losses. Why? Most hexes are inherently worthless, whereas most units are very valuable- especially if they're capable of holding a hex. quote: The exploitation is difficult as long as you have a solid line. And otherwise, too. Without high recon motorised forces, you can't push through a one hex gap in one turn in any strength. quote: WHat would then be the benefit of minimize or limit losses? Same as always. Force preservation. quote: However it has lost it's D/E/F status. Remember that for example infantry gain 8x defensive strenght in fortified status. Yeah- ignore losses is more valuable on fortified status. quote: I don't see how limit/minimise will work in case of massive firepower. He will just move his arty units one step forwards and you've just lost the D/E/F status. However, moving the artillery forward may bring them adjacent to front line hexes which haven't been attacked. It will also consume move (and since artillery units are often slow and usually on 1% supply, and will be moving through crowded and often difficult terrain near the front line, this will be significant), meaning the guns can't fire directly for another segment of the turn. quote: Can't recall exact numbers but the difference is still in most cases values*2. Yes- but as I recall most of the bonuses you get from defended status can be duplicated by terrain, and are not cumulative. See Ralph's remarks.

Karri -> RE: Force "loss" orders (7/24/2007 7:10:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious He won't. He'll attack with light forces and loads of artillery, obliterating the unit if it's careless enough to stay in place. Once it gets to your second line, his artillery is out of range. Then it's time for ignore losses. Getting in range is a simple task of moving the artillery one hex forwards, depending on scenario scale even that might not be necessary. Most importantly both his recon and artillery units are tired whereas your 'main force' should still be rested, fortified and ready to counter-attack. quote: Why? Most hexes are inherently worthless, whereas most units are very valuable- especially if they're capable of holding a hex. ...Because if the other player get's the hex you will eventually need to get it back. quote: And otherwise, too. Without high recon motorised forces, you can't push through a one hex gap in one turn in any strength. I would say it's impossible even WITH high recon mot forces. Basicly what you need is a 3 unit gap, then you can move freely through. If the enemy has 3 units on ignore losses as opposed to minimise/limit losses then it will be harder to create that gap. quote: Same as always. Force preservation. But I would suppose holding a fortified position would then give the best of results... quote: However, moving the artillery forward may bring them adjacent to front line hexes which haven't been attacked. It will also consume move (and since artillery units are often slow and usually on 1% supply, and will be moving through crowded and often difficult terrain near the front line, this will be significant), meaning the guns can't fire directly for another segment of the turn. Well that only supports the notion of ignore losses you want to make sure the enemy can only at best force back a few units from the line, thus reducing his movement. quote: Yes- but as I recall most of the bonuses you get from defended status can be duplicated by terrain, and are not cumulative. See Ralph's remarks. Okay, I am not all that familiar with these bonuses. I just know diggin in and ignore losses are they key to keep the line solid :)

golden delicious -> RE: Force "loss" orders (7/25/2007 4:04:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Karri Getting in range is a simple task of moving the artillery one hex forwards, depending on scenario scale even that might not be necessary. Most importantly both his recon and artillery units are tired whereas your 'main force' should still be rested, fortified and ready to counter-attack. If you're counterattacking with fortified units, you lose that status. Anyway, it's fairly standard for the defender to be the one who has his first line exhausted by combat, whilst the attacker keeps his troops fresh for the breakout, since the attacker gets to choose which units fight. quote: ...Because if the other player get's the hex you will eventually need to get it back. In most situations, you won't. In the rest, getting it back will come naturally after your force has either destroyed or negated the opposing force. quote: I would say it's impossible even WITH high recon mot forces. Basicly what you need is a 3 unit gap, then you can move freely through. If the enemy has 3 units on ignore losses as opposed to minimise/limit losses then it will be harder to create that gap. If your opponent is able to annihilate the contents of those three hexes because they were on ignore losses, then matters will be straightforward from there. It is much easier to fix a hole if the retreated units are still capable of putting up a fight. Conversely, shattered units may be prone to RBC, which make exploitation much easier. quote: Well that only supports the notion of ignore losses you want to make sure the enemy can only at best force back a few units from the line, thus reducing his movement. Well, no. If your whole line is on ignore losses than a firepower-intensive opposing force will just annihilate a whole section in place. quote: Okay, I am not all that familiar with these bonuses. I just know diggin in and ignore losses are they key to keep the line solid :) I just naturally reject a formulaic approach to any element of operations. Something that works in one situation will fail in another.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Force "loss" orders (7/25/2007 7:44:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious I just naturally reject a formulaic approach to any element of operations. Something that works in one situation will fail in another. This is a great statement, something to always keep in mind. [&o]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.34375