Two Questions (Full Version)

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



Message

Jonny -> Two Questions (10/16/2007 9:47:18 PM)

1. Units with higher prof. are more likely to continue to attack which burns turns, so is it wiser to attack with less prof unless it's imperative to win a certain hex and put into defensive positions higher prof. units?
2. When is breaking a unit down the right move? Can anyone just give me a brief or extended answer to this? Especially in regards to FiTE.
Thanks
Jon



el cid -> RE: Two Questions (10/16/2007 11:31:04 PM)

1.Higher proficiency units are stronger, than low proficiency units. An attack will end when, either your forces have taken sufficient losses, or the enemy has taken sufficient losses. Just make sure your enemy will take suficient losses fast. That is, attack with overwhelming strenght, and make sure that what you attack with is going to kill the enemy. Attacking with rifle squads a group of tanks will probably not create losses to the enemy. Make sure if you attack tanks you have the right equipment to do so, and when you attack infantry you have the right equipment to do so.

2. I never like to leave open spaces in my front line, the enemy will get behind you and that will be a killer. I always divide units to cover the entire length of my defense line. Also, if you have few tanks, it could be better to divide those armored units to support you infantry.

my two cents



ColinWright -> RE: Two Questions (10/17/2007 12:14:23 AM)

Very high proficiency units won't quit -- so you can get turn burn. I try to avoid any unit proficiency over about 80% in design, and if you have such units in a scenario, be cautious as to how you use them. They should only be used if either (a) you're confident of quick success, or (b) you can tolerate turn burn.

At least, that's how it used to work. 90-100% proficiency units were of extremely limited utility, offensively. 'Sorry sir -- we can't attack. The only formation available is SS Leibstandarte -- and it's in perfect condition. The results would be disaster.'

The converse also applies, by the way. If you have extremely low proficiency units, you'll pretty much need to set them to 'ignore losses' to get any effort out of them. In the old disc Phillipines '42 scenario, I took the Phil-Americans, and did okay -- in spite of the 33% Filipino proficiency. However, 'ignore losses' was pretty much the default setting I used. Picture ruthless American blocking detachments and hordes of terrified Filipino peasants stumbling forward into Japanese machine-gun fire. 'Death to traitors...no retreat!'



golden delicious -> RE: Two Questions (10/17/2007 12:14:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonny

2. When is breaking a unit down the right move? Can anyone just give me a brief or extended answer to this? Especially in regards to FiTE.


In my DNO game, I used divided units to great effect to cover the pockets made by my main force. This allows you to encircle a one-hex pocket with two regiments instead of two divisions, which is much more reasonable as that pocket will usually contain only a few thousand men.

Anyway, don't feel you have to cover every inch of the front in a scenario like this. But use at least a couple of battalions to pin down every Soviet unit you see, and then have the remainder of your force just push on past into the rear. Works wonders.



Monkeys Brain -> RE: Two Questions (10/17/2007 12:47:12 PM)

2. When is breaking a unit down the right move? Can anyone just give me a brief or extended answer to this? Especially in regards to FiTE.
Thanks
Jon

[/quote]

Johny,

FiTE - I break security regiment in 2 when I encircle partisans, so that is saving units. In the arctic you can break up units sometimes in defense for example as bonus in defense there is big due to terrain. Other break ups are due to tactical situations at hand, encirclements or defense of part of the front etc...
Sometimes in initial stages you could break up your recce unit to convert hexes faster that is possible sometimes in Ukraine when you see that enemy is in ful retreat.

Mario, FiTE Doctor soon on Oprah Show [:D]



desert -> RE: Two Questions (10/18/2007 3:38:31 AM)

In some scenarios, especially Boonierat's Vietnam Chronicles, attacking with divided or even weakened units can lead to massive losses and the defender disintegrating your weakest unit and moving into that hex.

I don't usually divide units for defense, since they are usually worse in the defense than whole units. In scenarios that have larger units, eg. battalion, regiment, this usually wont happen, so I divide in them - but only to attack. If Soviets divide units in the beginning of FiTE, then the Germans will have no trouble using shock bonuses to RBC their butts to hell.





Monkeys Brain -> RE: Two Questions (10/18/2007 7:21:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: desert

In some scenarios, especially Boonierat's Vietnam Chronicles, attacking with divided or even weakened units can lead to massive losses and the defender disintegrating your weakest unit and moving into that hex.

I don't usually divide units for defense, since they are usually worse in the defense than whole units. In scenarios that have larger units, eg. battalion, regiment, this usually wont happen, so I divide in them - but only to attack. If Soviets divide units in the beginning of FiTE, then the Germans will have no trouble using shock bonuses to RBC their butts to hell.





soviets cannot divide in fite



a white rabbit -> RE: Two Questions (10/18/2007 5:26:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

.'

-- in spite of the 33% Filipino proficiency. However, 'ignore losses' was pretty much the default setting I used. Picture ruthless American blocking detachments and hordes of terrified Filipino peasants stumbling forward into Japanese machine-gun fire. 'Death to traitors...no retreat!'


..yahh right...funny, i don't recall mention of US blocking detachments when a Moro battalion attacked the Japanese with bolos outside Digos over 2 days..they got slaughtered to cover the withdrawal of a US artillery btn..

..but then you probably have a better understanding of the US's attitudes and methods in it's Empire than i do...[:-]



a white rabbit -> RE: Two Questions (10/18/2007 5:31:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonny

?
2. When is breaking a unit down the right move? Can anyone just give me a brief or extended answer to this? Especially in regards to FiTE.
Thanks
Jon



..if you suspect the unit you're attacking is low prof/readiness and your unit is seriously fit, then divide, and try with only part to avoid "retreat before combat" syndrome..



golden delicious -> RE: Two Questions (10/18/2007 6:00:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..yahh right...funny, i don't recall mention of US blocking detachments when a Moro battalion attacked the Japanese with bolos outside Digos over 2 days..they got slaughtered to cover the withdrawal of a US artillery btn..

..but then you probably have a better understanding of the US's attitudes and methods in it's Empire than i do...[:-]


Get over it.



a white rabbit -> RE: Two Questions (10/18/2007 6:18:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..yahh right...funny, i don't recall mention of US blocking detachments when a Moro battalion attacked the Japanese with bolos outside Digos over 2 days..they got slaughtered to cover the withdrawal of a US artillery btn..

..but then you probably have a better understanding of the US's attitudes and methods in it's Empire than i do...[:-]


Get over it.


..mm, i hope he will...



desert -> RE: Two Questions (10/18/2007 11:45:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL:Monkeys Brain

soviets cannot divide in fite


Ahh, sorry, didn't know that. I never played as the Soviets in FiTE. [sm=sad-1361.gif]



ColinWright -> RE: Two Questions (10/19/2007 3:32:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

.'

-- in spite of the 33% Filipino proficiency. However, 'ignore losses' was pretty much the default setting I used. Picture ruthless American blocking detachments and hordes of terrified Filipino peasants stumbling forward into Japanese machine-gun fire. 'Death to traitors...no retreat!'


..yahh right...funny, i don't recall mention of US blocking detachments when a Moro battalion attacked the Japanese with bolos outside Digos over 2 days..they got slaughtered to cover the withdrawal of a US artillery btn..

..but then you probably have a better understanding of the US's attitudes and methods in it's Empire than i do...[:-]



One of the final symptoms of terminal political correctness is the inability to take a joke.



ColinWright -> RE: Two Questions (10/19/2007 3:34:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..yahh right...funny, i don't recall mention of US blocking detachments when a Moro battalion attacked the Japanese with bolos outside Digos over 2 days..they got slaughtered to cover the withdrawal of a US artillery btn..

..but then you probably have a better understanding of the US's attitudes and methods in it's Empire than i do...[:-]


Get over it.


..mm, i hope he will...



Don't hold your breath. I'm quite happy with my sense of humor. I'm also indifferent as to what you choose to make of it.



Jonny -> RE: Two Questions (10/23/2007 12:52:06 AM)

"Picture ruthless American blocking detachments and hordes of terrified Filipino peasants stumbling forward into Japanese machine-gun fire. 'Death to traitors...no retreat!"

That made me laugh.

Thanks!
Jon 



Jonny -> RE: Two Questions (10/23/2007 12:53:44 AM)

"At least, that's how it used to work. 90-100% proficiency units were of extremely limited utility, offensively. 'Sorry sir -- we can't attack. The only formation available is SS Leibstandarte -- and it's in perfect condition. The results would be disaster.' "

Sorry, but what are you saying here?  I want to make sure I am understanding it.



ColinWright -> RE: Two Questions (10/23/2007 1:44:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonny

"At least, that's how it used to work. 90-100% proficiency units were of extremely limited utility, offensively. 'Sorry sir -- we can't attack. The only formation available is SS Leibstandarte -- and it's in perfect condition. The results would be disaster.' "

Sorry, but what are you saying here? I want to make sure I am understanding it.


A unit with too high proficiency will not break off its attack. At any rate, it will prove reluctant to. Unless the number of rounds an attack can use is severely limited in the editor when the scenario is written, using such a unit can end your turn right away.

The problem starts to show up around 85% proficiency. It gets more acute as you near 100%. I remember a scenario with some 100% proficiency units. One effectively couldn't use those units to attack unless either (a) one was sure their attack would succeed quickly, or (b) one was prepared to risk having the turn end.

Of course, these days, the scenario may have the maximum number of rounds an attack can use capped in the editor. If it is, the above wouldn't happen.



rhinobones -> RE: Two Questions (10/23/2007 8:11:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
A unit with too high proficiency will not break off its attack. At any rate, it will prove reluctant to. Unless the number of rounds an attack can use is severely limited in the editor when the scenario is written, using such a unit can end your turn right away.

The problem starts to show up around 85% proficiency. . . .


I have heard about this effect, but this is the first quantitative description I have read about the impact induced.

So, if I make a TOAW attack composed of 20 units with 50% proficiency and one unit of 90% proficiency . . . there is a good probability that there will be undesirable “turn burn” due to the high proficiency of the one highly rated unit. Also, as a result, there is a good chance that there will be an early ending turn.

Hmmmm, if so, would it be better that I make all units equally proficient and set the RPC to (rounds per combat, or whatever it is called) 3 or 5?.

Regards, RhinoBones



vahauser -> RE: Two Questions (10/23/2007 9:08:20 AM)

rhinobones,

But that might not be historical.  Historically, there might be one veteran unit among a group of inexperienced units.  So, while it might be preferable from a player point of view, it might not be historical.  For instance, late in the war most Luftwaffe fighter squadrons were composed mainly of new pilots with limited proficiency.  But a few squadrons were composed of veteran aces who had extremely high proficiency.

I do agree with you that for scenarios like the hypothetical "Blitzkrieg" scenario, then the designer can make it easier on his players by making all the unit proficiencies roughly equal.



Karri -> RE: Two Questions (10/23/2007 4:40:25 PM)

I usually divide only to encircle, or to cover a retreat...and even so only if very desperate, since usually at that point all units count, and you're basicly sacrificing 1 unit to save 3.

Anyways, when it comes to attacking, you should go in with lot's of artillery and smaller units(still, attacking a division with a company is too gamey for me at least) in order to 'undig' the defender and eat his supply/readiness/strenght away. Once the defender has been caused enough casualties attack him with your more powerful units to break his line.
For example in FitE as Axis I usually use my infantry to dig in and secure the hex. They are not of much use in attack and can quickly take massive casualties. I first attack with the recon battalions(kradscehtuswhatever), then continue with tank and panzergrenadier regiments. Even this way your units burn up their strenght pretty quickly(or more importantly their supply) so eventually you have to start attacking with infantry...just make sure the enemy doesn't have fresh units in fortified status at that point. I haven't really had any problems when attacking with high profiency units set on minimize losses. The trick is to know when you can defeat the defending units.



ColinWright -> RE: Two Questions (10/23/2007 8:22:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
A unit with too high proficiency will not break off its attack. At any rate, it will prove reluctant to. Unless the number of rounds an attack can use is severely limited in the editor when the scenario is written, using such a unit can end your turn right away.

The problem starts to show up around 85% proficiency. . . .


I have heard about this effect, but this is the first quantitative description I have read about the impact induced.

So, if I make a TOAW attack composed of 20 units with 50% proficiency and one unit of 90% proficiency . . . there is a good probability that there will be undesirable “turn burn” due to the high proficiency of the one highly rated unit. Also, as a result, there is a good chance that there will be an early ending turn.

Hmmmm, if so, would it be better that I make all units equally proficient and set the RPC to (rounds per combat, or whatever it is called) 3 or 5?.

Regards, RhinoBones



I don't see it as a matter of needing to make all proficiencies the same. It's more just a matter of taking about 80% proficiency as a cap -- and while we're on the subject, make any such units 'veteran,' as inexperienced units are likely to take a big jump in proficiency with thier first combat.

In this connection, it's not really SS Leibstandarte that's the killer. You know that's likely to be too high, and will check it. It's that anonymous infantry division that started the game as 75% proficiency/inexperienced and became a 92% tiger its first time out.

This happened to me in Jeremy's Fall Grau. I'm the Germans, and all of a sudden, I start getting these one-round turns. What the fu____? I look through my stacks, and sure enough -- there was this 92% tiger. It's off to defensive duty with you, my laddie...problem solved.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.59375