Digging In (Full Version)

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



Message


brucekg -> Digging In (1/22/2008 7:50:23 AM)

Does digging in cost supplies? If a unit does not expend MP digging in will it benefit from resting?

Thank you.




JAMiAM -> RE: Digging In (1/22/2008 7:58:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg
Does digging in cost supplies?

No.


quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg
If a unit does not expend MP digging in will it benefit from resting?

Digging in always expends the remaining MP's of the unit. However, what I think you mean to ask, is "If a unit digs in, without moving from the hex that it began the turn in, does it gain the resupply bonus, during the next automatic bookkeeping phase?" In this case, the answer is yes.





Heldenkaiser -> RE: Digging In (1/22/2008 2:23:12 PM)

While we're at it, I have always been wondering why a unit can dig further and increase the entrenchment level in a hex if it's "D" even without going to "E", and if it's "E" even without going to "F", but can't increase it further once it's at "F", even though the level is far from being 100%? I don't seem to be able to find the answer in the manual ...

Thanks! [:)]




brucekg -> RE: Digging In (1/22/2008 5:37:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg
If a unit does not expend MP digging in will it benefit from resting?

Digging in always expends the remaining MP's of the unit. However, what I think you mean to ask, is "If a unit digs in, without moving from the hex that it began the turn in, does it gain the resupply bonus, during the next automatic bookkeeping phase?" In this case, the answer is yes.




I guess a more concise question would be,

if unit A moves then digs in and unit B moves the same and does not dig in, is unit A worse off in any of its three ratings, readiness, supply, or whatever the last one is?

Thank you.




Heldenkaiser -> RE: Digging In (1/24/2008 10:59:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

While we're at it, I have always been wondering why a unit can dig further and increase the entrenchment level in a hex if it's "D" even without going to "E", and if it's "E" even without going to "F", but can't increase it further once it's at "F", even though the level is far from being 100%? I don't seem to be able to find the answer in the manual ...

Thanks! [:)]


Can I ask this again? Anybody? Thanks! [:)]




ColinWright -> RE: Digging In (1/24/2008 11:06:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

While we're at it, I have always been wondering why a unit can dig further and increase the entrenchment level in a hex if it's "D" even without going to "E", and if it's "E" even without going to "F", but can't increase it further once it's at "F", even though the level is far from being 100%? I don't seem to be able to find the answer in the manual ...

Thanks! [:)]




Can I ask this again? Anybody? Thanks! [:)]


I think that the 'd'-'e'-'f' status refers to the defensive bonus the unit will receive, while the entrenchment level decides how quickly future occupants of the hex will be able to dig in.




Heldenkaiser -> RE: Digging In (1/24/2008 1:24:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I think that the 'd'-'e'-'f' status refers to the defensive bonus the unit will receive, while the entrenchment level decides how quickly future occupants of the hex will be able to dig in.


Makes sense ... so, increasing the entrenchment level without going either "D" -> "E" or "E" -> "F" makes no difference to the unit itself? Is that correct? Thanks. [:)]




el cid -> RE: Digging In (1/24/2008 6:50:41 PM)

Heldenkaiser, yes you are correct, increasing entrenchment level does not give you a defensive bonus, but as Colin stated it will help units to dig in faster (going from "d" to "e" to "f").

Bruce, units that move get 33% less supply, no matter if they expent 10% of their movement or 100% of their movement. So both unit A and unit B will receive the same amount of supply next turn. Now does the unit that digs in uses up more supply, what i´ve been told is that no it does not.




brucekg -> RE: Digging In (1/24/2008 7:37:26 PM)

But what of "Readiness". in the unit A v B case does it come out different. I myself have been unable to determine this for certain.

It would be my expectation that having a unit rest v dig-in should yield a more ready/rested unit v a dug-in/tired unit.

Thank you.




JAMiAM -> RE: Digging In (1/24/2008 8:33:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg

But what of "Readiness". in the unit A v B case does it come out different. I myself have been unable to determine this for certain.

It would be my expectation that having a unit rest v dig-in should yield a more ready/rested unit v a dug-in/tired unit.

Thank you.


Digging in does not affect readiness, if that is what you're asking.




JAMiAM -> RE: Digging In (1/24/2008 8:35:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

While we're at it, I have always been wondering why a unit can dig further and increase the entrenchment level in a hex if it's "D" even without going to "E", and if it's "E" even without going to "F", but can't increase it further once it's at "F", even though the level is far from being 100%? I don't seem to be able to find the answer in the manual ...

Thanks! [:)]


Can I ask this again? Anybody? Thanks! [:)]

Once it is at F, the unit is no longer actively entrenching the hex. If, for whatever reason, you wish to further increase the entrenchment level of the hex, using only the unit that occupies it, you will need to manually set the unit to a non-fortified deployment and then start the digging in process all over again.




brucekg -> RE: Digging In (1/24/2008 9:34:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg

But what of "Readiness". in the unit A v B case does it come out different. I myself have been unable to determine this for certain.

It would be my expectation that having a unit rest v dig-in should yield a more ready/rested unit v a dug-in/tired unit.

Thank you.


Digging in does not affect readiness, if that is what you're asking.


Thank you, that was the final question.




JAMiAM -> RE: Digging In (1/24/2008 10:02:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg

But what of "Readiness". in the unit A v B case does it come out different. I myself have been unable to determine this for certain.

It would be my expectation that having a unit rest v dig-in should yield a more ready/rested unit v a dug-in/tired unit.

Thank you.


Digging in does not affect readiness, if that is what you're asking.


Thank you, that was the final question.


Never say that. It means that either A) you are never going to play TOAW again, or B) you know everything there is to know about TOAW...[;)]




brucekg -> RE: Digging In (1/24/2008 10:31:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg

But what of "Readiness". in the unit A v B case does it come out different. I myself have been unable to determine this for certain.

It would be my expectation that having a unit rest v dig-in should yield a more ready/rested unit v a dug-in/tired unit.

Thank you.


Digging in does not affect readiness, if that is what you're asking.


Thank you, that was the final question.


Never say that. It means that either A) you are never going to play TOAW again, or B) you know everything there is to know about TOAW...[;)]


Final question as regards this thread. I very much doubt I'll put TOAW down. Just got got it to run using wine under linux. It is one of those games I keep coming back to. If there is going to be a TOAW4 I know where another 50 bucks are going.




Heldenkaiser -> RE: Digging In (1/25/2008 1:16:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Once it is at F, the unit is no longer actively entrenching the hex. If, for whatever reason, you wish to further increase the entrenchment level of the hex, using only the unit that occupies it, you will need to manually set the unit to a non-fortified deployment and then start the digging in process all over again.


So if I use enough units, or the same unit repeatedly, I can get every hex to 100% entrenchment level, in theory? Sort of creating a prepared fortified line? That's rather useful (and surprising) information. Thanks! [:)]




Heldenkaiser -> RE: Digging In (1/25/2008 1:17:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg
If there is going to be a TOAW4 I know where another 50 bucks are going.


Hear, hear! [8D]




ColinWright -> RE: Digging In (1/25/2008 11:08:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser


quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg
If there is going to be a TOAW4 I know where another 50 bucks are going.


Hear, hear! [8D]



The thing is, I'll freely admit I'm a captive audience. Matrix can release a TOAW IV with almost any features at all -- and if I want anyone to play with, I'll have to buy it.

However, the attitude of certain parties notwithstanding, I assume I'm free to mention what I would like to see -- after all, something will have to be added to justify the new release. I might as well do what I can to make that something things I regard as improvements.




ColinWright -> RE: Digging In (1/25/2008 11:09:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Once it is at F, the unit is no longer actively entrenching the hex. If, for whatever reason, you wish to further increase the entrenchment level of the hex, using only the unit that occupies it, you will need to manually set the unit to a non-fortified deployment and then start the digging in process all over again.


So if I use enough units, or the same unit repeatedly, I can get every hex to 100% entrenchment level, in theory? Sort of creating a prepared fortified line? That's rather useful (and surprising) information. Thanks! [:)]



Yeah, you can do this. Done it myself, in fact.




hank -> RE: Digging In (1/27/2008 4:42:07 PM)

I agree with Colin here except I'm not a captured audience since I play several other wargames. If ToaW IV does not get a facelift I probably will spend my gaming money elsewhere.

I've bought this game twice the first time being in 1998 runnin on Win98. I wasn't too impressed with ToaW III when I got it last year. I guess I expected too much. But I play it anyway and enjoy it until the user interface gets to me and I move on to one of my other hex based wargames.

In general terms I wish:

The user interface gets a big facelift. Text size/type is hard for me to read. The buttons could be better arranged/organized. etc

The weapons graphics are so small and squished down they add nothing to immersion (for me anyway ... mho) I feel these hex based games need good vehicle and weapons graphics to be good quality graphics even if they are simple black and white silhouettes.

Resolve the 1st / 2nd player anomolies (I forget the proper term but I think you get the drift)

Rid the game of gamey stuff like ant attack issues. There's a few others but I don't want to spend much typing on them. Ant attacks seem to be a big issue right now.

Make the attack planning dialog box "% of turn used" and the "circle of stars" tell the truth thus indicating to a player whether the turn will end early or not. This is a separate issue of whether the battle come out in your favor or not. There's always a risk of each individual battle not coming out as you expect but to suddenly end a turn because of some proficiency check that you're totally unaware of or in control of or whatever is not fair to the player ... especially the new players who don't have a thousand games played.

Balance out some of the stock great battles so they are fair for both players in pbem games. And put the Classic ToaW battles in their proper folders (why make these separate ... just note it being classic in sce description)

Enough of the hijacking ... sorry




brucekg -> RE: Digging In && IV (1/27/2008 9:15:37 PM)

As to TOAW4, I would like to see the font improvement. As for the general interface, I would be afraid of someone getting to marketeerish and forget that this is a wargame. I never use anything but the symbols, I feel the 3D graphics a lame eye candy and do not convey the same amount of information instantly.

I would like to see some of the gameyness addressed. A number of answers to my questions have wandered in that direction. In particular the fact that there is no cost to use MP to dig in vs truly having the unit rest, either in supply or readiness. There are some other areas I would make suggestions after I have a chance to examine a few things in more detail.

I've been playing this game since TOAW1 came out and still find it to be very good. The only other games I found of the same class were the V for Victory games from 360. In fact I amy try getting those running with Wine under Linux, they don't work with XP.





ColinWright -> RE: Digging In && IV (1/27/2008 9:45:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brucekg

As for the general interface, I would be afraid of someone getting to marketeerish and forget that this is a wargame. I never use anything but the symbols, I feel the 3D graphics a lame eye candy and do not convey the same amount of information instantly.




Yeah. For what it's worth, my vote is against any programming going into graphics, etc. I wasn't even aware there was a three-D mode until a year or two back, galanced at it once, and have ignored it since.

If I want graphics, I'll go play one of the Total War series. When it comes to TOAW, it would be depressing to have a TOAW IV whose main claim to fame was great graphics and interface improvements.




Heldenkaiser -> RE: Digging In (1/28/2008 4:28:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hank
Make the attack planning dialog box "% of turn used" and the "circle of stars" tell the truth thus indicating to a player whether the turn will end early or not. This is a separate issue of whether the battle come out in your favor or not. There's always a risk of each individual battle not coming out as you expect but to suddenly end a turn because of some proficiency check that you're totally unaware of or in control of or whatever is not fair to the player ...


Actually I believe there is a chance that the turn will end "early" after each round of combats, as they are always followed by a force proficiency check. That check failing, the turn ends--regardless of the length and result of the combats in the round. So that's nothing that could be avoided with proper combat planning or more information. It just happens ... a deliberate element of uncertainty.

At least that's my understanding. :)




brucekg -> RE: Digging In (1/28/2008 6:13:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser


quote:

ORIGINAL: hank
Make the attack planning dialog box "% of turn used" and the "circle of stars" tell the truth thus indicating to a player whether the turn will end early or not. This is a separate issue of whether the battle come out in your favor or not. There's always a risk of each individual battle not coming out as you expect but to suddenly end a turn because of some proficiency check that you're totally unaware of or in control of or whatever is not fair to the player ...


Actually I believe there is a chance that the turn will end "early" after each round of combats, as they are always followed by a force proficiency check. That check failing, the turn ends--regardless of the length and result of the combats in the round. So that's nothing that could be avoided with proper combat planning or more information. It just happens ... a deliberate element of uncertainty.

At least that's my understanding. :)


I think that that uncertainty is essential. And it is about to lose me Pusan.




hank -> RE: Digging In (1/28/2008 8:19:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

Actually I believe there is a chance that the turn will end "early" after each round of combats, as they are always followed by a force proficiency check. That check failing, the turn ends--regardless of the length and result of the combats in the round. So that's nothing that could be avoided with proper combat planning or more information. It just happens ... a deliberate element of uncertainty.

At least that's my understanding. :)


That's the way I understand it too, H. I think we started playing this game about the same time and you've sure learned ToaW's intricacies much better than I. I should have known not to question this feature of the game since there's alway a defender to jump up and describe the virtues of "early turn ends". I like your brief description ... It just happens ... and i should just accept it whether I think its realistic or not. ... And I do. I just had too little sleep that night and made some comments I shouldn't have.

Good luck Heldenkaiser




ColinWright -> RE: Digging In (1/28/2008 9:00:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

Actually I believe there is a chance that the turn will end "early" after each round of combats, as they are always followed by a force proficiency check. That check failing, the turn ends--regardless of the length and result of the combats in the round. So that's nothing that could be avoided with proper combat planning or more information. It just happens ... a deliberate element of uncertainty.

At least that's my understanding. :)


That's the way I understand it too, H. I think we started playing this game about the same time and you've sure learned ToaW's intricacies much better than I. I should have known not to question this feature of the game since there's alway a defender to jump up and describe the virtues of "early turn ends". I like your brief description ... It just happens ... and i should just accept it whether I think its realistic or not. ... And I do. I just had too little sleep that night and made some comments I shouldn't have.

Good luck Heldenkaiser



The thing about early turn ending is that while it may be unpleasant, it does provide some of the advantages of 'wego.' Your opponent may not be able to move at the same time as you do, but early turn ending at least creates the possibility that he may not docilely sit there until you have completed all your carefully-calculated combinations.

In other words, it avoids the chess-like artificiality that would arise if you could count on finishing out your turn in peace. In real war, as Molkte said, 'no plan survives contact with the enemy.' Early turn ending makes Moltke's dictum much more likely to be reproduced in OPART.




cymloveselva -> RE: Digging In (1/29/2008 4:08:18 PM)

i see... digging repeatedly improves digging "time" only...




IronDuke_slith -> RE: Digging In (1/30/2008 1:17:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

Actually I believe there is a chance that the turn will end "early" after each round of combats, as they are always followed by a force proficiency check. That check failing, the turn ends--regardless of the length and result of the combats in the round. So that's nothing that could be avoided with proper combat planning or more information. It just happens ... a deliberate element of uncertainty.

At least that's my understanding. :)


That's the way I understand it too, H. I think we started playing this game about the same time and you've sure learned ToaW's intricacies much better than I. I should have known not to question this feature of the game since there's alway a defender to jump up and describe the virtues of "early turn ends". I like your brief description ... It just happens ... and i should just accept it whether I think its realistic or not. ... And I do. I just had too little sleep that night and made some comments I shouldn't have.

Good luck Heldenkaiser



The thing about early turn ending is that while it may be unpleasant, it does provide some of the advantages of 'wego.' Your opponent may not be able to move at the same time as you do, but early turn ending at least creates the possibility that he may not docilely sit there until you have completed all your carefully-calculated combinations.

In other words, it avoids the chess-like artificiality that would arise if you could count on finishing out your turn in peace. In real war, as Molkte said, 'no plan survives contact with the enemy.' Early turn ending makes Moltke's dictum much more likely to be reproduced in OPART.



Agreed, except I would change it. I've seen too many turns burn out whilst a surrounded dug in motorcycle recce regiment held out to the last round to not be irritated by this. An attack on limit losses should last 20% turn time and if no result is forced end as a draw with the player free to resume the attack the following turn if he so pleases. I think it unbalances the entire game.

I appreciate this introduces an element of uncertainty but I don;t think it helps in WEGO. The whole point is both sides get a turn.

I'd agree that all other changes should be gameplay (flexible formations, realistic supply model, better replacement model and better HQ rules and mechanisms to slow sides down) but turn burn is one thing I would remove.

That and some of the size constrictions.

Regards,
IronDuke




ColinWright -> RE: Digging In (1/30/2008 1:38:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank


quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

Actually I believe there is a chance that the turn will end "early" after each round of combats, as they are always followed by a force proficiency check. That check failing, the turn ends--regardless of the length and result of the combats in the round. So that's nothing that could be avoided with proper combat planning or more information. It just happens ... a deliberate element of uncertainty.

At least that's my understanding. :)


That's the way I understand it too, H. I think we started playing this game about the same time and you've sure learned ToaW's intricacies much better than I. I should have known not to question this feature of the game since there's alway a defender to jump up and describe the virtues of "early turn ends". I like your brief description ... It just happens ... and i should just accept it whether I think its realistic or not. ... And I do. I just had too little sleep that night and made some comments I shouldn't have.

Good luck Heldenkaiser



The thing about early turn ending is that while it may be unpleasant, it does provide some of the advantages of 'wego.' Your opponent may not be able to move at the same time as you do, but early turn ending at least creates the possibility that he may not docilely sit there until you have completed all your carefully-calculated combinations.

In other words, it avoids the chess-like artificiality that would arise if you could count on finishing out your turn in peace. In real war, as Molkte said, 'no plan survives contact with the enemy.' Early turn ending makes Moltke's dictum much more likely to be reproduced in OPART.



Agreed, except I would change it. I've seen too many turns burn out whilst a surrounded dug in motorcycle recce regiment held out to the last round to not be irritated by this. An attack on limit losses should last 20% turn time and if no result is forced end as a draw with the player free to resume the attack the following turn if he so pleases. I think it unbalances the entire game.

I appreciate this introduces an element of uncertainty but I don;t think it helps in WEGO. The whole point is both sides get a turn.

I'd agree that all other changes should be gameplay (flexible formations, realistic supply model, better replacement model and better HQ rules and mechanisms to slow sides down) but turn burn is one thing I would remove.

That and some of the size constrictions.

Regards,
IronDuke


My own preference would be to somehow limit the effect: to make the early turn ending affect all units within a (designer set) radius of the unit that 'turn burns.' Or perhaps limited to the formations involved in the combat. Or something.

The primary problem I've had with early turn ending as it stood (other than my turn ending) was that the system basically made it criminal folly to conduct minor attacks. The classic was a scenario that covered the Finnish front and the operations of Army Group North in the Baltic states in 1941.

Well, there you are. You're mounting all these front-wide, army group-level assaults down along the Dvina. Now, should you let Finnish Ski Battalion 39 badger Russian Border Police detachment 38 up somewhere in the tundra?

Better not -- if the attack goes wrong, it'll bring all of Army Group North to a screeching halt. The ski bns just had to let the Russians be. That wasn't too cool.






IronDuke_slith -> RE: Digging In (1/30/2008 3:05:38 AM)


This agrees with my experience. Small units, generally ill supplied, unable to hit anything and therefore shooting ad infinitum. In my case preventing thrree Army Groups from getting forward.

Your ideas would be an option, although in those circumstances where the offending units was a Pzgr Reg, it still seems a little harsh and unhistorical.

It's a big game spoiler, though. I think it needs attention in any future incarnation. I'd also agree that although I'd buy a TOAW IV that was merely a patched TOAW III, I'd be disappointed. TOAW IV should revamp everything or leave well alone, since patching can change the minor stuff over time.




ColinWright -> RE: Digging In (1/30/2008 7:48:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


This agrees with my experience. Small units, generally ill supplied, unable to hit anything and therefore shooting ad infinitum. In my case preventing thrree Army Groups from getting forward.

Your ideas would be an option, although in those circumstances where the offending units was a Pzgr Reg, it still seems a little harsh and unhistorical.

It's a big game spoiler, though. I think it needs attention in any future incarnation. I'd also agree that although I'd buy a TOAW IV that was merely a patched TOAW III, I'd be disappointed. TOAW IV should revamp everything or leave well alone, since patching can change the minor stuff over time.


I suspect there isn't a perfect solution; it's just a matter of picking one that avoids the absurd front-wide shutdowns but still offers the unpredictibility that early turn ending simulates. The enemy doesn't just sit there while you execute your brilliant combinations, and you shouldn't be able to count on him doing so. Failing true 'we-go' (which I'm not particularly convinced is practical), I think some form of early turn ending is essential.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
9.015625