Question for Jason (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series



Message

kool_kat -> Question for Jason (2/15/2009 12:57:04 AM)

Everyone:

The infamous "Odds and Ends" thread has been moved the the JTCS Support Pages! [:'(]

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=449



hadberz -> RE: Question for Jason (2/15/2009 1:40:25 AM)

Are you talking about the one in support forum?



Jason Petho -> RE: Question for Jason (2/15/2009 2:28:46 AM)

It was moved, as halberz noted.

Jason Petho



kool_kat -> RE: Question for Jason (2/15/2009 8:46:33 PM)

.



Jason Petho -> RE: Question for Jason (2/15/2009 8:52:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest

And I asked WHY it was moved - not WHERE it was moved.

Still not sure WHERE it was moved either.

But, first things first...


The reason is in the thread.

Jason Petho



kool_kat -> RE: Question for Jason (2/15/2009 8:53:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest

And I asked WHY it was moved - not WHERE it was moved.

Still not sure WHERE it was moved either.

But, first things first...


The reason is in the thread.

Jason Petho


Got it.



1925frank -> RE: Question for Jason (4/28/2009 3:36:22 PM)

When conducting an assault, there's also a counterassault.  What's the thinking behind that?  I always thought that was curious.  Why would the defenders counterassault?  Wouldn't that frequently be disadvantageous to the defender?  I would think the defender would simply try to withstand the assault and, if the defender wanted to, the defender would counterassault during his own turn -- especially if he lost the hex.

Have the combat results tables been modified?  I'm talking about attacks, not assaults.



Jason Petho -> RE: Question for Jason (4/28/2009 4:52:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

When conducting an assault, there's also a counterassault.  What's the thinking behind that?  I always thought that was curious.  Why would the defenders counterassault?  Wouldn't that frequently be disadvantageous to the defender?  I would think the defender would simply try to withstand the assault and, if the defender wanted to, the defender would counterassault during his own turn -- especially if he lost the hex.


They counterassault is within the same hex, essentially fighting for the hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
Have the combat results tables been modified?  I'm talking about attacks, not assaults.


For attacks, no they haven't.

Jason Petho



1925frank -> RE: Question for Jason (4/28/2009 5:19:47 PM)

Regarding the counterassault, the defender is effectively forced to assault the hex it occupies.  That's what confuses me.  I picture an assault as units getting up and running toward an objective.  The defender already has the objective, so I don't understand why the defender would be getting up and running anywhere. 

I guess the thinking is that the assaulter occupies the contested hex for at least part of its portion of its turn, and then the defender counterassaults to push the assaulter back out of the hex.  I would think if the assaulter failed to take the hex, it would back out or fall back, and I would think the defender, if it wasn't particularly good at assaults (like machinegun platoons), would simply hang on rather than counterassault.  I would think a machinegun platoon, if given the choice of assaulting or falling back, would fall back every time simply because they are not designed for assaults.  Their assault values reflect very poor assault abilities. 

Conceptually I've never really understood why the counterassault was added to the equation.  I would think the counterassault would break the back of the defenders more frequently than the initial assault.  It kind of looks like a sucker punch.  If a defensive unit has good defense abilities but poor assault abilities, you would assault it not with hopes of winning the assault but with hopes of winning the counterassault.

I'm not complaining.  I have just always found the counterassault counter-intuitive.



Jason Petho -> RE: Question for Jason (4/28/2009 5:47:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
I'm not complaining.  I have just always found the counterassault counter-intuitive.


The counter-assault hasn't been added, it's always been there as part of the assault equation, ever since EF 1.00.

Jason Petho



1925frank -> RE: Question for Jason (4/28/2009 5:59:45 PM)


quote:


The counter-assault hasn't been added, it's always been there as part of the assault equation, ever since EF 1.00.

Jason Petho


Correct. The counterassault was present in the Talonsoft versions as well. The counterassault was something Talonsoft wanted, and I've never understood well the reason why.

I'm wondering if the counterassault is what left the regular assault rules so favorable to the assaulter. Disrupted units cannot assault during their half of the turn, but I think they do counterassault at reduced values. This could lead to some seriously imbalanced odds. Units use their defensive values when resisting an assault (and presumably when resisting a counterassault), but they use their assaulting values when counterassaulting, and, by and large, most units' assault values are inferior to their defensive values.

The counterassault is still there. What's the attraction? What's the selling point? Is the counterassault part of the problem?

Although this thread is addressed to Jason, I'd welcome comments from anyone.



umbro -> RE: Question for Jason (4/28/2009 10:18:19 PM)


The counter-assault is an attack on the CRT using the defending units assault strength versus the attackers defence strength. Terrain plays no role. The CRT has no detrimental effects on the attacker. Thus, the defenders counter-assault is a freebie for teh defender with no downside.

umbro



1925frank -> RE: Question for Jason (4/28/2009 10:34:48 PM)

Thanks, Umbro.

Does the counterassault have its own CRT?

If the counterassault uses the same CRT as the assault, does that mean the assault is a freebie too?  Or for purposes of the counterassault, are the adverse results disabled?

Under the regular assault, the only adverse result I remember for the assaulter was a disruption.  Then again, I wouldn't assault with bad odds.  I'm not familiar with the CRT for assaults.  I know you can access a CRT for attacks within the game.  Is there one for assaults as well?

So a defender can receive and adverse result during the assault and negate that negative result during the counterassault?  It wouldn't negate a SP loss, but would it negate a retreat result?  It kind of sounds like the counterassault was designed to give the defender a freebie at keeping a hex it would have otherwise lost during the assault.



umbro -> RE: Question for Jason (4/28/2009 11:08:58 PM)


quote:


Does the counterassault have its own CRT?

I do not believe so.

quote:


If the counterassault uses the same CRT as the assault, does that mean the assault is a freebie too?  Or for purposes of the counterassault, are the adverse results disabled?

The cost of the assault is 20APs and the potential for a negative result when the counter-assault is resolved. The CRT has no results that impact the attacker.

quote:


Under the regular assault, the only adverse result I remember for the assaulter was a disruption.  Then again, I wouldn't assault with bad odds.  I'm not familiar with the CRT for assaults.  I know you can access a CRT for attacks within the game.  Is there one for assaults as well?

The CRT used for resolving assaults/counter-assaults is the same for direct fire (just with different combat strengths and terrain effects). The disruption result you saw was the effect of a counter-assault by the defenders initiated by your assault.

quote:


So a defender can receive and adverse result during the assault and negate that negative result during the counterassault? 

No, all results are applied (except retreats). In the original assault rules if the attackers had any undisrupted units left in the assaulting force after all counter-assaults were resolved, and all defenders were disrupted after all assault results were applied then the attackers would enter the hex and the defender was forced to retreat. If no path of retreat exists the the unit is captured. Unlike direct-fire results application there is no chance that the unit(s) in question can retreat into an enemy ZOC.

Under Extreme Assault rules there is a separate phase of the assault process. After all assault and counter-assault results have been applied there is a "Morale Saving Throw" for the defenders. The defenders morale is compared to a D10(-1) roll, if the roll is above the morale of the unit the unit fails and is forced to retreat, otherwise it stays in place. The units' morale benefits from terrain and leaders and is further modified positively or negatively depending upon whether it "won" the assault or not. Whether it "won" the assault is determined according to an unpublished table.

quote:


It wouldn't negate a SP loss, but would it negate a retreat result?  It kind of sounds like the counterassault was designed to give the defender a freebie at keeping a hex it would have otherwise lost during the assault.

The counter-assault was really designed to make assaults more costly to attackers than simply plugging away from a distance. Under the original assault rules most assaults occur against disrupted units (whose assault strength is halved) and thus posed little threat to most attackers.

umbro




scottintacoma -> RE: Question for Jason (4/29/2009 3:03:51 AM)

I always figured the counter assualt was the defenders portion of the fight. Where they could inflict losses on the attacker. The attacker does the damage in the Assualt pahse, the defender in the counter assualt.



1925frank -> RE: Question for Jason (5/1/2009 4:37:05 PM)

Currently engineers can blow a hole in a high wall so units can move through.  For low walls, wheeled vehicles can't pass, so, on occasion, it'd be nice to be able to blow a hole in a low wall as well.  I don't think the game is currently designed to do that.  Would that be something worth adding?

Also regarding high walls, you can see through them one hex, and you can fire through them one hex.  I would think a high wall would block visibility into the hex immediately behind it, and I would think it would block direct fire into the hex immediately behind it.  Is this just something the game engine can't do, or is this really the way it should be?



umbro -> RE: Question for Jason (5/1/2009 6:56:27 PM)


1925frank

I think the concept here is that the "high wall" is supposed to block LOS into hexes beyond it but not for units manning it.

umbro

P.S. the TEM of a high wall is listed as - in the manual, but it seems to offer a 0.5 in actual use.



1925frank -> RE: Question for Jason (5/1/2009 7:32:29 PM)

Yes, the manual shows the TEM as "-" for high walls (or at least that's the way I remember the manual), which means the high wall provides no defensive benefit whatsoever and that the hex the units are in (behind the high wall) determines any defensive benefits.  That's what I find incongruous.  If the units are on the high wall, the hex behind it shouldn't matter.  Plus trucks and wagons behind the wall are subject to direct fire.  I've thought about rationalizing it as the units being on the wall too, but it's not a good fit.

Low walls have an effect on TEM, as do hedges.  Perhaps the manual is wrong about high walls providing no reduction in the effectiveness of fire into the hex behind the high wall.



umbro -> RE: Question for Jason (5/1/2009 7:36:02 PM)

I am pretty sure that the manual is wrong (unless something else is protecting those bastards defending the Salerno landing grounds!)

umbro



1925frank -> RE: Question for Jason (5/2/2009 3:26:47 PM)

Regarding high walls, I had a unit in an orchard behind a high wall that was fired upon.  The orchard made the effectiveness .9, but the combat result display showed .45.  The high wall might halve the normal hex TEM.



umbro -> RE: Question for Jason (5/2/2009 7:53:22 PM)

Similarly, I fired on a unit in a village behind both a low stone wall and a high wall (yes they stack!) and the attack was at 28% (.7*.8*.5 for village.stone wall.high wall)

umbro



1925frank -> RE: Question for Jason (5/2/2009 10:22:27 PM)

In the map scenario editor, if you plop one hex over another, it overwrites the first one.  At least, that's what I think.  I haven't verified. 

Is that true too with hexsides?  If I decide I want to change a hexside, do I first have to remove the original hexside or risk having multiple hexsides for movement and defensive purposes?  You can have a high wall and a road, and the road works through the high wall.  And Umbro just described having a low wall and a high wall on the same hexside with both of them working functionally.  I'm inclined to think hexsides don't overwright but accumulate for map editing purposes.



umbro -> RE: Question for Jason (5/2/2009 10:40:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
In the map scenario editor, if you plop one hex over another, it overwrites the first one.  At least, that's what I think.  I haven't verified. 


I misspoke, hexsides only stack if one is a water feature like hexside (river, stream, gully) and the other a wall, hedge, etc. I was thinking of placing escarpment or cliffs in flat open terrain - they do exist you just can't see then in 3D mode, turn on 2D mode et voila!

Having tested High Wall it is 50% TEM

Now I just have to figure out how a high wall and village is (having checked again) 24%.

Sorry for the confusion.

umbro



1925frank -> RE: Question for Jason (5/8/2009 1:32:10 AM)

I'm trying to create a Rising Sun scenario.  I get this message:

Failure to create bitmap surface:  C:\Matrix Games\John Tiller's Campaign Series\Rising Sun\icons1d38.bmp

I just did a generic map, did OOB with two countries to see if they were Axis or Allied (I knew Nationalist China was Allied but I didn't know about Warlords, which turned out to be Axis), and did a scenario file.  I then pulled up the game to see whether the units could fire at one another (and they could), and that's when I get the above message.  I don't know if that's because the scenario is so rudimentary or whether I have a more serious problem.  I don't want to go to a lot of work building a scenario if there's a fundament problem.  The problem may be that I don't have VP hexes or something else simple.



umbro -> RE: Question for Jason (5/8/2009 1:52:17 AM)

Looks like your install is missing icons1d38.bmp (I know mine is)

Try copying icons1d25.bmp and pasting it calling it icons1d38.bmp

Then re-launch

umbro



1925frank -> RE: Question for Jason (5/8/2009 4:10:23 AM)

I checked for file "icons1d38.bmp" as well and confirmed it wasn't there.  It's not in East Front either (or West Front -- I forget which one I compared).

I copied "icons1d25.bmp" into another folder, renamed it "icons1d38.bmp," and copied it back into Rising Sun.  I now get a message the same as the earlier one, except now "running3d38.bmp" instead of "icons1d38.bmp."

There's also a second message that appeared (and which appeared previously):  "Failure to stretch bitmap surface"



1925frank -> RE: Question for Jason (5/8/2009 5:03:09 AM)

I turned my computer off.  After I rebooted, it doesn't do it anymore.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.140625