quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Hallelujah!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Hallelujah!!

looks like someone found religion[:D][:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Hi all,

I know it's been forever in coming, but patch 3.4 is right around the bend, and we thought we'd tease you a bit more with the change list. The attached file is a zipped copy of the whatsnew.pdf for the upcoming patch. Enjoy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

[:D]

PS the changes look great, eagerly anticipating this patch!
Will the new graphics mod come with the patch or will that be a separate DL?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Ok, here we go with the questions. [;)]

First off, IMO, supply rules look to be about as good as you can get them with the game without rewriting the whole thing. Great job.

I'm a bit confused about the new AR combat rules. Some examples would go a long way towards clearing the fog. Speak to me as if I were a child. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Another question: Can the new supply rules and the new player turn rules be applied to ongoing PBEM games which have been started under 3.2?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Another question: Can the new supply rules and the new player turn rules be applied to ongoing PBEM games which have been started under 3.2?

Ongoing games can be switched to 3.4. But I don't think you can change the supply or turn rules during the game.

Edit: For PBEM. For hotseat or vs. the PO, you can.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Ok, here we go with the questions. [;)]

First off, IMO, supply rules look to be about as good as you can get them with the game without rewriting the whole thing. Great job.

I'm a bit confused about the new AR combat rules. Some examples would go a long way towards clearing the fog. Speak to me as if I were a child. [:D]

It depends upon the AR value, which is displayed in the Attack Planner (subject to Fog-of-War).

If the AR is >= 100, attacks will work just like before. (That means the ground component of the attack is at least as strong as the ground component of the defenders).

If the AR is < 100, but >= 10, there is a proportional chance that the attack could lose the artillery benefits previously accrued by artillery that supports an attack (it would have the strength of artillery that just bombards). And the defender's supply costs are divided by 10.

If the AR is < 10, there is a proportional chance that the attack could be reduced to a pure bombardment - ground component canceled and no supply cost to the defender. The attacker's artillery can even be subject to counterbattery.

So, players are motivated to try to keep the AR >= to 100. That means ant-unit tactics won't work anymore (we hope).

That's really all you need to know: Keep the AR at or above 100.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


[:D] Is it really that simple? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but, it seems as though I'm being told that I should always attack at 1 to 1 or better with only raw unit strengths being the qualifier. Supply, readiness and proficiency are thrown out. If I don't do this I stand to suffer penalties. Is that an incorrect assumption?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


As a side note, much of the fighting in the East in 1941 was pretty much regiments vs divisions. Would that be a problem? [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Champagne

How will 3.4 affect those existing scenarios that have not been tweaked? Will these scenarios be very different under 3.4 then are now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


[:D] Is it really that simple? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but, it seems as though I'm being told that I should always attack at 1 to 1 or better with only raw unit strengths being the qualifier. Supply, readiness and proficiency are thrown out. If I don't do this I stand to suffer penalties. Is that an incorrect assumption?

To answer the bolded portion of your questions. This is incorrect. Supply, readiness and proficiency direct affect the attack and defense strengths of units. So, these still factor into the AR ratios and calculations. What is essentially happening is that a test is being made between the relative *effective* strengths of the active equipment and the outcome of that test is determining multiple effects regarding the bombardment strengths involved in the combat. Poor AR ratios will result in supported bombardments being much less effective than previously, in terms of losses taken, as well as supply usage.

In other words, we're spoiling the spoiling attacks that players became spoiled using...[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


As a side note, much of the fighting in the East in 1941 was pretty much regiments vs divisions. Would that be a problem? [&:]

Not necessarily. Keep in mind, again, that the effective strengths of units are essentially determined by equipment modified by readiness, proficiency, and supply. The exact combat strength formula is in the manual's appendices. So, in cases where smaller, well supplied, highly proficient, high readiness units are in combat with a larger poorly supplied, low proficiency, low readiness unit, then you're often dealing with fairly equal effective combat strengths.

Hope that helps.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

.. another question about the new combined terrain/deployment defensive strength multiplier. In the What's new document there's a chart about infantry and vehicle defense strength.
But this also applies to defensive AP and AT strengths, doesn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


[:D] Is it really that simple? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but, it seems as though I'm being told that I should always attack at 1 to 1 or better with only raw unit strengths being the qualifier. Supply, readiness and proficiency are thrown out. If I don't do this I stand to suffer penalties. Is that an incorrect assumption?

To answer the bolded portion of your questions. This is incorrect. Supply, readiness and proficiency direct affect the attack and defense strengths of units. So, these still factor into the AR ratios and calculations. What is essentially happening is that a test is being made between the relative *effective* strengths of the active equipment and the outcome of that test is determining multiple effects regarding the bombardment strengths involved in the combat. Poor AR ratios will result in supported bombardments being much less effective than previously, in terms of losses taken, as well as supply usage.

In other words, we're spoiling the spoiling attacks that players became spoiled using...[:D]

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


As a side note, much of the fighting in the East in 1941 was pretty much regiments vs divisions. Would that be a problem? [&:]

Not necessarily. Keep in mind, again, that the effective strengths of units are essentially determined by equipment modified by readiness, proficiency, and supply. The exact combat strength formula is in the manual's appendices. So, in cases where smaller, well supplied, highly proficient, high readiness units are in combat with a larger poorly supplied, low proficiency, low readiness unit, then you're often dealing with fairly equal effective combat strengths.

Hope that helps.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Champagne

Please excuse if this is an elementary or repetitive question:

Not all of the existing scenarios have been recently tweaked with a view to be working with TOAW 3.4. This is no problem. I'm please to see that so many have been tweaked.

How will 3.4 affect those existing scenarios that have not been tweaked? Will these scenarios be very different under 3.4 then are now?

Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

.. another question about the new combined terrain/deployment defensive strength multiplier. In the What's new document there's a chart about infantry and vehicle defense strength.
But this also applies to defensive AP and AT strengths, doesn't it?

Hmm. I don't know about AT strengths. Good question.

Edit: I think armored vehicles benefit from the vehicle defense multiplier only. The statement in the manual about anti-armor defense strength multipliers is incorrect, if I remember correctly. But my memory is kind of vague about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Champagne

How will 3.4 affect those existing scenarios that have not been tweaked? Will these scenarios be very different under 3.4 then are now?

My favorite answer..."it depends"...[;)]

The changes are evolutionary - not revolutionary. The difference will vary depending not only upon the nature of the scenario units TO&E, but also, in no small part, on the play styles of the people playing the game.

If you're the type of person who previously took a great deal of effort in 'gaming the system', then you may find that your ant-bombardment tactics are not very effective anymore, leading to a wastage of your play time, not to mention potentially combat rounds, too.

If you're the type of person who used less labor-intensive, but more generally 'standard' tactics, of putting the right numbers of equipment types against a certain number and type of defenders, took into account terrain, support levels, et cetera, then you will likely see some improvement in your results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

[X(]

Bob, that's a non-trivial matter. So, you say there are no defence multipliers for AT strengths or are those from the manual just incorrect?

quote:

Defnsive AP strehgths are applied and correctly documented by the manual and subject to the new combined deploym./terrain rules

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Hi all,

I know it's been forever in coming, but patch 3.4 is right around the bend