answers to some basic 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

larryfulkerson -> answers to some basic questions (10/29/2010 4:15:22 PM)

Hey you guys: Somebody sent me an email wanting to ask some questions about TOAW ( being new to the game and everything ) and I said yeah fire away. He asked a bunch of questions and I answered best I could and he said something about other people wanting to know this stuff too and suggested I publish it and I thought that might be a good idea so here it is below:

Q. One really stupid and basic question; what does the green, orange or red button mean when it is to the left of the icon but just outside the icon box?
[image]local://upfiles/16287/7C21A67C753745A8B9E0418EE33216B8.gif[/image]

A. It's the target density indicator. Red is bad ( 2 X losses ). The little red circle is indicating that you have stuffed so much equipment into one hex that you have created a "target rich environment" for your opponent. He will get 2 X the results in any assault ( you will lose 2 X as much stuff ) . The yellow circle means it's packed so densly that your opponent will get 1.5 X the combat results. The game just leaves off the Green indicator..........I guess it's understood that when there's no indicator at all it's a good thing.

Q. [so]....I only use air from within the plan attack menu and not by directly sending planes to destinations.

A. Um.....once you have selected an aircraft you move your cursor over a potiential target and then left click and choose what kind of attack you want to use on the
target. If it's an airfield "attack airfield" will be available on the pop-up menu. So Yes, you can send an aircraft to a designated location.

Q. ...How do I target artillery that has a range seven spots away but no units that can reach to plan the attack?

A. Um.......Are you attacking something else with the arty unit? If so selecting an arty unit and them moving the cursor to a potential target will change the cursor to "targeting" instead of the usual cursor and you will know that the arty unit can reach that target. Otherwise the cursor doesn't indicate a possible target. Are you trying to attack the arty unit? I'm not sure I understand your question.

Q. Whoa. Huge misunderstanding on my part from what I thought I read. I thought it said to only use aircraft as support from in the plan attack menu. I thought it discouraged direct attacks because of losses. Is there some way to mix fighters with bombers in an attack group or is this simulated by simply having the air superiority set with fighters when you direct attack with a bomber?


A. Yes losses ARE higher with a direct attack with your aircraft. So are the supply expenditures. But direct aircraft attack is the only way to do bridge attacks and airfield attacks and sometimes you just really NEED the higher attacking strength ( direct attacks are 1 X your aircraft attack strength and just regular "combat support" ( indirect ) attacks are rendered at 0.5 X listed strength).

Q. So there are situations where the engineers are critical to fixing the bridges so you can move traffic?

A. Yep. In the Autumn Fog scenario most of the blue lines are super rivers and NOTHING crosses those exept at bridges and with the aid of Engineers. There's a scenario called "Overlord 44" with super rivers passing next to and through the city of Caen ( is that how you spell it ?) and so the British are persuaded to drop some airborne at both ends of the bridge at the start of the game, which is behind, far behind, enemy lines. So they are in a big hurry to get inland and off the beaches just to save the airborne if for no other reason.

Q. Do I have to put the bomber on CS to make direct attacks?

A. The "combat support" setting of your aircraft is irrelevant when you're using it in direct attack. If it WAS in "combat support" status when you assign it to an attack the status changes to "attacking .hex.XYZ" or something like that. And Yes the losses setting DOES matter when the bomber is attacking. Minimise losses means it just gives the minimal effort to do whatever mission you have it assigned to. I've heard of players setting their bridge attack bombers on ignore losses before assigning the attack in the hope that it'll increase the effect but it really doesn't make a difference in that case.

And as for protecting the bombers with your fighters.......what you do is assign the fighter to attack the same hex ( or target ) that the bomber is sent to. TOAW, this is my understanding, realizes that the fighter is going to the same hex and uses them as escort fighters instead of hitting the ground target whatever it was. This is what I do and it seems to work okie dokie.

Q. Is my strategy [as the Allied player in Mortain 44 ] assumption right based on the facts so far; defense, dig in, prepare for reinforcements to save my very weak forces; direct attack searching for enemy tanks? I'm also aiming my artillery at [ enemy units ] but not going on offense.

A. Yeah that's what I'd do. Except maybe direct attacking tanks with the apropriate aircraft. Some planes are better at tank-busters than others. Like your heavy bombers......they would be almost useless against tanks. While your fighter/bombers ( P-47 ) have a higher AT strength and if they aren't on AS duty then yeah, use 'em to bust specific tank units. And by "aiming my artillery at enemy units" I assume you mean you're bringing your arty units into range to direct attack enemy units with them. That's cool but target the right target. Arty is almost useless in direct attacks against tanks. They have a much higher AP strength and could raise havoc against my foot-mobile units. Or you know, those units that are mostly "soft" targets. Against tanks you need a unit with a high AT strength. Like your hunter-killer anti-tank units and other tanks etc. Some of the infantry units have organic AT guns and might be used against tanks also.

Also, during the first Gulf War the Marines used to run their SP guns into range of an enemy arty unit and pound the hell out of it for about a full minute and then move back south to safety before the enemy counter-arty fire would arrive at their firing position. They called it an "arty raid". I'm thinking the same thing, sortof might be done in TOAW also. But the thing is that you have to have way more arty targeting the enemy than the enemy has. In other words, you wouldn't want to target an enemy arty park with say, 200 tubes, with one lone arty unit has only a dozen tubes. You'd get slaughtered on the counter-fire that way.






toawfan -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/14/2010 6:06:28 PM)

This first post was when I was in Larry's 101 TOAW War Room Classes. I hope I have graduated to Larry 201 and now add these questions for you, veterans, to help out:

1. Why and when would you ever disband a unit?

2. Why and when would you choose between the default/normal support shown in the battle planner or click on supporting units so they would directly attack (from the support window)?

3. Why and when do you use local reserves?

4. Do you have different settings for your air units at the start of your turn vs. the end of your turn? I've been doing a lot of combat support at the start and then trying to switch back to air superiority as much as possible. Is that a worthwhile strategy? What do you do?

(I just now hit my 100th post; so is that my justification for now moving into my sophomore class with Larry 201 questions?)



ColinWright -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/14/2010 8:28:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

This first post was when I was in Larry's 101 TOAW War Room Classes. I hope I have graduated to Larry 201 and now add these questions for you, veterans, to help out:

1. Why and when would you ever disband a unit?


When the unit is still shown as supplied and you want the weapons it contains to be issued as replacements to other units. Sometimes, there are replacement units who are intended to be used for this purpose. Sometimes, a unit will be destroyed anyway -- so you might as well extract what you can from it now. Sometimes, units are growing so weak that the calculation is that one would be better off with fewer, more powerful units.

Note that if you disband a unit that is not in supply, the weapons will not enter the pool.

quote:



2. Why and when would you choose between the default/normal support shown in the battle planner or click on supporting units so they would directly attack (from the support window)?


I always use the battle planner unless I am just attempting to prompt an RBC. Can't say why others would do differently
quote:



3. Why and when do you use local reserves?


I never use local reserves.
quote:



4. Do you have different settings for your air units at the start of your turn vs. the end of your turn? I've been doing a lot of combat support at the start and then trying to switch back to air superiority as much as possible. Is that a worthwhile strategy? What do you do?


Kinda depends... Note that air units on combat support will support your units as they defend as well as when they attack.
quote:



(I just now hit my 100th post; so is that my justification for now moving into my sophomore class with Larry 201 questions?)


You're still a piker. To officially enter the big leagues, you need to have a thirty-post argument with either me or Bob Cross. Happily, you'll find this is quite easy to arrange.



toawfan -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/14/2010 10:19:47 PM)

Thanks for your answers, but I think I need to clarify about question #2.

When in the battle planner, if you don't click any of the support units, they will do their job in support all over the board at half strength. If you click to light up their icons, they directly attack, only in that specific battle, at full strength.

My question is when and why do you decide to do one or the other?



ColinWright -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/14/2010 11:08:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

Thanks for your answers, but I think I need to clarify about question #2.

When in the battle planner, if you don't click any of the support units, they will do their job in support all over the board at half strength. If you click to light up their icons, they directly attack, only in that specific battle, at full strength.

My question is when and why do you decide to do one or the other?


I almost always assign units to support specific attacks.

First, if you don't they will only use half their strength -- but still suffer a loss of supply and readiness. So it's wasteful not to assign them.

Second, if they are just left on close support, they will exhaust themselves supporting every battle -- even ones where their help isn't needed.

There are, however, two caveats.

First, you need to make sure the units are fully cooperative. If all the lights on the units already assigned turn grey or even black when you assign the aircraft or artillery, you should rethink things -- definitely rethink them if units go black. In some scenarios, things will have been setup so you can't assign air units or artillery to support specific battles. Then you'll just have to settle for general support.

Second, you may also want the air units and artillery to support your units as they defend in your opponent's half of the turn. In that case, they are going to need to end your half of the turn assigned to close support or entrenched or whatever. If you anticipate your turn ending with the round you are planning therefore, you will need to leave these units on general support so that they will provide support in your opponent's half of the turn.

All I've played lately is my Seelowe (a German invasion of Britain) scenario, so let's take an example from that. I'm the Germans, and I'm assigning my aircraft.

Their cooperation is great, so no problem there. The divisional artillery is set up so it can only support attacks involving units from their own divisions and corps units, so I have to watch that -- but the Luftwaffe cooperates with everything.

I can reasonably anticipate two rounds, and three or even four if I'm lucky. Usually the British will be attacking somewhere too, so I have to do what I can to keep them from getting anywhere as well as supporting my own attacks. Air units that are red-light I usually set to rest unless I'm really desperate. Orange-light fighters will rest, and orange-light bombers go on interdiction. This is pretty restful, so they'll recover whilst tearing up British rail traffic (interdiction isn't effective in all scenarios but it is in this one). This has to be done at the start of the turn or the units won't exert any effect. The program won't let you have your cake and eat it too -- fly combat support in your half of the turn and interdict in your opponents'. You can set the units to do it, but they won't have any effect.

So my first round of attacks. All yellow-light or better fighters go on air supremacy unless Fighter Command has really been totaled. Yellow-light bombers might go on interdiction, or they might support specific attacks. Kind of depends what my plans for the future are and what my needs are. Green light bombers support attacks. Almost invariably. Usually, whatever attacks I really want to work and really are going to need help.

Now the next round. Turn might end after this, so usually I assign the more worn bombers to support specific attacks. I don't want them getting really worn supporting defensive battles all through my opponents' turn, and they'll go to 'rest' after the battle if my turn ends. The most rested bombers do not get assigned to a specific attack -- just left on general combat support. That way they'll help beat back the English hordes when my opponent gets to take his turn.



Panama -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/14/2010 11:52:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

(I just now hit my 100th post; so is that my justification for now moving into my sophomore class with Larry 201 questions?)

You're still a piker. To officially enter the big leagues, you need to have a thirty-post argument with either me or Bob Cross. Happily, you'll find this is quite easy to arrange.



[:D][:D][:D]



larryfulkerson -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 5:57:59 AM)

quote:


This [ setting an aircraft unit to Interdiction ] has to be done at the start of the turn or the units won't exert any effect. The program won't let you have your cake and eat it too -- fly combat support in your half of the turn and interdict in your opponents'. You can set the units to do it, but they won't have any effect.

I didn't know that.  I assume you've done tests and confirmed this.  I've never seen it happen where they didn't interdict even if I waited until the last round of the turn to set the unit on INT missions.  Hence my confusion.




ColinWright -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 6:31:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:


This [ setting an aircraft unit to Interdiction ] has to be done at the start of the turn or the units won't exert any effect. The program won't let you have your cake and eat it too -- fly combat support in your half of the turn and interdict in your opponents'. You can set the units to do it, but they won't have any effect.

I didn't know that.  I assume you've done tests and confirmed this.  I've never seen it happen where they didn't interdict even if I waited until the last round of the turn to set the unit on INT missions.  Hence my confusion.




I may never have tested it -- but I recall observing it long ago. If the units have flown close support in your half of the turn, they won't effectively interdict in your opponents' half of the turn. This may be why people so commonly think interdiction 'doesn't work.' Sometimes it really doesn't -- but it's my belief that it certainly won't if you're using the bombers for close support as well.

Could be wrong. It probably should be tested -- it's even possible it was once true but is no longer.



larryfulkerson -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 6:46:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
...It probably should be tested....

As it happens I am playing Armageddon 2015 with Roger and there's lots of opportunities to test this idea to see what happens 'on the ground' so to speak. I'll run a few tests while I'm playing. Won't cost anything why not? And I'll post here what I find. Even if it turns out that I'm wrong about this. Promise.



toawfan -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 9:35:48 AM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

This first post was when I was in Larry's 101 TOAW War Room Classes. I hope I have graduated to Larry 201 and now add these questions for you, veterans, to help out:

1. Why and when would you ever disband a unit?


When the unit is still shown as supplied and you want the weapons it contains to be issued as replacements to other units. Sometimes, there are replacement units who are intended to be used for this purpose. Sometimes, a unit will be destroyed anyway -- so you might as well extract what you can from it now. Sometimes, units are growing so weak that the calculation is that one would be better off with fewer, more powerful units.

Note that if you disband a unit that is not in supply, the weapons will not enter the pool.


How quickly do disbanded units enter the pool? And by pool, do you mean they come in as replacements scattered around the map or do they actually come in as reinforcements (actual units at some map edge)? Does this happen by the next turn?



ColinWright -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 6:20:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

This first post was when I was in Larry's 101 TOAW War Room Classes. I hope I have graduated to Larry 201 and now add these questions for you, veterans, to help out:

1. Why and when would you ever disband a unit?


When the unit is still shown as supplied and you want the weapons it contains to be issued as replacements to other units. Sometimes, there are replacement units who are intended to be used for this purpose. Sometimes, a unit will be destroyed anyway -- so you might as well extract what you can from it now. Sometimes, units are growing so weak that the calculation is that one would be better off with fewer, more powerful units.

Note that if you disband a unit that is not in supply, the weapons will not enter the pool.


How quickly do disbanded units enter the pool? And by pool, do you mean they come in as replacements scattered around the map or do they actually come in as reinforcements (actual units at some map edge)? Does this happen by the next turn?


Units receive replacements wherever they are -- the replacements don't 'enter' from anywhere. They are distributed among units that are in supply according to a relatively complex algorithm.

The disbanded units themselves may or may not eventually be reconstituted -- certainly not by next turn. Their weapons, however, will immediately be dumped into the pool.

You have four units each containing 20 assigned T-34's out of 40 authorized. Your replacement rate for T-34's is 2 a turn. No t-34's are in the pool. All four units are in supply.

If you do nothing, you get the 2 T-34's next turn and they are assigned to units according to need and their replacement priority (somewhere there's a good post discussing all this).

However, for the sake of simplicity, let us suppose T-34 units 1 and 3 each get one, and now have 21 T-34's, while units 2 and 4 don't get any and still have only 20 T-34's. That's if you do nothing.

Let us suppose instead that you have disbanded T-34 unit 3. Its 20 T-34's are now in the pool, and with the 2 T-34's you are due to get next turn, there will be 22 T-34's available for distribution next turn.

Depending on what various settings are and things, some of these will get distributed to the remaining T-34 units, and some may be used to reconstitute T-34 unit 3. If it is reconstituted, it will appear in a while. In a trial I ran the other night, it was going to be eight turns later, but I wouldn't guarantee it will always be eight turns or even anything close.

As a completely random guess, in the above example unit 3 might not be set to reconstitute just yet, 12 of the 22 T-34's might be distributed evenly among the T-34 units remaining in play, giving each of them 24 out of 40 T-34's, and 10 T-34's might remain in the pool for distribution next turn.

As to where a reconstituted unit will appear, there's a section in the manual discussing how that is determined.




Panama -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 7:09:54 PM)

Everything you wanted to know about replacements and reconstitution and probably some you didn't want to know:

http://gr-8.biz/toaw/rr/replacementsreconstitution.html



sPzAbt653 -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 7:31:21 PM)

I've read that article 20 times and still don't get it.



Panama -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 8:05:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I've read that article 20 times and still don't get it.


[:D]

I was really happy to find it. Told me a lot about what I wanted to know.



Telumar -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 8:46:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:


This [ setting an aircraft unit to Interdiction ] has to be done at the start of the turn or the units won't exert any effect. The program won't let you have your cake and eat it too -- fly combat support in your half of the turn and interdict in your opponents'. You can set the units to do it, but they won't have any effect.

I didn't know that.  I assume you've done tests and confirmed this.  I've never seen it happen where they didn't interdict even if I waited until the last round of the turn to set the unit on INT missions.  Hence my confusion.




I may never have tested it -- but I recall observing it long ago. If the units have flown close support in your half of the turn, they won't effectively interdict in your opponents' half of the turn. This may be why people so commonly think interdiction 'doesn't work.' Sometimes it really doesn't -- but it's my belief that it certainly won't if you're using the bombers for close support as well.

Could be wrong. It probably should be tested -- it's even possible it was once true but is no longer.


No dedicated test, but i can confirm from experience that it works the way Colin describes it.



Panama -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 8:49:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I've read that article 20 times and still don't get it.


Total assigned equipment from all units on the map is subtracted from total authorized equipment from all units on the map to get the total equipment needed. This is done for each separate equipment.

Equipment on hand, in the replacement pool at the beginning of the turn, after rate is added in, is divided by equipment requested to get a percentage which is rounded down.

That percentage is multiplied by the equipment requested by each INDIVIUAL unit.

This number is multiplied by replacement priority percentage. That will give you the amount of replacements a unit will get at the beginning of the turn. If this number is less than 1 nothing will be received.

This gives you the number actually received as replacements.

((Equipment in the replacement pool/Equipment requested by all units) * Equipment requested by each unit) * Replacement Priority = Number of units actually received as replacements.

This is done on an individual piece of equipment basis, until all have been covered.



ColinWright -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 9:17:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I've read that article 20 times and still don't get it.


Total assigned equipment from all units on the map is subtracted from total authorized equipment from all units on the map to get the total equipment needed. This is done for each separate equipment.

Equipment on hand, in the replacement pool at the beginning of the turn, after rate is added in, is divided by equipment requested to get a percentage which is rounded down.

That percentage is multiplied by the equipment requested by each INDIVIUAL unit.

This number is multiplied by replacement priority percentage. That will give you the amount of replacements a unit will get at the beginning of the turn. If this number is less than 1 nothing will be received.

This gives you the number actually received as replacements.

((Equipment in the replacement pool/Equipment requested by all units) * Equipment requested by each unit) * Replacement Priority = Number of units actually received as replacements.

This is done on an individual piece of equipment basis, until all have been covered.



One bit missing from this is how it is determined what proportion goes to reconstitute units and what goes to replenish existing units.

Parenthetically, I ran a test with interesting results. It makes no difference what a unit's replacement priority is in determining how soon it's reconstituted or what priority it has with regards to other destroyed units.

If only to drive Panama crazy, let's continue this conversation in mathematical notation.



ColinWright -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 9:25:19 PM)

This, incidentally, does not appear to be accurate:

""If your force is at full strength, replacements will appear in the form of reconstituted previously destroyed units built up from replacement equipment. Reconstituted units are always "untried"..."

I'm not sure about this:

"...These units must be available from the replacement pool AFTER all on-board units have received their allotted replacements from whatever replacements remain..."

Off to test...








ColinWright -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 9:52:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

This, incidentally, does not appear to be accurate:

""If your force is at full strength, replacements will appear in the form of reconstituted previously destroyed units built up from replacement equipment. Reconstituted units are always "untried"..."

I'm not sure about this:

"...These units must be available from the replacement pool AFTER all on-board units have received their allotted replacements from whatever replacements remain..."

Off to test...








Back. It would appear that your force does not need to be at full strength for units to be reconstituted; only current demands must be met.

This is what I set up. Eight units with 50/100 rifle squads. They were in four pairs. The replacement priority the four pairs were set at 'none,' 'low,' 'normal,' and 'very high.' 25 rifle squads get issued per turn.

The first turn, there were 25 rifle squads in the pool and none had been issued. I disbanded one unit from each pair. This should mean that on turn two, there would be 250 squads available to be distributed (two turns of replacements @ 25 squads per turn plus 200 dumped into the pool.)

On turn two, the disbanded unit set to 'no replacements' was scheduled to reappear on turn 9. The surviving members of each pair had received 0, 20, 29, and 50 squads. This was in line with their expected request, and they had got it, but with the exception of the one that had got 50, they certainly weren't at full strength. Also certainly, a unit had been set up to reconstitute.

Since there were 26 squads left in the pool, evidently (250-20-29-50-26) 125 squads had gone somewhere. Only 100 squads could have gone into the unit set to reconstitute, so the program must have done something with 25 squads. Holding onto them to reconstitute another unit as soon as possible?

Off to run it again and for more turns this time.



ColinWright -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 9:58:03 PM)

I just can't read a screen.  25 rifle squads didn't appear on turn 1.  They would have only started appearing on turn 2, and 225 -225=0, and that solves the mystery of the missing squads.

However, units will reconstitute as soon as current demand is met.  The program doesn't wait for all units in play to be completely replenished first.

Note, by the way, that reconstituted units will always have their proficiency set at (original proficiency + force proficiency)/2. This creates some awkward considerations when it comes to setting force proficiency. If you had a force proficiency of 80 and a lot of units with unit proficiencies of 20, the thing to do would be to disband them all as soon as practical and get them back as units with proficiencies of 50.




toawfan -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 11:52:07 PM)

Is there a simpler way to answer this so I understand? If I disband a unit, how soon will it replace? The next turn? And under conditions where there is room for replacements to come in scattered around the map in similar units? Have I got it?



toawfan -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/15/2010 11:58:25 PM)

I have read the manual thoroughly and the forums religiously and have written a bunch of notes for my own "manual" about tips and strategies so I can understand this game better.

Based on what I have learned from a playtest of the new and promising Armageddon scenario (see AARs over on that side of the forum) and the repeated turn burn problems I have experienced, is the following accurate?:

Hidden cheats are possible in some scenarios to exploit an opponent's strategies when it comes to attack planning. It is possible to violate rules mentioned in the manual and on helpful forum pages regarding the battle planner.

Carefully monitoring the battle planner to make sure that no unit attacks in poor health or low proficiency, with insufficient movement points or in any fashion that activates more than one of the turn icons in the planner are rules that generally will work in most scenarios.

However, a setting that does not allow combat rounds to function as usual can lead to the following cheat: You can disrupt an opponent's attack planning if you set just one unit on defense to "ignore losses." Even if you are fighting in a theater as expansive as Europe, North Africa the Mideast and Scandavaian countries, one unit exploiting "ignore losses" can end the turn for an opponent unexpectedly throughout the entire theater.

Despite what the manual and forum entries say about the rules of planning an attack, these conventions can be violated with this exploit. You will have no way of knowing the cause because the battle planner, mouse-over area that shows how much of your turn has been used or how much combat is planned, and the circle of stars showing the same information will not show the problem or the warning.

This will not occur in most scenarios.

The way to check or fix this exploit has to do with a setting in the scenario editor called the MRPB (Maximum Rounds Per Battle), which I'm hoping can be further explained here.

Meanwhile, here are excellent primers for the beginner, including Bob Cross' extensive help about the battle planner.

But again, please note that these rules do not apply and can be exploited as a hidden cheat by an opponent who is wise to the "ignore losses" setting.

Bob Cross primer about combat planning
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2231066

Larry Fulkerson's how-to for beginners
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?89082-A-how-to-for-beginners



Panama -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/16/2010 12:07:16 AM)

Ignore losses in not an 'exploit'. An early ending turn is something that will happen as stated in the manual. There are and never will be guarantees in a battle. Don't know how many ways to say these things. If you want things to go exactly as you have planned them to go you will most certainly be disappointed in TOAW. That's the plain truth of the matter. Not trying to be negative or anything, I like to see people stick around the forums and play the game. The more the merrier. [;)]



ColinWright -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/16/2010 12:13:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

Is there a simpler way to answer this so I understand? If I disband a unit, how soon will it replace? The next turn?


Not the next turn. Replacement weapons never appear as units on the map at all. They are assigned to units already in play, or they are used to reconstitute units that were previously disbanded or otherwise destroyed.

There is no such thing as a 'weapon' that ever appears on the map, anywhere, under any circumstances. There are units that are made up of weapons.



ColinWright -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/16/2010 12:17:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Ignore losses in not an 'exploit'. An early ending turn is something that will happen as stated in the manual. There are and never will be guarantees in a battle. Don't know how many ways to say these things. If you want things to go exactly as you have planned them to go you will most certainly be disappointed in TOAW. That's the plain truth of the matter. Not trying to be negative or anything, I like to see people stick around the forums and play the game. The more the merrier. [;)]


'No plan survives contact with the enemy.'



Panama -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/16/2010 12:19:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I just can't read a screen.  25 rifle squads didn't appear on turn 1.  They would have only started appearing on turn 2, and 225 -225=0, and that solves the mystery of the missing squads.

However, units will reconstitute as soon as current demand is met.  The program doesn't wait for all units in play to be completely replenished first.

Note, by the way, that reconstituted units will always have their proficiency set at (original proficiency + force proficiency)/2. This creates some awkward considerations when it comes to setting force proficiency. If you had a force proficiency of 80 and a lot of units with unit proficiencies of 20, the thing to do would be to disband them all as soon as practical and get them back as units with proficiencies of 50.




Right, current demand is met and then the reconstitution is done as long as 66% of a units first equipment slot are available. If that is met then all equipment is replenished in the reconstitued unit as much as possible up to the maximum. Not sure I like that.

That last can be used to represent reinforcing units made of hastily raised conscripts. The units get killed off and the later units appear as better trained troops.



Panama -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/16/2010 12:24:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

Is there a simpler way to answer this so I understand? If I disband a unit, how soon will it replace? The next turn?


Not the next turn. Replacement weapons never appear as units on the map at all. They are assigned to units already in play, or they are used to reconstitute units that were previously disbanded or otherwise destroyed.

There is no such thing as a 'weapon' that ever appears on the map, anywhere, under any circumstances. There are units that are made up of weapons.



The disbanded unit will be reconstituted as soon as enough equipment in the first equipment slot is available. That's a minimum of 66% of that slot's equipment. The unit will appear as a reinforcement four game weeks after that I believe. How many turns depends of the length of time that constitutes a turn.



ColinWright -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/16/2010 12:24:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan



However, a setting that does not allow combat rounds to function as usual can lead to the following cheat: You can disrupt an opponent's attack planning if you set just one unit on defense to "ignore losses." Even if you are fighting in a theater as expansive as Europe, North Africa the Mideast and Scandavaian countries, one unit exploiting "ignore losses" can end the turn for an opponent unexpectedly throughout the entire theater.


That's true, and that's a flaw in the system.

However, you overlook the fact that the unit may promptly evaporate -- and that if you're playing me, my units will be set to 'minimize losses' and will promptly break off the attack if you don't evaporate.

Should we ever play a match, you're welcome to set whatever units you like to 'ignore losses.' I won't suffer early turn ending, and the thought of the tactic doesn't disturb me at all.

I wouldn't even call it a 'cheat.' As you describe it, the unit is simply functioning as a rear guard.

There are some dubious tactics it's possible to employ. However, this isn't one of them.



toawfan -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/16/2010 12:24:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Ignore losses in not an 'exploit'. An early ending turn is something that will happen as stated in the manual. There are and never will be guarantees in a battle. Don't know how many ways to say these things. If you want things to go exactly as you have planned them to go you will most certainly be disappointed in TOAW. That's the plain truth of the matter. Not trying to be negative or anything, I like to see people stick around the forums and play the game. The more the merrier. [;)]


I don't have any problem with unintended consequences in battle results. What I don't understand is how you can have all of these thorough details and rules about how to plan a battle and then devices to tell you how much of your turn remains -- and then find out that all of this is absolutely irrelevant if the opponent set "ignore losses" on one defending unit.

Are you defending that kind of unexpected result?

Are you saying that many scenarios will have three consecutive turns end on your very first round when you thought you had engaged in only minor battles that should have burned 10 percent of your turn so that you could then make the rest of your moves or attacks?

That doesn't strike you as more than an unfortunate vagary of war?



ColinWright -> RE: answers to some basic questions (12/16/2010 12:26:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Ignore losses in not an 'exploit'. An early ending turn is something that will happen as stated in the manual. There are and never will be guarantees in a battle. Don't know how many ways to say these things. If you want things to go exactly as you have planned them to go you will most certainly be disappointed in TOAW. That's the plain truth of the matter. Not trying to be negative or anything, I like to see people stick around the forums and play the game. The more the merrier. [;)]


I don't have any problem with unintended consequences in battle results. What I don't understand is how you can have all of these thorough details and rules about how to plan a battle and then devices to tell you how much of your turn remains -- and then find out that all of this is absolutely irrelevant if the opponent set "ignore losses" on one defending unit.

Are you defending that kind of unexpected result?





The problem with your reasoning is that the result you anticipate from setting one unit to 'ignore losses' will only occur if your opponent cooperates.


quote:



Are you saying that many scenarios will have three consecutive turns end on your very first round when you thought you had engaged in only minor battles that should have burned 10 percent of your turn so that you could then make the rest of your moves or attacks?

That doesn't strike you as more than an unfortunate vagary of war?


It's an academic question as far as I'm concerned. Nothing like this has ever happened to me.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625