Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (Full Version)

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



Message

robryl -> Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/15/2011 10:46:22 PM)

I haven been playing TOAW since the first relese of the game and have notices (or just belives) a major change in the strength of defending units after the latest update. Currently playing two e-mail games(Road to Moscow II Smolensk and Götterdammung 44-45) and have real trouble making my attacks counts in both. Assembling forces that "used to do the job" isent just enough anymoore. Attacking surrounded Russian divisions in Smolensk, with several fresh German infantery divisions supported by panzers, artillery and air will just inflickt russian losses of approx 10 squads, while i losses several hundreds. The same happends playing as allied in Götterdamung, I attack with thousands of riflesquads, tanks and massive arty support against weak german (even allies) and lose up to half my strengt without being able to break the defense (most often the defender only loses about 10-15 rifle squads)
After experience this "problems" i decided to try a scenario a played before the update to se if the result was different. Playing as German against the AI in "Italian campaign 43-45" I was able to stop the AI south of Salerna without even bringing in my costal defence units (as Pz Div HG and a PzGren Div). After 10 turns the allied offensive had totaly broken down and the AI had lost 10 VP due to losses. When I played this before the update i never was able to halt the AI but temporaly, and I realy had to struggle to plug the holes in my lines (i even wasent able to make any longer delay at Cassino)
So my questions is:
1. Is the defense stronger after the update, or are I just playing it bad?
2. It also appears as if the flank attacks is less effectiv now, is it so



Oberst_Klink -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/15/2011 10:55:54 PM)

Kaiser Karl,

send me a .SAL file and I'll have a look at it *from the RTM series, please*. The latest sitrep, as well as the toaw_log.txt would be helpful, too.

Regards,

Klink, Oberst



ogar -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/15/2011 11:43:33 PM)

Carolus,

Given my play record, I aint touching that "or am I just playing bad ?" option.

But as far as flank attacks -- in 3.4.202, there is a penalty for attacking from more than 2 hexes into 1 target hex. I am not sure on this, but I believe, that complexity penalties are tougher, as well. And those complexity penalties (number of units, which formations, densities, etc.) are tougher at TOAW III than in earlier versions (I'm not sure what you're referring back to for earlier games.)

3.4.202 also toughened the attack calculation -- I do not think that applies here as that was mostly against ant attacks, but... It would not hurt to re-re-re-read that What's New doc in light of your games.

I don't think this impacts things in your games, but 3.4.202 did fix cooperation -- actually Ralph made cooperation work for the first time, despite what the documentation always stated. So attacking with units that do not enjoy full cooperation will burn your turn and will impede your attack strengths. (No more mixing the Poles, Indians, British and Canadians into an unstoppable force in Rimini !)

Klink's suggestion of running a toawlog on a game vs PO (for part of a turn) is great. If you can mimic an attack that failed and log it, you can trace what actually is going into the attack.

Oh, yeah ! Are you playing with New Supply rules ? with New Turn Order rules ? I'm guessing that is so, but let us know.



robryl -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/16/2011 6:04:23 PM)

I guess that I have to take more acount on cooperation levels, that might be on of my problems. I must admit that I dont use the planner for my attacks, merely going on old instincts what should be able to do or not.
Is that so that there is a penalty in attacking from to many hexes? I am alway trying to outflank the opponent and attack from att least 3 directions.

I will send files to Oberst_Klink, I have never studied the sitrep log before, how come that no tanks is displayed in it?
And by the way I use new supply and turn end rules

Kung Karl




Oberst_Klink -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/16/2011 7:04:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Carolus Rex

I guess that I have to take more acount on cooperation levels, that might be on of my problems. I must admit that I dont use the planner for my attacks, merely going on old instincts what should be able to do or not.
Is that so that there is a penalty in attacking from to many hexes? I am alway trying to outflank the opponent and attack from att least 3 directions.

I will send files to Oberst_Klink, I have never studied the sitrep log before, how come that no tanks is displayed in it?
And by the way I use new supply and turn end rules

Kung Karl



What do you mean no tanks? That would be more than odd. Have a look at an example attached.

Klink, Oberst



robryl -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/16/2011 7:35:00 PM)

There just are no tanks in the log files
In my example here i was attacking with two Russian Tank corps and one Rifle corps, total attack value 55+31 (all tree about 70% prof, 100% readines, 100% supply. There should bee around 500 tanks in the units. Attacking a German Stug Bde and a Engr regt in defence mode open snowy terrain, defence strengt 3. This is the result in the log (also tries to upload whole file):
Allied units Turn 31 Battle at 126,62
Axis units approximate equipment and personnel losses - 0%
Allied units approximate equipment and personnel losses - 3%
Attackers
1/ 7 Mounted Rifle Squad (Late) Replacements are available.
0/ 18 Motorcycle Squad Replacements are available.
23/653 Rifle Squad Replacements are available.
3/224 SMG Squad Replacements are available.
13/246 Medium MG Replacements are available.
0/ 53 Heavy MG Replacements are available.
19/520 AT Rifle Replacements are available.
4/119 45mm AT Gun Replacements are available.
0/ 55 57mm / 6 Pounder AT Gun Replacements are available.
0/ 24 70mm Light Gun Replacements are available.
7/127 76mm Gun Replacements are available.
1/ 35 122mm Gun Replacements are available.
2/ 90 50mm Mortar Replacements are available.
9/263 82mm Mortar Replacements are available.
7/139 120mm Mortar Replacements are available.
0/ 16 132mm Katyusha SPMRL Replacements are available.
2/ 66 Truck SPAAMG Replacements are available.
Defenders
0/ 8 Heavy Rifle AT Squad Replacements are available.
0/ 53 Engineer Squad Replacements are available.
0/ 22 Ferry-Bridging Team Replacements are available.
0/ 3 Truck 37mm SPAAG Replacements are available.
0/ 2 Light Scout Car Replacements are available.
0/ 54 Truck Replacements are available.
0/ 21 Sturmgeschütz III42 Replacements are available.
0/ 9 Sturmhaubitze 42 Replacements are available.
0/ 5 Sturmgeschütz IV Replacements are available.

You can se why I am a bit frustrated!



Oberst_Klink -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/16/2011 7:46:03 PM)

OK Kamerad Schwede...

send me the RTM .SAL. Just rename it to a .TXT and upload it here. The Oberst will have a close look at it.

Klink, Oberst



sapper32 -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/16/2011 7:46:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


quote:

ORIGINAL: Carolus Rex

I guess that I have to take more acount on cooperation levels, that might be on of my problems. I must admit that I dont use the planner for my attacks, merely going on old instincts what should be able to do or not.
Is that so that there is a penalty in attacking from to many hexes? I am alway trying to outflank the opponent and attack from att least 3 directions.

I agree with you,Im also playing Gotterdamerung and im having a real hard time losses as the allies/soviets have being terrible,Also Europe Aflame is now harder for the attacker you have to be realy carfull of turn burn the Germans do cooperate well so thats not the issue readiness falls quickly also,under the old patch i knew what i needed to break through and how much time it would take it very different now.










Telumar -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/16/2011 9:53:34 PM)

Re Defensive Bonus: Recognized that in my EA game when we switched to 3.4. Attacking Soviet fortified Infantry with Panzer Korps and such.. made no headway against an infantry only line in front of Brest Litovsk for several turns..

In Anzio i alleviated the 'situation' by setting the entrenchment rate to 70%. This makes it harder for units to reach F, meaning they usually need more than three rounds for it. In Anzio such a setting could be justified with the local ground conditions. But elsewhere?

As a general rule: Artillery helps. A lot more than before the 3.4 patch. In some games, especially the early going of EA, this is hard to come by though..


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ogar
But as far as flank attacks -- in 3.4.202, there is a penalty for attacking from more than 2 hexes into 1 target hex. I am not sure on this, but I believe, that complexity penalties are tougher, as well. And those complexity penalties (number of units, which formations, densities, etc.) are tougher at TOAW III than in earlier versions (I'm not sure what you're referring back to for earlier games.)


There is no such penalty. But maybe you refer to the change to flanking attacks in 3.2.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Carolus Rex
There just are no tanks in the log files
In my example here i was attacking with two Russian Tank corps and one Rifle corps, total attack value 55+31 (all tree about 70% prof, 100% readines, 100% supply. There should bee around 500 tanks in the units. Attacking a German Stug Bde and a Engr regt in defence mode open snowy terrain, defence strengt 3. This is the result in the log


??

I think we're getting close to that issue.

Here is an excerpt of a sitrep.log from RTM - Crossing the border. I attacked a Soviet Rifle Division with a PzRegt:

German Turn 1 Battle at 16,30
German LUFTFLOTTE 2    , SKG 210 Bf110 supports the attack.
German LUFTFLOTTE 2    , KG53 He111 supports the attack.
German 18.Panzer Div, 27.Panzer Rgt attacks.
Soviet 28 Corps 3 Army, 49th Rifle Div defends.
German XLIII.Korps, 131.Inf Div supports the attack.
German XLIII.Korps, 134.Inf Div supports the attack.
Soviet 28 Corps 3 Army, 49th Rifle Div retreats.
German advance on location 16,30.
German approximate equipment and personnel losses - 0%
Soviet approximate equipment and personnel losses - 26%
Attackers
    1/ 14 Motorcycle Squad Replacements are available.
    0/  8 Engineer Squad Replacements are available.
    0/ 11 105mm Howitzer Replacements are available.
    0/  7 150mm Howitzer Replacements are available.
    0/  3 Truck 20mm SPAAG Replacements are available.
    0/  2 Quad 20mm SPAAG No replacements are available.
    0/ 24 Tracked 20mm SPAAG No replacements are available.
    0/ 12 SdKfz 222 Replacements are available.
    0/  5 SdKfz 221 Replacements are available.
    0/  5 SdKfz 231-8 Replacements are available.
    0/ 22 Truck Replacements are available.
    1/ 19 Tracked tractor Replacements are available.
    0/  9 SdKfz 251/1 Replacements are available.
    0/ 10 PzKpfw I No replacements are available.
    0/ 11 PzKpfw IIB No replacements are available.
    0/ 48 PzKpfw IIF Replacements are available.
    1/ 99 PzKpfw IIID Replacements are available.
Defenders
   89/221 Rifle Squad Replacements are available.
    7/ 20 Engineer Squad Replacements are available.
    6/ 52 Medium MG Replacements are available.
    0/  5 Heavy MG Replacements are available.
    0/ 10 45mm AT Gun Replacements are available.
    3/ 15 76mm Gun Replacements are available.
    0/  4 122mm Howitzer Replacements are available.
    3/ 38 50mm Mortar Replacements are available.
    1/ 10 82mm Mortar Replacements are available.
    0/  4 120mm Mortar Replacements are available.
    0/ 12 Quad AAMG Replacements are available.
    0/  4 37mm AA Gun Replacements are available.
    0/  3 76mm AA Gun Replacements are available.
    1/  8 Horse Team Replacements are available.
    0/  5 Truck Replacements are available.

Same scenario, a combined attack with one German Inf Div and one PzRegt against Brest. See the PzRegt listed as attacking, but no tanks, or other items from its TOE, listed under attackers.

German Turn 2 Battle at 20,33 (BREST)
German LUFTFLOTTE 2    , KG53 He111 supports the attack.
German LUFTFLOTTE 2    , JG51 Bf109 supports the attack.
Soviet VVS W.Front, 11 Composite Air supports the defense.
German LUFTFLOTTE 2    , JG53 Bf109 supports the attack.
Soviet VVS W.Front, 12 Bomber Div supports the defense.
German LUFTFLOTTE 2    , JG27 Bf109 supports the attack.
Soviet 28 Corps 3 Army, Corps Art Rgt supports the defense.
Soviet Brest Fortress, Fortress defends.
German 18.Panzer Div, 27.Panzer Rgt attacks.
German XII.Korps, 31.Inf Div attacks.
Soviet Brest Fortress, 17th Banner Bde defends.
Soviet 28 Corps 3 Army, 2nd/49th Rifle defends.
Soviet Brest Fortress, 6th Rifle Div defends.
German XII.Korps, 31.Inf Div breaks off attack.
Soviet Brest Fortress, 3rd/17th Banner retreats.
Soviet Brest Fortress, 2nd/17th Banner retreats.
Soviet Brest Fortress, 1st/17th Banner retreats.
Soviet 28 Corps 3 Army, 2nd/49th Rifle retreats.
BREST has been reduced to ruins.
German continue attack.
German continue attack.
Soviet Brest Fortress, Fortress evaporates.
Soviet successfully defend location 20,33 (BREST).
German approximate equipment and personnel losses - 5%
Soviet approximate equipment and personnel losses - 31%
Attackers
    5/ 29 Motorcycle Squad Replacements are available.
   17/319 Heavy Rifle Squad Replacements are available.
    2/ 26 Reconnaissance Rifle Team Replacements are available.
    6/ 35 Engineer Squad Replacements are available.
    0/  8 Ferry-Bridging Team Replacements are available.
    4/ 91 Medium MG Replacements are available.
    3/ 68 37mm AT Gun Replacements are available.
    1/ 16 75mm Howitzer Replacements are available.
    8/ 45 105mm Howitzer Replacements are available.
    2/  4 105mm Gun Replacements are available.
    1/ 21 150mm Howitzer Replacements are available.
    0/  6 150mm Gun Replacements are available.
    4/ 69 50mm Mortar Replacements are available.
    3/ 57 81mm Mortar Replacements are available.
    3/  3 Truck 20mm SPAAG Replacements are available.
    1/ 10 20mm AA Gun Replacements are available.
    1/  2 Quad 20mm SPAAG No replacements are available.
Defenders
   78/471 Rifle Squad Replacements are available.
   37/ 72 SMG Squad Replacements are available.
    8/ 31 Engineer Squad Replacements are available.
   59/220 Medium MG Replacements are available.
    1/ 11 Heavy MG Replacements are available.
   21/ 42 AT Rifle Replacements are available.
   18/ 49 45mm AT Gun Replacements are available.
   20/ 61 76mm Gun Replacements are available.
    1/  8 122mm Howitzer Replacements are available.
    8/  8 122mm Gun Replacements are available.
   24/ 24 240mm Howitzer Replacements are available.
    9/ 75 50mm Mortar Replacements are available.
    1/ 21 82mm Mortar Replacements are available.
    1/  7 120mm Mortar Replacements are available.
    2/ 19 Quad AAMG Replacements are available.
    0/  6 37mm AA Gun Replacements are available.
    1/  5 76mm AA Gun Replacements are available.

_____________________________________________

I would think this is an issue with the sitrep feature only as the tanks were listed in the in-game detailed combat report and in toaw.log. They did paicipate, the sitrep just fails to list them. Excerpt from toaw.log - same battle:

Combat   :      Smite: German 18.Panzer Div, 27.Panzer Rgt, (anti-armor), attrition%= 11.
Combat   :    Soviet weapons firing on German PzKpfw IIID.
ATCombat :        120mm Mortar current terrain/lighting/weather dependent accuracy: 10%.
ATCombat :          PzKpfw IIID target cross section bias: 97%.
ATCombat :        120mm Mortar current effective accuracy vs. PzKpfw IIID: 9%.
ATCombat :      No hit on German PzKpfw IIID by Soviet 120mm Mortar. (shot missed)
ATCombat :        76mm AA Gun current terrain/lighting/weather dependent accuracy: 10%.
ATCombat :          PzKpfw IIID target cross section bias: 97%.
ATCombat :        76mm AA Gun current effective accuracy vs. PzKpfw IIID: 9%.
ATCombat :      No hit on German PzKpfw IIID by Soviet 76mm AA Gun. (shot missed)



robryl -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/16/2011 11:36:43 PM)

Checking my Götterdamung file I realized that its not the cooperation level that is the issue, the russians are on Army support and no penalties should apply (in the acctual battle shown in my last post) Checking the participating Tank Corps I realize that they did take part in the battle losing approx 50 tanks, one corps losing 2/3 of its infantery, and readiness down to 33%.

It also feels a bit strange to se Telumars log files, I would love to have those results in my battles on RTM. When playing those scenarios against the AI it "felt much better" and I managed to get OV victories in most RTM scenarios, but when facing a human oponent who doesent "mess around" with the units and (presumably) setts ignore losses and fortifies units in time, its a completely different buissines.

So the major question still remains, what makes the defense so much toughter! For me this new surprise unfortunately makes TOAW feels like a WW I simulation, where you cant be succesfull against a defending enemy even if you concentrate your best units aginst the opponents weaker spots.
I must admitt that my frustration is killing my joy of playing the game, after more then 10 years and thousands of hours.
(the RTM sal file is to lrge to be uploaded here so I try on his personal mail)



Telumar -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/16/2011 11:43:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Carolus Rex

So the major question still remains, what makes the defense so much toughter!


This:

[image]local://upfiles/19263/39D577C295004DB8A272CA50513EE095.jpg[/image]



Oberst_Klink -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/16/2011 11:50:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Carolus Rex

So the major question still remains, what makes the defense so much toughter!


This:

[image]local://upfiles/19263/39D577C295004DB8A272CA50513EE095.jpg[/image]

Der Meister ist da :) Well, I'll have a look at the file anyway AND send the lad the latest version of RTM, thanks to my good connections to RK, the master of RTM himself.

Klink, Oberst



Panama -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/17/2011 12:00:21 AM)

I believe if version 3.4 and after is approached as earlier versions people will find many of the things they used to take for granted will no longer apply. Some things have to be relearned. IMO the game is a bit more grognardy. That is a good thing except for people who are used to the old versions and the ways they learned to play the game under the old conditions. So getting into the game after an away period will require a new learning experience, just as when you first opened the older versions.

Rather than giving up on the game approach it as you would a game you've never played before.



robryl -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/17/2011 12:25:03 AM)

Ok I see, so it isent one infantery division I have been fighting against but almost nine.

But I must say as we do around here " it was better before" Now with this rules the game favors the defender to much and dont give any credit to mobile warefare. I am curently reading the german handbock from the twenties "Truppenfurung". And I dont think that the germans fully agreed to Matrix view on defence vs attack, and I think that the result in France 1940 proved them right.

So my opinions is that this new formulas will kill the game.. No manuevers just static defence and attrition



Oberst_Klink -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/17/2011 12:31:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Carolus Rex

Ok I see, so it isent one infantery division I have been fighting against but almost nine.

But I must say as we do around here " it was better before" Now with this rules the game favors the defender to much and dont give any credit to mobile warefare. I am curently reading the german handbock from the twenties "Truppenfurung". And I dont think that the germans fully agreed to Matrix view on defence vs attack, and I think that the result in France 1940 proved them right.

So my opinions is that this new formulas will kill the game.. No manuevers just static defence and attrition

Nein, it ain't killing it. Just think about the Battle of Monte Casino; that was more or less WW1 style slaughter? If you want to experience and see mobile and static warfare in action; let's start a PBEM of Last Stand in Africa and you'll see what I mean. Trust me Kamerad. Or let me be Guderian in RTM - Smolensk v2.0. I'd avoid Mogilev and Orsha completely...

Klink, Oberst



ogar -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/17/2011 12:46:21 AM)

Carolus,

Apologies for saying there was a complexity penalty under 3.4 when I was too lazy to check the documentation before typing. And I was throwing out possibilities for you to check earlier (as opposed to diagnosing a specific solution from thousands of miles away).

I think you might be confusing the sitreps -- what you are posting -- and which are toggled on/off from the menu with the toawlog -- which was in one of Telumar's posts. As far as I know, toawlogs cannot be run during a PBEM (and even if they could, they should not be run in PBEM.) But you can run them against the PO -- and they are great for analysis.

If you run toawlog, understand that it generates a LOT of detail -- so it may be best to only run it when you play out one battle or even one round before stopping.

There is only one toawlog file -- it's under your main Operational Art of War directory. So you have to manually check that file and save it under a different name EVERY TIME you use toawlog with TOAW. Else your log is overwritten.

The HELP document inside TOAW has more on setting up toawlog. There are some differences in how the command line is constructed -- depends on your Windows version. For instance, I have 2 shortcuts to TOAW -- one without log, one with. The one with toawlog has "toawlog" with quotes added to the target line of the shortcut. But this is because I am a dinosaur running XP; I _think_ in later versions you enclose the word toawlog inside the quoted target for your shortcut. It took me a few tries to get mine set up and working; hence the separate shortcuts.

Hope this helps -- pester me for more clarity.

One of things players have commented on for a while is the need to think carefully about playing older scenarios under 3.4 -- whether to use the New Supply Rules and/or New Turn Order as well as the impact 3.4 has on what was developed for 3.2 or maybe 3.0 or even COW.

I'll echo Sapper and Panama -- and they are both much more experienced players than I. There is a learning curve. TOAW 3.4 is new -- even to veterans.
My 2 cents -- I learned under 3.2, but even last summer I loaded the beta because I could see the differences in the beta AARs - and it still took me a long time to learn how to play well under 3.4.



sapper32 -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/17/2011 4:08:06 PM)

Ive got my head around EA under the 3.4 patch but i belive the weather is causing me more problems than anything at the moment in Gotterdamerung if you have too many artillery rounds it leaves you with not enough mp's to make attacks,if you dont have enough artillery rounds your attacks are suicide so roll on the good weather,What turn are you on??Things should get a bit easier my game is like the western front in WWI at the moment although the Axis casualties are mounting aswell.



Telumar -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/17/2011 10:55:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sapper32

Ive got my head around EA under the 3.4 patch but i belive the weather is causing me more problems than anything at the moment in Gotterdamerung if you have too many artillery rounds it leaves you with not enough mp's to make attacks,if you dont have enough artillery rounds your attacks are suicide so roll on the good weather,What turn are you on??Things should get a bit easier my game is like the western front in WWI at the moment although the Axis casualties are mounting aswell.


About artillery rounds in EA: This depends. When Sevastopol was under siege with a fortified (F) Soviet garrison I shelled the defenders several turns until i finally managed to unentrench them. The following attack succeeded without too many losses for my Axis attackers. When trying to break through a line, or in any non-siege situation against fortified units, i usually shell the unit one, two or three combat rounds. If i'm lucky i can unentrench them. If i can't i often order the attack despite, but with the artillery unit directly assigned, plus in most cases air support. The Stukas (Ju-87) are fine for supporting attacks against tank heavy units. I don't attack fortified units without artillery support. But don't tell Dierk..[:D].. The problems start when i try to breach a line in depth, this can't be achieved in one round. I'm at the point where i have to carefully watch my losses in the infantry department. Entrenched Soviets are tough, too. But unless it's not a Mech or a Tank Corps i, depending on situation, attack without artillery. Defending units are not a problem. Beware entrenched and fortified Mech and Tank Corps, apart from inflicting insane losses, they're real turn burners. If you be carefull with these you can get enough combat rounds due to the positive shock in the first half of the scenario. For me, there were not many situations where i ran "out of combat rounds" for ground attacks.

EDIT: I don't know about EA "mechanics" before 3.4. But i can imagine that it was easier to roll over a Soviet front on the length of it during Barbarossa or in 42. With 3.4 breakthroughs (in one spot) get more emphasized. I too have the impression that i get more RBCs against weak(ened) enemy units in 3.4 than before.

These are my experiences with 3.4 and EA. Until now. Most can be applied to other scearios.



ColinWright -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/18/2011 12:48:22 AM)

Interesting discussion.

I don't have anything earth shattering to say, but I will make the following observations.

First, there wasn't necessarily anything particularly 'right' about TOAW before 3.4. In fact, I always felt it tended to somewhat excessively favor the attack. Assemble the requisite artillery and troops, and bingo -- objective taken. That wasn't the way it necessarily went in real life.

Second, I have played with the 'new' rules, and at least going by Agonia y Victoria, the results seemed alright. I wasn't able to just blast a path through the Republicans, but then, I shouldn't have been able to.

Third, some scenarios may indeed have to be redesigned, but that may be as it should be. If a German panzer regiment should be able to knock back a Russian infantry division, and this no longer happens, that may suggest that the Russian infantry division was wildly overrated in terms of equipment and proficiency in the first place.

Fourth, cooperation penalties have indeed increased -- perhaps excessively. In Agonia y Victoria, if I was able to create a stack containing uncooperative Republican units, they were dead men. Even if I could only muster 'attacks weakly' that would suffice to drive them out of the hex/vaporize them completely. This effect may be a bit excessive, as the defender will find it hard to prevent uncooperative units from winding up in the same hex as a result of retreat or units going into reorganization.

Perhaps it would be better if in the event of a stack containing uncooperative units become involved in combat, the weaker element would simply fail to participate in the combat if it was an attack or promptly attempt to retreat if it was a matter of defending? This would at least leave part of the troops to attempt a reasonable attack or defence. This effect could even be a designer-set probability event, so that -- say -- as the Germans in an Eastern Front scenario, you could try holding a hex with mingled Rumanians and Hungarians, knowing there was a pretty good chance of some bloody nonsense transpiring and part of the force simply retreating before combat, or in North Africa, you could put in a mixed German-Italian attack -- knowing that the Italians might simply fail to leave the start line.



1_Lzard -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/18/2011 5:56:39 AM)

As far as it goes, designers should now note in thier intros whether they think the 'new bits' should be used. It's obvious that some parts completely overwhelm the designer's intent and shouldn't be, eh?

It's easy enough to figure out which ones are usable to run a given scenario......look at the intro and if it's not noted that the scenario was written for 3.4, don't turn on the new bits. Simple. There's a new patch coming out and everything about it will only be worse unless designers get with the noting........

Hate to say it, but +1 to Colin........



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/18/2011 3:40:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Perhaps it would be better if in the event of a stack containing uncooperative units become involved in combat, the weaker element would simply fail to participate in the combat if it was an attack or promptly attempt to retreat if it was a matter of defending? This would at least leave part of the troops to attempt a reasonable attack or defence. This effect could even be a designer-set probability event, so that -- say -- as the Germans in an Eastern Front scenario, you could try holding a hex with mingled Rumanians and Hungarians, knowing there was a pretty good chance of some bloody nonsense transpiring and part of the force simply retreating before combat, or in North Africa, you could put in a mixed German-Italian attack -- knowing that the Italians might simply fail to leave the start line.


I agree that there is an issue. The problem is that it's going to require an enormous amount of sophistication to determine which units are the cooperative ones and which are the uncooperative ones. Or even to determine which units are the strong ones and which are the weak ones. A simpler solution would be to just ignore cooperation effects of retreated units.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/18/2011 3:53:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard

It's obvious that some parts completely overwhelm the designer's intent and shouldn't be, eh?


Obvious? I remain a sceptic. I just re-ran a PO vs. PO test of my "Germany 1945" scenario and the Allies (the attackers) won ahead of schedule. Most previous tests had been draws. Now human defenders may be doing something the PO isn't, of course. But that still runs counter to this thread's thesis that there has been a huge shift in favor of the defender.

The changes to the combat model in 3.4 were incremental, not order-of-magnitude (assuming they work as designed). The maximum increase in defense strength due to the combining of deployment and terrain is 41%. The maximum cooperation penalty is 33%.

The one area where there was a dramatic revision was in the use of ant units. Players used to attacking with a trivial unit supported by enormous ranged support will indeed see a huge change. But that's a good thing.



Panama -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/18/2011 5:13:24 PM)

IMO it is a sad thing that cooperation is determined by a set in stone game engine code.



robryl -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/18/2011 5:41:34 PM)

I realy dident notice any changes when playing against the PO, played all RTM scenarios and had no majord difficulties as the attacker, when trying them as defender I succeden in stopping the attacking PO quickly and then got boared and ended the games. I saw nothing strange in this, but was just pleased of my good defence skills. It was when playing e-mail games that the troubles started, I assume that my opponent uses ignore losses all the time and keeps his forces dug in. Posting a picture of one ordinary attack from Götterdamung, beeing a flank attack with fully rested forces (exept arty which are at 50% supply after trying to "dig up" the enemy) against two german reg. The probability of succes is very low. How come? When brining in more units to the attack the density penalties rises dramaticly and the succes rate almost never changes from very low.
I also becomes confused that somtimes when i am going to attack, the same kind of targets that givs me this heavy losses, it instead retreats before combat.



ColinWright -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/18/2011 7:37:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Perhaps it would be better if in the event of a stack containing uncooperative units become involved in combat, the weaker element would simply fail to participate in the combat if it was an attack or promptly attempt to retreat if it was a matter of defending? This would at least leave part of the troops to attempt a reasonable attack or defence. This effect could even be a designer-set probability event, so that -- say -- as the Germans in an Eastern Front scenario, you could try holding a hex with mingled Rumanians and Hungarians, knowing there was a pretty good chance of some bloody nonsense transpiring and part of the force simply retreating before combat, or in North Africa, you could put in a mixed German-Italian attack -- knowing that the Italians might simply fail to leave the start line.


I agree that there is an issue. The problem is that it's going to require an enormous amount of sophistication to determine which units are the cooperative ones and which are the uncooperative ones. Or even to determine which units are the strong ones and which are the weak ones. A simpler solution would be to just ignore cooperation effects of retreated units.


Well, there are also units in re-org. In AyV, my opponent might have a subdivided 1-1 left in a hex with that orange band. In that scenario, it's entirely possible all of the units capable of reinforcing the hex are uncooperative. So now the defender has no choice but to abandon the hex.

Maybe retreat a bit on the dire effects non-cooperation has now acquired. Alternatively, one might want to look at permitting reorganizing units to be disbanded.

Don't suppose the effect itself could be made designer scalable?

As it is, one needs to think carefully about having any ground units that are uncooperative with other ground units. Bad things will happen if they both wind up in the same hex and the enemy attacks.



ColinWright -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/18/2011 7:40:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

IMO it is a sad thing that cooperation is determined by a set in stone game engine code.


Well, note that the designer determines how cooperative units will be. So it's not 'set in stone.'

However, the dire effects of lack of cooperation are a bit much for most situations, and if the effect could be scaled, it would give us another tool.



ColinWright -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/18/2011 7:47:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard

There's a new patch coming out and everything about it will only be worse unless designers get with the noting....


This time, can some effort be made to advertise and define the proposed changes before the release?

As seen, not doing so does nothing to abate the ****storm. On the other hand, it's a lot easier to placate the critics (read 'me')/at least allow them to feel they've had a chance to comment rather than just being confronted with a fait accompli. Given the timeline on these things, it's also handy if one has a good idea of precisely what is going to change as one works on designs. It's hell to discover the 'feature' one has been exploiting is about to be defined as a 'bug' and whisked away.



1_Lzard -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/18/2011 8:02:26 PM)

Sorry, Colin........still have the NDA.....still can't talk!




1_Lzard -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/18/2011 8:14:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard

It's obvious that some parts completely overwhelm the designer's intent and shouldn't be, eh?


Obvious? I remain a sceptic. I just re-ran a PO vs. PO test of my "Germany 1945" scenario and the Allies (the attackers) won ahead of schedule. Most previous tests had been draws. Now human defenders may be doing something the PO isn't, of course. But that still runs counter to this thread's thesis that there has been a huge shift in favor of the defender.

The changes to the combat model in 3.4 were incremental, not order-of-magnitude (assuming they work as designed). The maximum increase in defense strength due to the combining of deployment and terrain is 41%. The maximum cooperation penalty is 33%.

The one area where there was a dramatic revision was in the use of ant units. Players used to attacking with a trivial unit supported by enormous ranged support will indeed see a huge change. But that's a good thing.


LOL! Considering your the 'oldest' playtester amoung us, Bob, I wouldn't expect anything from a patch to overwhelm YOU..........I 'could' see some of the details being missed by a 'new' designer, though. What I was really talking about is the use of 3.4 and later bits being used to run the 'Classic' scenarios and any developed by a new designer.





Panama -> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch (8/18/2011 9:39:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

IMO it is a sad thing that cooperation is determined by a set in stone game engine code.


Well, note that the designer determines how cooperative units will be. So it's not 'set in stone.'

However, the dire effects of lack of cooperation are a bit much for most situations, and if the effect could be scaled, it would give us another tool.



It most certainly is. There is only so much you can do without making everyone free to support anyone. The limitations of support are an impediment to scenario design. The paths are few.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.282227