quote:

ORIGINAL: ChuckBerger

Just a question about the game... in observing some of the AARs, it appears that bombardments (artillery, naval, air) are potentially way too powerful. In the desert campaign, in one AAR, it looks like a division plus of entrenched defenders at Tobruk were basically vaporised by bombardment, with the follow-up "assaults" being a mere formality. The only hiccup for the attacking Axis was the Royal Navy, which in retaliation vaporised whole battalions of troops.

It seems in that scenario at least that bombardments are very efficient at destroying troops, and actual attacks by ground troops relatively rare.

Air power also seems far too powerful in a ground attack role, one of the players noted that his movement during some turns was totally locked down by air power, and his ground troops suffering horribly. This is something neither side really was capable of at this stage in the desert war, when air power was mostly about recon and disruption of C&C/supply, not outright destruction of ground forces.

So my question is... is this a common issue throughout TOAW IV scenarios, or is it specific to settings in the Desert War one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pax25

Bombardments are really not that effective. I rarely use them. Instead I leave my artillery units on tactical support so they will engage more targets (however at half stength) and not expend too much. Doing a bunch of bombardments wears your artillery units fast.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChuckBerger

Just a question about the game... in observing some of the AARs, it appears that bombardments (artillery, naval, air) are potentially way too powerful. In the desert campaign, in one AAR, it looks like a division plus of entrenched defenders at Tobruk were basically vaporised by bombardment, with the follow-up "assaults" being a mere formality. The only hiccup for the attacking Axis was the Royal Navy, which in retaliation vaporised whole battalions of troops.

It seems in that scenario at least that bombardments are very efficient at destroying troops, and actual attacks by ground troops relatively rare.

Air power also seems far too powerful in a ground attack role, one of the players noted that his movement during some turns was totally locked down by air power, and his ground troops suffering horribly. This is something neither side really was capable of at this stage in the desert war, when air power was mostly about recon and disruption of C&C/supply, not outright destruction of ground forces.

So my question is... is this a common issue throughout TOAW IV scenarios, or is it specific to settings in the Desert War one?

CFNA has an Attrition Divider of 4 (compared to the default value of 10), so combat is 2.5 times as bloody as normal. This is due to the half-week turn interval. (More time = more blood).

If you bombard long enough, anything will eventually be whittled to zero, and the guys playing CFNA seem to be enamored with bombardment. The Axis player probably spent over 50 turns bombarding Tobruk. I think they'll eventually figure out that artillery is more effective supporting attacks than bombarding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pax25

Bombardments are really not that effective. I rarely use them. Instead I leave my artillery units on tactical support so they will engage more targets (however at half stength) and not expend too much. Doing a bunch of bombardments wears your artillery units fast.

warspite1

You should try CFNA!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pax25

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pax25

Bombardments are really not that effective. I rarely use them. Instead I leave my artillery units on tactical support so they will engage more targets (however at half stength) and not expend too much. Doing a bunch of bombardments wears your artillery units fast.

warspite1

You should try CFNA!

I'm playing devoncop in Tobruk 1941. I imagine it's somewhat similar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: devoncop

Thanks for that sPzAbt653

I was aware of the overstacking issue and to my knowledge I haven't been guilty of it but the 150mm guns info is useful.

Cheers

Ian

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Two points in case you newer guys aren't aware - overstacked hexes will suffer more losses, and 150mm or larger guns have better effect against entrenchment.

quote:

where does the definition of overstacked appear in the manual please?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtropp

I have two related questions that remain unanswered after about an hour searching through the manual.

1. For HQ's, I understand the two symbols that indicate whether it will be an attack or a bombardment. Is there a way for the player to choose which the HQ will initiate? If not, what conditions underlay the simulation's choice?

2. When looking at the unit report for HQ, I do not see any artillery listed. How does it perform ranged attacks?

Thanks,
Richard

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

See post #3 in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4436034

quote:


If its range setting is 0, it will assault. If it is >0, it will bombard. If it is -1 (default) it will assault if less than 50% of its equipment is ranged, bombard if more than that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

See post #3 in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4436034

quote:


If its range setting is 0, it will assault. If it is >0, it will bombard. If it is -1 (default) it will assault if less than 50% of its equipment is ranged, bombard if more than that.

Per part of your answer in your referred to post above.

Is that "dynamic"? (meaning is it reflective of current combat equipment status after losses/replacements?)
Or is it set "permanently" due to its' designed TOE?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido
<cut>
It's set by the player in the unit report (upper right corner). Default is -1, yet the designer can preset another value.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
CFNA has an Attrition Divider of 4 (compared to the default value of 10), so combat is 2.5 times as bloody as normal. This is due to the half-week turn interval. (More time = more blood).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
CFNA has an Attrition Divider of 4 (compared to the default value of 10), so combat is 2.5 times as bloody as normal. This is due to the half-week turn interval. (More time = more blood).

What is the rational for increasing the bloodiness of the combat "due to the half-week turn", especially in light of the "(More time = more blood)" comment. ("half-week" would suggest "less time")

Combat is not scaled by the program for the length of turn like movement is, correct? It's on a "per instance" basis, right?

Is your comment to indicate the default Attrition Divider of 10 is nominally for weekly turns?

Is there systematic manner to approach setting the Attrition Divider? There doesn't seem to be any pattern in established scenarios. You seem to be consistent with CNA, France 1944 and Next War half-week turn scenarios having a divider of 4. However, FITE2 and Dir 21 with half-week turns both use 6. Most scenarios (ranging from 6 hour to full day to weekly,etc) leave it at 10. Red Thunder II is an exception with daily turns and an Attrition Divider of 30.

Any light you could shed would be appreciated.

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido
<cut>
It's set by the player in the unit report (upper right corner). Default is -1, yet the designer can preset another value.

Nice to know [:)]

but I'm still curious about the "dynamic" effect of a -1 setting in regards to a dynamically changing TOE status?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido
<cut>

Oh, ok. I think I've misinterpreted your question. It is dynamic, since it is based on the part of the combat strength that comes from ranged units and combat strength changes with losses and replacement. From the manual:

"Adjacent ranged units may also bombard if they
have more that 50% of their combat strength
coming from ranged equipment or if their range
has been changed from nominal."