Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Simple Question

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Simple Question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Simple Question - 6/9/2006 12:17:34 AM   
CSL

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Manitoba, Canada
Status: offline


The colored dots next to my German units....I assume that denotes an overstacking penalty?
Post #: 1
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 12:24:42 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
Yes. It means that you'd better be prepared to suffer HEAVY casualties from density penalties. You'll also suffer MP cost penalties for other units moving into the hexes, unless you have some form of traffic control in the hex.

(in reply to CSL)
Post #: 2
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 12:26:08 AM   
Nemo69


Posts: 685
Joined: 2/18/2004
From: Nowhere to be seen
Status: offline
You're right, these dots go from absent to red through green, yellow and orange. Overstacking induces penalties for units in the stack. From the manual:

quote:

13.7 target density (advanced rules)
Normal Combat Loss calculations assume target densities
below a certain value based on the physical scale of the
Scenario. In many cases you can exceed this target density by
piling units into a location. This may be the only way to effectively
concentrate for an attack in some Scenarios, but there is a
cost. If you present the other Force with a dense concentration
of equipment, so that he can’t help but hit something with every
shot, you may take excessive losses. Locations with excessive target
densities are indicated on the map by a small colored light in
the west corner of the location. These indicator lights range from
yellow-green to red.
As a rule of thumb, you should avoid piling units into a location
if you see a colored light, as follows:
- No indicator means the target density is at or below the limit
for the Scenario.
- A yellow-green indicator is a caution; the target density limits
have been exceeded, and combat losses are multiplied by 1.0 to
1.4.
- A yellow indicator is a warning; the excessive target density will
result in combat losses being multiplied by 1.4 to 1.7.
- An orange indicator is a strong warning; the excessive target
density will result in combat losses being multiplied by 1.7 to
2.0.
- A red indicator is a very strong warning; the excessive target
density will result in a combat losses being multiplied by at least
2.0.


_____________________________

Fais ce que dois

(in reply to CSL)
Post #: 3
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 12:30:36 AM   
CSL

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Manitoba, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

unless you have some form of traffic control in the hex.


Which units act as traffic control?

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 4
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 12:32:36 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CSL


quote:

unless you have some form of traffic control in the hex.


Which units act as traffic control?


Any units that have Military Police Squads, or Civil Police Squads, as part of their assigned equipment.

(in reply to CSL)
Post #: 5
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 12:36:30 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Military Police squads. Doesn't have to be a dedicated MP unit, just has to have some MP squads.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to CSL)
Post #: 6
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 12:41:45 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Military Police squads. Doesn't have to be a dedicated MP unit, just has to have some MP squads.

Correct. Or Civil Police Squads.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 7
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 6:03:43 AM   
wolflars

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 6/8/2006
Status: offline
quick question on density and the PO.  In the older versions of TOAW the PO never seemed to be too concerned with density and would just stack as much as possible into one hex.  At what point does the PO say this is worth the risk or this is not.  Has this changed?  I understand 'elmer' now understands when he is being flanked so presumably this causes him to spread out more.  Also one thing that used to drive me batty was when the PO disregards formation integrity--I just cant have 4 or 5 differest formations all attacking from one hex when it could have been done otherwise.  Does the PO still do this so blatantly? 

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 8
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 6:17:26 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wolflars

quick question on density and the PO.  In the older versions of TOAW the PO never seemed to be too concerned with density and would just stack as much as possible into one hex.  At what point does the PO say this is worth the risk or this is not.  Has this changed?  I understand 'elmer' now understands when he is being flanked so presumably this causes him to spread out more.  Also one thing that used to drive me batty was when the PO disregards formation integrity--I just cant have 4 or 5 differest formations all attacking from one hex when it could have been done otherwise.  Does the PO still do this so blatantly? 

The PO is much better at avoiding "overstacking" in TOAW III.

A quick word on formation integrity, from a player's standpoint, is that, in most cases, it is not really the bugaboo that many assume it to be.

(in reply to wolflars)
Post #: 9
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 6:30:14 AM   
Chuck2


Posts: 830
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: wolflars

quick question on density and the PO. In the older versions of TOAW the PO never seemed to be too concerned with density and would just stack as much as possible into one hex. At what point does the PO say this is worth the risk or this is not. Has this changed? I understand 'elmer' now understands when he is being flanked so presumably this causes him to spread out more. Also one thing that used to drive me batty was when the PO disregards formation integrity--I just cant have 4 or 5 differest formations all attacking from one hex when it could have been done otherwise. Does the PO still do this so blatantly?

The PO is much better at avoiding "overstacking" in TOAW III.

A quick word on formation integrity, from a player's standpoint, is that, in most cases, it is not really the bugaboo that many assume it to be.


That's a problem. Though this can be allayed somewhat by setting formations on internal support.

_____________________________


(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 10
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 6:35:42 AM   
Temple

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 7/31/2002
Status: offline
Just played a quick scenario of Nomonhan 39 as the Japanese, one I had recently played on TOAW-COW. Holy smokes, the PO certainly knows how to kick butt! I did wear him down, but boy it was surprising how well he attacked.

(in reply to Chuck2)
Post #: 11
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 5:08:59 PM   
dennisb55

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
A quick word on formation integrity, from a player's standpoint, is that, in most cases, it is not really the bugaboo that many assume it to be.


WHAT??? For years and years a tremendous amount of manualspace has been devoted to instilling this aspect into computer wargaming. Now you say it isn't so!!!! It's back to the beginning. Or are you saying the penalities may be worth taking in many cases?

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 12
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 5:19:12 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dennisb55

WHAT??? For years and years a tremendous amount of manualspace has been devoted to instilling this aspect into computer wargaming. Now you say it isn't so!!!! It's back to the beginning. Or are you saying the penalities may be worth taking in many cases?


It's all about co-operation levels. If all the units from the different formations have full co-operation then there is no penalty whatsoever to mixing them up. Increasingly, designers are assigning different icon colours to HQs and artillery so that co-operation with these key units is not so easy.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to dennisb55)
Post #: 13
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 5:24:37 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I'm really impressed with the TOAW III PO. Having gotten used to the very overburdened AI in WitP, this certainly makes a change...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to CSL)
Post #: 14
RE: Simple Question - 6/9/2006 5:42:40 PM   
dennisb55

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
It's all about co-operation levels. If all the units from the different formations have full co-operation then there is no penalty whatsoever to mixing them up. Increasingly, designers are assigning different icon colours to HQs and artillery so that co-operation with these key units is not so easy.


I understand the coop, but I don't think this is what Jamiam was referring to. If so, then I withdraw my message.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Simple Question Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.941