Two engine questions

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Two engine questions

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 >> Two engine questions

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Two engine questions - 10/18/2010 2:00:57 AM

bevilacqua

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/5/2010
Status: offline

1. I always wondered if it is worth using minimise losses setting when defending. The logic of it, as far as I understand, is to spare equipment, supply etc. But since a unit that retreats must go through a disengagement check and with minimise losses the chance of retreating is greater, is it a good idea to use defending units with that setting.
I thought it could be used to simulate a unit that retreats orderly while presenting some resistance to enemy units attacks, but very frequently the disengagement check seems to send units into a reorganization state.

2. Is there any cumulative increase on the chances of repairing a bridge after multiple attempts? It is frustrating to have 4 or more engineering units with 13 or 14 percent chance of repairing a bridge for more than 4 turns in sequence without moving and not having the bridge repaired. Does the chance increase with number of tries?

Post #: 1

RE: Two engine questions - 10/18/2010 2:15:29 AM

jomni

Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

This must be related to your 2nd question.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2601342

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 2

RE: Two engine questions - 10/20/2010 12:54:45 AM

ralphtricky

Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bevilacqua
1. I always wondered if it is worth using minimise losses setting when defending. The logic of it, as far as I understand, is to spare equipment, supply etc. But since a unit that retreats must go through a disengagement check and with minimise losses the chance of retreating is greater, is it a good idea to use defending units with that setting.
I thought it could be used to simulate a unit that retreats orderly while presenting some resistance to enemy units attacks, but very frequently the disengagement check seems to send units into a reorganization state.

2. Is there any cumulative increase on the chances of repairing a bridge after multiple attempts? It is frustrating to have 4 or more engineering units with 13 or 14 percent chance of repairing a bridge for more than 4 turns in sequence without moving and not having the bridge repaired. Does the chance increase with number of tries?

I want to look into the losses setting more for 3.5. Right now, I think that ignore may make the formation more likely to go into re-organization, but I'm not positive what the other effects are, or whether they still are true with the new turn order.

I think what you're describing is what I would like to have happen, minimize means that they're more likely to retreat in good order, ignore means that they're more likely to end up broken.

Ralph

_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 3

RE: Two engine questions - 10/21/2010 2:56:56 AM

bevilacqua

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/5/2010
Status: offline

Thanks ralphtrick.

Regarding my second question, now I have 5 units in a damaged bridge hex. Four of them for 4 turns and five the last turn. All have 13-15% chance of repairing the bridge, but after five turns they weren't able. That's frustrating.

I like the way engineering units chances are lessened after moving, it's realistic, but I think that repair chances in the same hex should get progressively bigger after various tries, mainly in larger time frame scenarios.

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 4