Handling losses. (Kharkov 42 Revised)

[rasmus]

Recent analysis of my games have led me to conclude that I am a chicken, very much averse to taking losses. I just cannot help it, but once I see my units starting to evaporate, I instantly start to hold back. In some scenarios that works fine and in others it does not work at all.

Now I would like to hear from the rest of you. How does losses affect you?

[Siberian HEAT]

It really depends on the scenario. I am pretty brutal on my troops as a rule, so almost never baby them except in situations where the scenario is very long and you have to rest and refit certain units lest your whole front go to pot.

In short scenarios I usually play like Zhukov and never think twice about losing units. Generally speaking, you are better off worrying about getting VP locations, rather than your losses getting there (most true in short scenarios). At least that is a formula that has worked for me. At the end of most scenarios, all my units are red from being abused :D But then again, so are my enemy's troops!

When playing against someone who is loss averse, you can usually tell pretty quick. One of my favorite tactics is to throw a significant amount of units into local counterattacks, ideally to surround and destroy enemy spearheads. Someone who is overly concerned about losses will see that and naturally become even more conservative lest it happen again. Net gain for team HEAT!

[viridomaros]

i don't like taking losses at all and when i'm losing troops i go on the defensive most of the time, but i think i might try sib's strategy, the key is to put your opponent in a very bad shape as well, because counter attacks that affect your troops more than the ones of your opponent is not really a good idea to me.

it seems this strategy works in some scenario. But have you try that one on scenario of a big scale where the attacker has huge air superiority that makes counter attacks more than difficult to be succesfull. You also have to be very good at managing a fair amount of rounds each turn if you want to have the time to form a defense line after your counter attack.

[nemo]

How does losses affect you?They don't. :D

Most particularly in short scenarios where you can go full throttle all way long without remorse or re-thinking, be it on the offensive or counter-attacking. After all, digital soldiers do not bleed.

That said, in longer scenarios, I sometimes try to curb my instincts and pay some attention to losses but it usually lasts only one or two turns before I open in full again. I usually finish my games with a heap of rubbish in terms of units, which is all right as long as my opponent ends up with a lesser heap and less VPs...:smoke:

[rasmus]

At the end of most scenarios, all my units are red from being abused :D But then again, so are my enemy's troops!

But don´t you feel sorry for those poor troops? :o
And more importantly are you never afraid that one your attacks will evaporate large amounts of your frontline units making you ripe for a counterattack?

[RhinoBones]

It’s too bad that more scenarios are not designed so that victory is based more on loss penalties rather than on VP. VPs are really nothing more than an abstraction of the actual worth of a target as determined by the author.

To make a scenario where loss penalties are the prime victory criteria is actually very simple. Would probably work real nicely with WW I and XIX scenarios.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Siberian HEAT]

But don´t you feel sorry for those poor troops? :o
And more importantly are you never afraid that one your attacks will evaporate large amounts of your frontline units making you ripe for a counterattack?

There is an element of risk to be sure. But remember, your opponent usually always has an imperfect view of the battlefield as well, and an evaporation here or there probably won't be the "key" that unravels your whole defense. If your defense is that fragile, you have little chance of winning against a determined attacker anyway...

[Felix]

To make a scenario where loss penalties are the prime victory criteria is actually very simple. Would probably work real nicely with WW I and XIX scenarios.

Regards, RhinoBones

G'day Rhino,

This sounds like an excellent idea; how would you do this? I'm still trying to work through the finer points of the scenario editor. Any advice would be very useful.

Cheers,

Felix

[JeremyScott]

It really depends on the scenario. I am pretty brutal on my troops as a rule, so almost never baby them except in situations where the scenario is very long and you have to rest and refit certain units lest your whole front go to pot.

In short scenarios I usually play like Zhukov and never think twice about losing units. Generally speaking, you are better off worrying about getting VP locations, rather than your losses getting there (most true in short scenarios). At least that is a formula that has worked for me. At the end of most scenarios, all my units are red from being abused :D But then again, so are my enemy's troops!

When playing against someone who is loss averse, you can usually tell pretty quick. One of my favorite tactics is to throw a significant amount of units into local counterattacks, ideally to surround and destroy enemy spearheads. Someone who is overly concerned about losses will see that and naturally become even more conservative lest it happen again. Net gain for team HEAT!


Thanks Brian

Now I will be able to counter your strategy in our EA game :cheeky: Your ganno have a nast surprise waiting once I am able to declare war on you.

Jeremy

[rasmus]

There is an element of risk to be sure. But remember, your opponent usually always has an imperfect view of the battlefield as well, and an evaporation here or there probably won't be the "key" that unravels your whole defense. If your defense is that fragile, you have little chance of winning against a determined attacker anyway...

I was thinking about scenarios where side one attacks, and side two counterattacks. Like Kharkov 42 for instance. If the russians attacks while disregarding their losses, are they not inviting an even more effective counterattack once the fresh german panzers arrive?

My (admittedly timid) approach would be to flank and attack on low loss settings hoping to effect surrounds and then letting him starve, all the whille digging in as fast as I could.

[Siberian HEAT]

I was thinking about scenarios where side one attacks, and side two counterattacks. Like Kharkov 42 for instance. If the russians attacks while disregarding their losses, are they not inviting an even more effective counterattack once the fresh german panzers arrive?

My (admittedly timid) approach would be to flank and attack on low loss settings hoping to effect surrounds and then letting him starve, all the whille digging in as fast as I could.

When I play K42 (I haven't played the revised version but it should be similar), I go all out 100% for the first few turns, disregarding losses in the hopes of pushing the Germans back on their heels. The goal is to keep them off balance just long enough to allow you to get forward positioning, or if you are very fortunate, you might have them so off balance they have no hope of recovering. The German reinforcements are worthless if they are needed in many places at once because the rest of the German forces had melted away.

On the flipside, if you simply dig in without inflicting enough losses, the Germans should still have a greater portion of their original forces intact, which will give freedom of movement to their reserves. This is usually bad for the Reds.

Another point of consideration for Kharkov 42 in particular is that on turn 1 the Germans are mostly set to minimize losses. This makes it especially critical to hit them hard, and get them rolling backwards before they can dig in on a cohesive defensive line.

Your mileage may vary. For me, K42 is not a scenario you should be timid in at all. You should play a game as the Russians before the tournament round and just go all out. It is one of those scenarios where the best defense (for the Russians) is a good offense.

:rifle:

[Foggy]

Count me in for the disregard of the welfare of my troops :D I
use every unit in typical Russian fashion - heavy losses are the norm :laugh: Only in the larger scenarios do I make an attempt
to resupply/rebuild units - in shorter scenarios it's better
to hit your opponent hard - make them worry about what you're
DOING!

[rasmus]

Count me in for the disregard of the welfare of my troops :D I
use every unit in typical Russian fashion - heavy losses are the norm :laugh: Only in the larger scenarios do I make an attempt
to resupply/rebuild units - in shorter scenarios it's better
to hit your opponent hard - make them worry about what you're
DOING!

You guys are just too much. Why do you have to keep guys like me busy pathcing up those busted troops. :(

[Dicke Bertha]

33/1 red status makes me very worried about conducting either offensive or defensive action. Losses seem to escalate violently past yellow colour, both on defense and on attack. I shift defensive units around, or try to rest assault troops a turn or two, but once they're all orange/red, I fall back or ease up, unless I believe that the enemy is about to break before my boys, in which case I keep it up with total disregard of losses. It is also a good strategy for counterattacks, , feed the important parts of the line, let some sector fail - psychologically the attacker wants to advance into your territory after having bled terribly, so let the trap open and keep your panzers polished and loaded on that side road... :D

Sometimes I suppose you just have to push, no matter what... like the German in DnO. Haven't really tried alot of offensive scenarios where 33/1 is the norm, so I don't know (yet) how the Germans fare in for example DnO, post T10 or so...

In general though, every squad lost hurts, but that is only because I am such a nice and humane guy. :smoke:

[06 Maestro]

In general though, every squad lost hurts, but that is only because I am such a nice and humane guy. :smoke:

Me Too. :cry:

[RhinoBones]

This sounds like an excellent idea; how would you do this?
Attached is a modified Arracourt 44 scenario which shows the method used to make a scenario more dependent on “Loss Penalties” instead of the typical Objective/Victory Point method.

Basically, objective values are removed from the battlefield objectives and are instead allocated to dummy objectives which are off the battleground. In this example I used a total of 1000 objective points per side the majority of which, are off the battleground.

This allows the computer to calculate loss penalties based on 1000 while the actual number of objective/victory points available to capture is about ten.

This is just a quick example, but in a serious scenario the total number of objective points which are off the battlefield would be adjusted for the era and the desired effects.

Regards, RhinoBones

[JeremyScott]

I tend to try and keep unit cohesion as well as trying to go for broke on giving a beating to the enemy. Maybe I am a bit reckless. Last night I did Fulda 55 and I klobered the U.S. but in the process I lost nearly all my airforce and mst of my armor. but in saying that, I laid a big hurt on the enemy and thus giving them the option to use the Nuke as well as CHems.

That sucked :nervous:

[Felix]

This is just a quick example, but in a serious scenario the total number of objective points which are off the battlefield would be adjusted for the era and the desired effects.

Regards, RhinoBones

Cheers mate. I'll have a look, see if I can figure it out, and will use it if I do.

The reason I ask, is that I'm still slugging away on a WW1 scenario, set on a 25km map of North America. It's going OK so far, but one thing that concerns me is the VP levels. Both sides (US and CSA/Canada) start off with about 420 points each. But it seems quite difficult to accumulate VPs. This is due partly to the time period (it is 1914 after all), but I suspect that players may bash away for 100+ turns and never get anywhere in VP terms. It will be possible to attrit the enemy down, which might lead to more VPs as you advance, but then again, it might not. I thought that the loss penalty might increase the VP gain for either side, if it could be manipulated; you might get a win from attrition, even if you don't make it to Atlanta or Jersey City.

As it is, the Allied player loses a lot more VPs from casualties than the US, despite often lower total numbers of casualties. Is this due to the fact it starts from a lower number of squads/guns/horse/etc?

Thanks for your advice anyway.

Felix

[JeremyScott]

Felix

Send me this game your talking about. Seems interesting. Im always looking for new scenarios to mess around with.

Jeremy

[Secadegas]

Attached is a modified Arracourt 44 scenario which shows the method used to make a scenario more dependent on “Loss Penalties” instead of the typical Objective/Victory Point method.

Basically, objective values are removed from the battlefield objectives and are instead allocated to dummy objectives which are off the battleground. In this example I used a total of 1000 objective points per side the majority of which, are off the battleground.

This allows the computer to calculate loss penalties based on 1000 while the actual number of objective/victory points available to capture is about ten.

This is just a quick example, but in a serious scenario the total number of objective points which are off the battlefield would be adjusted for the era and the desired effects.

Regards, RhinoBones

Very simple and effective way to make it. You can also modify the force loss tolerance settings to increase/decrease this effect.

[rasmus]

There is an element of risk to be sure. But remember, your opponent usually always has an imperfect view of the battlefield as well, and an evaporation here or there probably won't be the "key" that unravels your whole defense. If your defense is that fragile, you have little chance of winning against a determined attacker anyway...


I just did a Kharkov 42 revised test against the computer, using my usual gentle approach :D . Result: Big win russians. Many red divisions, but only one evaporated during one of my own attacks.

I then started a test run using the brute force approach. Ouch.
After turn 1.
German losses: Russian losses:
Rifle squads 145 285
Mounted rifle squads 10 93
AT rifle 30 155
trucks and horses 40 216

At this rate I will be like butter in the hands of the germans once the counterattack starts on turn 5.

[rasmus]

Hey I just got promoted :bounce: :coolban: :joy: .

[Dicke Bertha]

Congrats! Now say thank you 99 times and see what wonders it will work for your career! :D

[rasmus]

Will do.
Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you. :D

[rasmus]

Hey it did not work :(

[Dicke Bertha]

It was decided you are not 1st Lt material as of now... ;)

[Siberian HEAT]

I just did a Kharkov 42 revised test against the computer, using my usual gentle approach :D . Result: Big win russians. Many red divisions, but only one evaporated during one of my own attacks.

I then started a test run using the brute force approach. Ouch.
After turn 1.
German losses: Russian losses:
Rifle squads 145 285
Mounted rifle squads 10 93
AT rifle 30 155
trucks and horses 40 216

At this rate I will be like butter in the hands of the germans once the counterattack starts on turn 5.

YOu are TOO concerned with losses. I never EVER check my losses and count horses. Here is a somewhat recent game of K42 so you can compare my losses. I never looked back, captured Kharkov, and generally ran amok behind enemy lines. :D

[viridomaros]

I just did a Kharkov 42 revised test against the computer, using my usual gentle approach :D . Result: Big win russians. Many red divisions, but only one evaporated during one of my own attacks.

I then started a test run using the brute force approach. Ouch.
After turn 1.
German losses: Russian losses:
Rifle squads 145 285
Mounted rifle squads 10 93
AT rifle 30 155
trucks and horses 40 216

At this rate I will be like butter in the hands of the germans once the counterattack starts on turn 5.
to my experience it's true losses are quite high on soviet side using ignore losses attack on first turn, but as heat said already the benefit of this is that german troops will be reorganising or routed for second turn which means you will likely surround or bypast most of german forces on second turn.
First turn is one thing but there are many more in the scenario ;)
look at the damage you do when using ignore losses attack and the damage you do with limited losses. To me ignore losses attack is more than worth it at least on first turn. This being said sometimes i like doing some preparations on minimal losses first

[rasmus]

YOu are TOO concerned with losses. I never EVER check my losses and count horses. Here is a somewhat recent game of K42 so you can compare my losses. I never looked back, captured Kharkov, and generally ran amok behind enemy lines. :D

I only checked the horses to make a comparison. :D
My problem is that I take huge losses making nowhere near the same gains as you have done in the SAL file you published. So I think the root of my fear is that I am unable to produce the results that would justify the losses.

You were able to attack and undig all but six German INFREGs from Belgorod to Petropavlovsk. S of Slavyansk you were able to undig the germans and throw them three hexes back.

I have been unable to produce similar results, as the many attacks burn off my turn with only two or three combat rounds.

May I ask how you do this?

Do you start out with preliminary attacks at low odds with artillery support?

At what odds do you attack the german regiments? I have not been able two dislodge a single regiment even when attacking with four russian divisions.

I really need some help here as I feel like a 2nd grader. :o

[viridomaros]

just had a look at the save file and i have been able to achieve that kind of turn during my testing except one thing
how do you manage to succesfully attack the 295th infantry division? from what i can see you must have used the 34th cavalry division with the help of 333th infantry division
supported by the 1/9 artillery division, i can't believe you routed a whole division with those troops.

[viridomaros]

I only checked the horses to make a comparison. :D
My problem is that I take huge losses making nowhere near the same gains as you have done in the SAL file you published. So I think the root of my fear is that I am unable to produce the results that would justify the losses.

You were able to attack and undig all but six German INFREGs from Belgorod to Petropavlovsk. S of Slavyansk you were able to undig the germans and throw them three hexes back.

I have been unable to produce similar results, as the many attacks burn off my turn with only two or three combat rounds.

May I ask how you do this?

Do you start out with preliminary attacks at low odds with artillery support?

At what odds do you attack the german regiments? I have not been able two dislodge a single regiment even when attacking with four russian divisions.

I really need some help here as I feel like a 2nd grader. :o
i succeeded in this, for me the key is to attack with all you have on ignore losses supported by artillery direct fire on ignore losses as well. If you pay attention to the hexes where units in tactical reserve are you should manage to get a bit more rounds like 4-5 ( may be heat had even more). If you don't avoid those at btn on tactical reserve then you start burning rounds quickly and furthermore you might take huge losses from artillery fire while not doing a lot of damage to the at btn.

[rasmus]

Do you use direct fire artillery?
I thought it was more effective to use them in Dug in or tactical reserve mode.

[Tim McBride]

G'day Rhino,

This sounds like an excellent idea; how would you do this? I'm still trying to work through the finer points of the scenario editor. Any advice would be very useful.

Cheers,

Felix

You can set 'Loss Intolerance' for each force, the higher it goes, the more points you are penalized for troop losses.

[Siberian HEAT]

Do you use direct fire artillery?
I thought it was more effective to use them in Dug in or tactical reserve mode.


Think of artillery as flashlights. In a normal situation you want all of your flashlights pointing upward (dug in or in reserve mode) so they diffusely illuminate the broadest number of front line units (protecting them and supporting them both offensively and defensively).

However, in some circumstances, you want to point all your flashlights at one spot to get a REALLY good look at something. This is direct support and is generally more effective when you want to make sure a particular hex gets special attention.

That being said, there is no magic formula for which method to use. My general outline is to use direct fire in the early rounds, and gradually dig my artillery in as the rounds wind down (or put them on T reserve in safe spots).

[rasmus]

Think of artillery as flashlights. In a normal situation you want all of your flashlights pointing upward (dug in or in reserve mode) so they diffusely illuminate the broadest number of front line units (protecting them and supporting them both offensively and defensively).

However, in some circumstances, you want to point all your flashlights at one spot to get a REALLY good look at something. This is direct support and is generally more effective when you want to make sure a particular hex gets special attention.

That being said, there is no magic formula for which method to use. My general outline is to use direct fire in the early rounds, and gradually dig my artillery in as the rounds wind down (or put them on T reserve in safe spots).

Nice analogy.
Which setting do you use for the first round?
Ignore losses => 3 dots=> only three combat rounds.

[viridomaros]

well for me i have two different strategy depending on the type of the assault

a direct attack on ignore losses with all i have: i want to be sure i breakthrough so i use direct fire support and on ignore losses as well.

an indirec attack on minimize losses with the purpose to undig the defenders but not necessarly to push them back: i use a tank brigade or a rifle regiment on minimize losses indirect attack supported by an artillery division on tactical reserve, in kharkov 1942 when using artillery i try to put it into the front line so that all the guns can fire ( especially the nice katyushas) if you fire from 3 hexes only 1 type of gun will open fire i believe.
I'll post a save file on host seat mode soon with my results
though i cannot do as well as heat for one infantry divion in the south.

[Siberian HEAT]

I just got done playing my first turn for the RaW tournament, and here is my methodology.

First, I move the bulk of my army so I am adjacent to the hexes of most importance (generally the hexes that are along roads, or in front of VP hexes). Set your divisions to maximize losses and try to overrun the Romanians - some of them almost always break and run automatically. Try to stay on roads if possible.

Then, in "phase 1" I use only my armor to directly attack at limited losses, with artillery on direct fire where possible. This sometimes will un-entrench the enemy, and every once in a while will it will actually force him to retreat. I might do this twice or so.

In "phase 2" (60-80% of turn remaining) I will start to use my infantry units who are generally sitting at 4 MPs out of 6 remaining. I set them on ignore losses, but only on limited attack. For those same targets though, I continue to use the armor on direct attack, limited losses (2 pips). This amplifies the chances of your armor crushing through the defender, but insures that ONLY the armor will move into the hex (because it has the greatest movement factor).

In "phase 3" (<50%) I will use all units to directly attack, usually at ignore losses setting. This is VERY important in the first turn of Kharkov because all the Axis units are sitting there set to minimize losses. This means that more often than not they will break and run at this point. The beauty of this is that once they retreat they will probably consume all their movement points, and thus the German player can do NOTHING with them in his part of the turn (not even dig them in). This is how you continue into turns 2 and 3 pushing him ever further backwards before he can establish any defensive cohesion.

My losses? Im at 27 and the Germans are at 18. However, large stacks of his units are waiting to be surrounded and destroyed, so the price was well worth it. His total will rise. :devil:

[CyberRanger]

My losses? Im at 27 and the Germans are at 18. However, large stacks of his units are waiting to be surrounded and destroyed, so the price was well worth it. His total will rise. :devil:
And this is the turn coming to me, right? Arghh ... can I have a different opponent please???? :OHNO:

[06 Maestro]

And this is the turn coming to me, right? Arghh ... can I have a different opponent please???? :OHNO:

Hold on to your hat; it's going to be a wild ride. I have a little side game going with Heat- I'm begining to see a flame; I think it's the remnants of my army.

[viridomaros]

And this is the turn coming to me, right? Arghh ... can I have a different opponent please???? :OHNO:

it's time someone teach him the joy of defeat and i count on you for this :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[JeremyScott]

Brian is a tough opponent. I am seeing even from the very very early stages of EA. He is a very good strategist. :cheeky:

[viridomaros]

here is my save
it's in hot seat mode just clic the end turn button then you'll see the german side
depending on the result of the last round, you might have a similar situation than the one of heat, or slightly better or not as good but anyway not a lot of differences.

[rasmus]

I just checked it out. Similar results except at Lyptsy, where Heat was incredible. I just tried out the massed artillery on direct fire mode in my Tannenberg game against Furocity, to good effect. Once more I have learned something new and usefull. :D

[rasmus]

I just got done playing my first turn for the RaW tournament, and here is my methodology.

First, I move the bulk of my army so I am adjacent to the hexes of most importance (generally the hexes that are along roads, or in front of VP hexes). Set your divisions to maximize losses and try to overrun the Romanians - some of them almost always break and run automatically. Try to stay on roads if possible.

Then, in "phase 1" I use only my armor to directly attack at limited losses, with artillery on direct fire where possible. This sometimes will un-entrench the enemy, and every once in a while will it will actually force him to retreat. I might do this twice or so.

In "phase 2" (60-80% of turn remaining) I will start to use my infantry units who are generally sitting at 4 MPs out of 6 remaining. I set them on ignore losses, but only on limited attack. For those same targets though, I continue to use the armor on direct attack, limited losses (2 pips). This amplifies the chances of your armor crushing through the defender, but insures that ONLY the armor will move into the hex (because it has the greatest movement factor).

In "phase 3" (<50%) I will use all units to directly attack, usually at ignore losses setting. This is VERY important in the first turn of Kharkov because all the Axis units are sitting there set to minimize losses. This means that more often than not they will break and run at this point. The beauty of this is that once they retreat they will probably consume all their movement points, and thus the German player can do NOTHING with them in his part of the turn (not even dig them in). This is how you continue into turns 2 and 3 pushing him ever further backwards before he can establish any defensive cohesion.

My losses? Im at 27 and the Germans are at 18. However, large stacks of his units are waiting to be surrounded and destroyed, so the price was well worth it. His total will rise. :devil:
This post should be classified as top secret. :hush:

[Siberian HEAT]

This post should be classified as top secret. :hush:

Nah, there is no reason why even the newest player shouldn't do well on the first turn of this scenario (even whomever is playing against me!). It just takes a little bit of practice to get the timing down. The important thing is to never advance after combat into swamps, forest rivers, etc. with infantry (until the last attack) as you can be assured it will suck up all your movement and most likely end the turn.

For some quick practice, you can open a hotseat game and see if you can use my method to capture Belgorad on turn 1 (dont' move any ohter units on the map). It is hard to do, but not impossible. The real question, in the real game, is do you WANT to capture Belgorad on turn 1???

Also, some players might worry about digging in and establishing a good defensive posture after turn 1. This is completely defeatest and STAVKA will purge you if you even think this! Your only shot at outright victory is to think completely offensive-minded for the first 3-5 turns and THEN dig in if you have to. Or, you can just go full throttle for the full game and see what happens. :smoke:

Remember your training and you will come back alive!

[rasmus]

Remember your training and you will come back alive!

But your troops won´t :D .

[Siberian HEAT]

But your troops won´t :D .

For some reason, mine seldom do...

:whist:

[rasmus]

For some reason, mine seldom do...

:whist:

As I have said before. Guys like you keep guys like me, busy as bees. :mad:

[viridomaros]

sib
are you sure that the calculation for turn ending are based on remaining mp left after attack???
because to me those calculations are done before attacks are resolved.
so direct attack with infantry units shouldn't cause earlier turn ending even if they advance into a swamp or forest.

though i have read somewhere that attack are more complex in territory that is not open so those attacks are likely to take more time to be resolved but no matter if you advance into the location or not for me
at least that's how i understand the system

[Dicke Bertha]

Is it possible to win for a Soviet player who totally disregards all physical objectives other than killing enemy troops and achieving a favorable body count? :horse:

[nemo]

Most of you probably know this AAR of a K42 (http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2704) (cool abbreviation) game between László and JAMiAM but I thought I would throw in the link anyway be it only for the newcomers ;)

[Siberian HEAT]

Most of you probably know this AAR of a K42 (http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2704) (cool abbreviation) game between László and JAMiAM but I thought I would throw in the link anyway be it only for the newcomers ;)

I wish I would have seen that before my first turn. I neglected one minor thing in my initial attack.

The MAJOR MAJOR difference between the AAR of Lazlo and Jam's is the fact the revised version will give the Russian player replacement bonuses for taking certain cities, and more importantly it will give the Axis a very good chance of having some suprise divisions show up on the scene. This adds an incredible dynamic to the scenario - and it is worth your time to study the cause and effect of these reinforcements. Most of them show up north of Belgorod, which is a notoriously empty sector normally.

[nemo]

I wish I would have seen that before my first turn. I neglected one minor thing in my initial attack.Blowing the rail bridges on the western end...? :D

The MAJOR MAJOR difference between the AAR of Lazlo and Jam's is the fact the revised version will give the Russian player replacement bonuses for taking certain cities, and more importantly it will give the Axis a very good chance of having some suprise divisions show up on the scene. This adds an incredible dynamic to the scenario - and it is worth your time to study the cause and effect of these reinforcements. Most of them show up north of Belgorod, which is a notoriously empty sector normally.Ditto. Surprising though to see how much and for how long this classic was played in its initial and flawed version.

[Bdr.Mallette]

sib
are you sure that the calculation for turn ending are based on remaining mp left after attack???
because to me those calculations are done before attacks are resolved.
so direct attack with infantry units shouldn't cause earlier turn ending even if they advance into a swamp or forest.

though i have read somewhere that attack are more complex in territory that is not open so those attacks are likely to take more time to be resolved but no matter if you advance into the location or not for me
at least that's how i understand the system

I have noticed lately during attacks, that if, during the briefing it states that the "attacking force continues attacks", it roughly constitutes an automatic 10% penalty.
So, if you had an attacking unit, which after battle totaled 4 "continue attacks", the amount of combat percentage would be, minus (20% for initial phase + 10% per every "continue attack".

If I began the combat phase at 100% - 20% for initial attack(assuming limited @ minimize losses) - N(continue attack statement).

I.e. --> after one turn in tannenberg 14, all my units had made their attacks and during this turn one stack continued attacking 4 times. All my attacks made were Limited attacks @ minimize losses, and into relatively easy terrain. An automatic 20% or possibly 10% for the initial turn is spent.

combat phase % remaining = 100% - (20% + 4(10%))
combat phase % remaining = 100% - 60%
combat phase % remaining = 40%


There is a really good chance you will have 40% left, but not guaranteed. This is what I have noticed during Wintergewitter during 23 turns, ugh! It is very painful to have plans made and then see one battle result and you know your whole turn and plans have been blown out of the water because of some lowly officer who is forcing his units to continue attacking. They usually succeed greatly, but it sucks your turns dry very fast.

:D

Hey, just what I have noticed, not definite. Iunno. :smoke:

[Siberian HEAT]

It is very painful to have plans made and then see one battle result and you know your whole turn and plans have been blown out of the water because of some lowly officer who is forcing his units to continue attacking. They usually succeed greatly, but it sucks your turns dry very fast.



This is both the blessing and the bane of TOAW.

[Menschenfresser]

I know people complain about how turns are structured with rounds, but honestly, this is the heart of TOAW's long life...its unpredictability.

What HEAT said...

[viridomaros]

I have noticed lately during attacks, that if, during the briefing it states that the "attacking force continues attacks", it roughly constitutes an automatic 10% penalty.
So, if you had an attacking unit, which after battle totaled 4 "continue attacks", the amount of combat percentage would be, minus (20% for initial phase + 10% per every "continue attack".

If I began the combat phase at 100% - 20% for initial attack(assuming limited @ minimize losses) - N(continue attack statement).

I.e. --> after one turn in tannenberg 14, all my units had made their attacks and during this turn one stack continued attacking 4 times. All my attacks made were Limited attacks @ minimize losses, and into relatively easy terrain. An automatic 20% or possibly 10% for the initial turn is spent.

combat phase % remaining = 100% - (20% + 4(10%))
combat phase % remaining = 100% - 60%
combat phase % remaining = 40%


There is a really good chance you will have 40% left, but not guaranteed. This is what I have noticed during Wintergewitter during 23 turns, ugh! It is very painful to have plans made and then see one battle result and you know your whole turn and plans have been blown out of the water because of some lowly officer who is forcing his units to continue attacking. They usually succeed greatly, but it sucks your turns dry very fast.

:D

Hey, just what I have noticed, not definite. Iunno. :smoke:
i agree on your explanations
but that wasn't my point may be i didn't make it clear ( due to bad english most likely)

here it is again my point is
siberian said that it's better to use limited attacks as not to advance into locations after combat especially with the infantry units because this might cause an early turn ending.
I'm wondering whether this is correct or not , because to me it is not. aren't Calculations for turn ending made before the units advance into locations? to me it's the case because i had several times units who had spent a lot of mp to advance into bad terrain but still it didn't burn my turn. I think that what matter is the complexity of attack as stated in the manual this means number of forces involved, ( weather?), type of terrain.

To those who think like siberian heat and to siberian heat, could you enlight me on this?

[Bdr.Mallette]

okay,
I have made combat phases last long even with advancing.
If moving into rivers and such, it will cost more but doesn't mean turn ending, from what I've experienced. It's very unpredictable. It may be judged battle by battle and on the outcome of battles. If the attacking force suffers light losses his turn may continue even with advancing into hexes whereas if he is punished, the turn could end because his forces suffered badly. I see your point now but also Siberian Heat's, it's too unpredictable and without the designers notes, we'll never really know, unless somebody documents it with tests and chit like that. i'm too busy.

[Bdr.Mallette]

I know people complain about how turns are structured with rounds, but honestly, this is the heart of TOAW's long life...its unpredictability.

What HEAT said...


No complaints here.
I LOVE unknown variables.......lol

:smoke:

[rasmus]

I have now enjoyed somme successes in my TBERG 14 game using the ART on direct fire. Thanks for the hint.

But I do have a quick follow up question.
When attacking a hex on Ignore losses with ART do they consume 10 or 30% of the turn?

[Bloodstar]

I have now enjoyed somme successes in my TBERG 14 game using the ART on direct fire. Thanks for the hint.

But I do have a quick follow up question.
When attacking a hex on Ignore losses with ART do they consume 10 or 30% of the turn?
Now this is interesting question. I've noticed that sometimes when you put arty on ignore losses during begining of the turn, they indeed consume 30% but when it's left 40-60% sometimes or very often (FITE for example) they consume just 10 %.

This is happening often to me in FiTE - I play my turn and when it's 40% left I prepare for early turn ending, dig in etc, and prepare last attack with arty on ignore losses (sometimes I get 2-3 such "last" attack, since 60% or something) and I am suprised that there is only 10% consumed sometimes even 0%. This had to have something with profiecency check, and maybe my unit's involved have high proficency.

There is also strange things when I prepare my first attack in FiTE and two turns in a row my first round expands 60% of my turn, with only 40% left. So my arty that fired on minimize losses could fir on ignore losses but I didn't know that 60% of turn will be expanded. I tried to attack only places with 10% of turn expenditure, minimize losses.

OK, this had to do with Russians that are on ignore losses in some places and that's burning my rounds or some unit's are attacking again and again. Also, I was thinking that my rumanians or hungarians etc... are making problems because they like italians can have low profiecency (they start untried).


Mario

[Bdr.Mallette]

Arty in support will only fire for as long as your ground troops are planned to fight for. UNLESS, you assign them to direct fire at ignore losses, with no ground unit attacking.
If I plan an attack with an infantry battalion against an enemy reg and I have superior support, a limited attack @ minimize losses with all my arty support at Ignore losses(indirect), my attack should only cost me 10%.
I am not advancing only trying to engage my arty.
All arty in the area will perform comms checks, if they pass, they will support attack for as long as the ground unit needs it, which in this case is 1 combat phase(minimize).
After this attack, enemy units may have been dug out I may now proceed with an advancing attack at limit losses in which all arty will perform same checks then support for as long as ground troops need it, in this case is 2 combat phases.
Since I am advancing, terrain penalty checks are made, penalty checks for adjacent enemy formations support as well as any continuing attacks are all calculated then the final % of turn left is given.
This is pretty well how it works with about 100 different variables influencing all the combat phase percentage calculators.
Don't worry about it, you can't predict it or how the game engine is going to act. You can come close but that's about it.
Just make sure you have a good strategy, your forces are well supplied and supported, and you know what the hell you are doing, you'll be alright. Leaving arty in indirect mode is best, at ignore losses. What i have seen so far.
:D

[Baiqi]

I agree with Bdr.Mallette. As for FitE, if you play German, you will have positive shock values through out 41 and 42, so getting more combat rounds is quite common, especially in 41.

[CyberRanger]

Leaving arty in indirect mode is best, at ignore losses. What i have seen so far.

I used to play that way too and still do tend to leave most of my artillery in indirect mode. However, I've found that enemy tropps are dug out much quicker if even one artillery unit is in direct fire mode.

[Baiqi]

I know people complain about how turns are structured with rounds, but honestly, this is the heart of TOAW's long life...its unpredictability.

What HEAT said...

Early turn ending is a nice feature when you play small or medium scenarios. But it is extremely annoying when you play large or huge scenarios. I consider this feature a tactical residual in this grand strategy game. When playing large and long scenarios, your schedule is the most important thing, and any individual bravery or stupidity that affect your schedule is a major setback. In a grand strategy game, these kind of things should only have local effect rather than global effect.

[viridomaros]

to rasmus
to what i have experienced artillery fire is as much effective as it was firing on ignore losses but as malette already said the arty won't last longer than the fight between ground troops
in conclusion to me

a ground attack 10% of the turn supported by artillery direct fire mode on ignore losses will take only 10% of your turn but the artillery would be as much effective as if you were firing for 3 rounds with artillery alone.

i don't have any demonstration behind this, that's just what i believe so take it with caution.

[Bloodstar]

[QUOTE=Bdr.Mallette]

Great comment - man could learn something. But, again I don't know what burned 60 % of my turn - it would be good that in TOAW is option that unit's break attack no matter what so that there is some control...

To Baiq: Yes, I know that German have some positive shock early I am counting on this all the time :devil:


Mario

[Bdr.Mallette]

Watch and read your the battle briefings.
If in the briefing it states "attacking force continues attack", it's an automatic 10-20% penalty each time it is stated, i promise(scroll up if ya have to). If all else fails, create a shortcut for CoW exe file on desktop and modify to include the command line for toawlog. It's a helluva long read but if ya get used to reading it, you can see so much information about attacks and such.

"Opart 300 CW.exe -toawlog" is the command line, i think.

During the tournament, could be a good way to get an edge....
wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean?

:D

[Bloodstar]

Watch and read your the battle briefings.
If in the briefing it states "attacking force continues attack", it's an automatic 10-20% penalty each time it is stated, i promise(scroll up if ya have to). If all else fails, create a shortcut for CoW exe file on desktop and modify to include the command line for toawlog. It's a helluva long read but if ya get used to reading it, you can see so much information about attacks and such.

"Opart 300 CW.exe -toawlog" is the command line, i think.

During the tournament, could be a good way to get an edge....
wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean?

:D

Great, thanks, I'll try that!


Mario

[CyberRanger]

The MAJOR MAJOR difference between the AAR of Lazlo and Jam's is the fact the revised version ... and more importantly it will give the Axis a very good chance of having some suprise divisions show up on the scene. This adds an incredible dynamic to the scenario - and it is worth your time to study the cause and effect of these reinforcements. Most of them show up north of Belgorod, which is a notoriously empty sector normally.
Did you have to do a scenario dump to find this out? The scenario briefing doesn't mention more Axis reinforcements. CyberGeneral mentions it but with no specifics.

[Siberian HEAT]

Did you have to do a scenario dump to find this out? The scenario briefing doesn't mention more Axis reinforcements. CyberGeneral mentions it but with no specifics.

I think the original scenario notes (and the revised version) mention the the Soviet replacement boosts for certain cities. Neither mentions the German reinforcements...and they ARE substantial.

Here is a summary. My PC doesn't like to do scenario dumps. :(

Russians capture 26,5 (Belgorod) 75% chance of 371st GErman Infantry arriving at 24,0.

Russians capture 22,18 (Taranovka) 75% chance of 68th German Infantry arriving at 24,0.

Russians capture 26,11 (Liptsy) 50% chance of 62nd German Infantry arriving at 24,0.

There is also a trigger for the arrival of the 1st German Mtn division in the south (arrives at 32,40), but I didn't note the trigger.

This dramatically changes how the end game might occur, and basically you have to be ready to assault Kharkov and get the job done before those troops can enter the battle. The prudent course is to send a flanking expedition to cover that entry hex so those units cannot arrive. This forces the GErmans to counter and deflect some troops from the all important assault on Kharkov. The balance of time is much more critical in the revised version.

[CyberRanger]

hmm ... hold hex 24,0 against Mr S. Heat. Seems about as easy as capturing Izyum (34,23)!!!! I did confirm through a quick hot seat that the reinforcements will not entered as long 24,0 is under Russian control. (I believe reinforcements on the left side of the map will enter at the first avaiable friendly hex, but the top edge behaves differently ... gotta love TOAW sometimes!) If the Germans retake 24,0 the reinforcements return from the twilight zone to join the game. :-)

[Siberian HEAT]

It is not impossible to stop the Russians from capturing 24,0. The Reds cannot afford to send significant troops up to the middle of nowhere, lest it weaken their initial thrusts at Belgorod and Kharkov. However, timing is everything, and even a couple turn delay of those reinforcements can mean a lot. Best advice is not to ignore the possibilities of either side here...

:devious:

[CyberRanger]

I think the original scenario notes (and the revised version) mention the the Soviet replacement boosts for certain cities. Neither mentions the German reinforcements...and they ARE substantial.

Here is a summary. My PC doesn't like to do scenario dumps. :(

Russians capture 26,5 (Belgorod) 75% chance of 371st GErman Infantry arriving at 24,0.

Russians capture 22,18 (Taranovka) 75% chance of 68th German Infantry arriving at 24,0.

Russians capture 26,11 (Liptsy) 50% chance of 62nd German Infantry arriving at 24,0.

There is also a trigger for the arrival of the 1st German Mtn division in the south (arrives at 32,40), but I didn't note the trigger.

This dramatically changes how the end game might occur, and basically you have to be ready to assault Kharkov and get the job done before those troops can enter the battle. The prudent course is to send a flanking expedition to cover that entry hex so those units cannot arrive. This forces the GErmans to counter and deflect some troops from the all important assault on Kharkov. The balance of time is much more critical in the revised version.

Well ... crap ... so far I've only seen the 371st (at the end of T4). A little better luck when playing the Heatmiser would be nice!

[viridomaros]

something i don't like is that there is a % chance for reinforcement to show up
meaning you can get quite lucky and receive all
or if you're really unlucky receive just nothing :shock:

[Siberian HEAT]

I agree. There is almost too much chance involved here for a tournament game. Especially if you compare your own Russian game vs. your game as the GErmans. What happens if your Russians face all the reinforcements, and your Germans get none of them?

We do have to make sure this game ends on the same turn for everyone. The procedure should be the same as Tannenberg. End the game on the projected last turn as stated in the briefing...

[Bdr.Mallette]

I think the original scenario notes (and the revised version) mention the the Soviet replacement boosts for certain cities. Neither mentions the German reinforcements...and they ARE substantial.

Here is a summary. My PC doesn't like to do scenario dumps. :(

Russians capture 26,5 (Belgorod) 75% chance of 371st GErman Infantry arriving at 24,0.

Russians capture 22,18 (Taranovka) 75% chance of 68th German Infantry arriving at 24,0.

Russians capture 26,11 (Liptsy) 50% chance of 62nd German Infantry arriving at 24,0.

There is also a trigger for the arrival of the 1st German Mtn division in the south (arrives at 32,40), but I didn't note the trigger.

This dramatically changes how the end game might occur, and basically you have to be ready to assault Kharkov and get the job done before those troops can enter the battle. The prudent course is to send a flanking expedition to cover that entry hex so those units cannot arrive. This forces the GErmans to counter and deflect some troops from the all important assault on Kharkov. The balance of time is much more critical in the revised version.


Okay, I knew I saw this before.
Forgot about it.
I found all those triggers as the Russians and triggered them all. All german forces entered for my opponent!!! Ugh!
As Germans(a few turns ahead of my russian game), I have held those positions very well and none of my forces have arrived!!!ugh! I think a little research is always prudent.

****! :nuts:

[CyberRanger]

I agree. There is almost too much chance involved here for a tournament game...
I agree. If the horse wasn't already out of the barn, I'd have us use the CD version instead.

[JAMiAM]

Of course, if the Soviet player can spare the forces, some traps could be set to jump the overstacked hexes with air attacks and flank attacks, on the turns that they appear... :devil:

Of course, that in itself, it a mighty big "if".

[Siberian HEAT]

I agree. If the horse wasn't already out of the barn, I'd have us use the CD version instead.


Right. If it's already broke, don't fix it. :salute:

[JAMiAM]

What? You mean to say that you can lead a broken horse to water, but you can't make it drink the spilt milk, if you've burnt the bridge crying about the open barn door?

[viridomaros]

did some players already started round 2 so?

[CyberGeneral]

I agree. If the horse wasn't already out of the barn, I'd have us use the CD version instead.


The CD version plays out the same percentages (%)..........The only difference between the CD version and the revised version is that (CD version) the Russians need to take Belgrad AND THAN the German forces need to RETAKE it before the 75% chance of German reinforcements arrives (as 1 example)......In revised version, 75% chance happens when Russians capture Belgrad as it was meant to play out....

[CyberRanger]

did some players already started round 2 so?
Siberian Heat and I have started our game. I believe some others have also.

CyberGeneral did a great job of recognizing and fixing the errors in the original scenario; we just didn't anticipate how a correct version of this scenario would be so variable. Generally great for a scenario - not so great for a tournament scenario.

Who else has started Round 2?

[JoeBob]

Just sent off T1 as Russians to KillorBeKilled. Got in 4 combat rounds and knocked the Krauts around pretty good. Glad I checked this thread though!

Hex 24,0 could really come back and bite me hard!

Game ON!!! :mad:

[JoeBob]

By the way, a lot of you guys refer to firing artillery in direct fire mode. I assume that means attacking from one hex distance, which in my experience can be quite damaging to the attacking artillery units. I do just fine firing from one or two hexes distance (indirect fire), and digging some of the artillery in at the end of the turn, in case I need it to defend with.

Just wanted to clarify that point.

Never played this scenario before (where have I been?), but it looks like a blast!

:banana:

[Bdr.Mallette]

I guess what people mean, is including them in the attack, rather than letting them generate a comms. Check and then firing.
Direct attacks can mean from 2-3 or more hexes. yes?

Usually the reason they suffer high losses in an attack is from 'Counter-battery' fire missions. Can be devastating!
So, if you include them in the attack in the front line, more than likely your opponent has arty within range to fire on your Artillery units.

[JoeBob]

Other than 1 hex range (not advised), i've only suffered artillery losses when directly attacking enemy artillery from ranged hexes. I other words, when I attack, and enemy artillery participates in the defense, losses are confined to the adjacent attacking units, not units that "pitch in" from afar...

Attacking enemy artillery directly, results in an exchange of losses, unless my opponent's units don't have the range to exchange, in which case I can take some free shots (range of 3 instead of 2, for example).

Not sure I've made the distiction clear... :(

[viridomaros]

yeah it's great to have better ranged guns as you can knock out ennemy's artillery at range.

[Polynike]

sent my turn 2 to lazlo..only ever scored positively as the axis in this scenario
polynike

[nemo]

Soviet first turn on its way to JoeBob...

[jlbetin]

I
Here is a summary. My PC doesn't like to do scenario dumps. :(


SSAH,
Dump works only with W98 or Win ME.
As I manage double boot, I develop partialy under Win ME and do the rest under W2K

Der WanderNONONotSSAHArghhIlostMyOV

[jlbetin]

Concerning Kharkov 42 Revised, we have just finished the game with virido

Result again a draw, but even if Pierre did a SSAH like attack which make me loose 30 points.
In strategical point of view I think that I won the game

Look at the attached Jpg image.

What is you point of view, do you agree with me.

My best thoughts

Der WanderStavka

[viridomaros]

Result again a draw, but even if Pierre did a SSAH like attack which make me loose 30 points.

Der WanderStavka

looks like we have a new expression that would fit in the toaw faq :laugh:

[06 Maestro]

Concerning Kharkov 42 Revised, we have just finished the game with virido

Result again a draw, but even if Pierre did a SSAH like attack which make me loose 30 points.
In strategical point of view I think that I won the game

Look at the attached Jpg image.

What is you point of view, do you agree with me.

My best thoughts

Der WanderStavka

I have to agree with you. The Germans are in a desperate situation which would have forced releasing even more reserves.

[Bdr.Mallette]

I'd have to say,
"mission Accomplished! Carry on with second phase of plan."

:D

[Brevet]

Is it just me, or has anyone else seen variation in the arrival of the expected German reinforcements? My Red Hoards were attacked in turn 4 by the 101st Lt Inf Division, scheduled to arrive on turn 6 at 32,40. :shock: Are there more surprises buried in the revised version? :TRUCE:

[CyberRanger]

Concerning Kharkov 42 Revised, we have just finished the game with virido

Result again a draw, but even if Pierre did a SSAH like attack which make me loose 30 points.
In strategical point of view I think that I won the game

Look at the attached Jpg image.

What is you point of view, do you agree with me.

My best thoughts

Der WanderStavkaI'd have to agree. Another couple turns and it looks like you'd have wiped out the Reds. But ... that's part of the game; not having those turns. Ah ... SSAH has sent me my next turn. Let's see what surprises await me!!!! :confused:

[viridomaros]

well it seems i'll have to agree with you on that one jean luc since more than one guy seems to prefer your situation :OHNO:

[plutonico]

a lot of good information¡
24.0 mmmmmmm

[viridomaros]

damn my opponent is aware of this thread :halo:

[plutonico]

a lot of theory but where is your turn 4? :devil:

[CyberGeneral]

Is it just me, or has anyone else seen variation in the arrival of the expected German reinforcements? My Red Hoards were attacked in turn 4 by the 101st Lt Inf Division, scheduled to arrive on turn 6 at 32,40. :shock: Are there more surprises buried in the revised version? :TRUCE:

Most German reinforcements have a 75% (3 in 4) chance of showing within a 3 to 4 turn span once objective X (one of a few locations) are taken by the Soviet forces.......I myself had horrible luck.....I ended up in the 25% chance as most of the Axis reinforcements showed for my opponent yet nearly all of MY Axis reinforcement fail to show at all...........

[Dicke Bertha]

My brave boys retook (24,0) and 371. ID has arrived on T7! Now we're gonna get serious about retaking Belgorod!

In my Russian game, I also took (24,0) and eliminated the Germans in the Belgorod area. This allowed for an encirclement of Kharkov. With a little luck the pocket can be eliminated towards the end of the game. This tactic of occupying a reinforcement hex smells a bit though, I'd be interested in knowing if anyone as Russian has refrained from taking (24,0) and still had a good pressure/flanking in the Belgorod-Kharkov sector. I would suspect that not taking (24,0) would reduce the scenario for the Soviet player to a head-on assault on Kharkov, not so interesting, if possible at all? Or will this tend to protrude the Soviet front towards Poltava?

[CyberRanger]

... This tactic of occupying a reinforcement hex smells a bit though, I'd be interested in knowing if anyone as Russian has refrained from taking (24,0) and still had a good pressure/flanking in the Belgorod-Kharkov sector...As the Soviet player, taking and holding 24,0 was a top priority. The Axis player cannot prevent the Soviet player from occupying that hex. Then it becomes a question of how badly the Soviet player wants to hold it. I've taken an approach of moving a lot of my Soviet forces through Belgorod then down on Kharkov. That takes a little longer to invest Kharkov but well worth the delay if those extra German reinforcements can be prevented.

Does it smell? Yes! It stinks really bad! In a tournament situation though, if it's not against the rules or cheating, it can be done. If I were to run the tourney again with that scenario, I'd have a rule that the Soviet's must stay 2 hexes away from 24,0. Be nice if an exclusion zone could be added to protect the hex.

[Dicke Bertha]

....

Does it smell? Yes! It stinks really bad! In a tournament situation though, if it's not against the rules or cheating, it can be done. If I were to run the tourney again with that scenario, I'd have a rule that the Soviet's must stay 2 hexes away from 24,0. Be nice if an exclusion zone could be added to protect the hex.


Hey, I'd like to buy you a beer for saying that. And for the record I think that El Cid has played it swelly, but my stinking 24,0 tactics will get me the game unless I mess up in cleansing the Kharkov pocket... I was lucky to bag the lot in the north, sealed off (24,0), and then, what can the Germans do... For future tourneys, we need to state more clearly what is allowed, and what is not. For gameplay however I suspect that the stinking tactics is good, or we'd have 25 or so predictable German OV's. But I still hope for a Soviet with an unsmelling victory.

[viridomaros]

does anyone tried to send some infantry from belgorod to protect that hex from the russians?
i know it depends a lot of the russians results of the 1st turn as sometimes you have nearly nothing you can move on turn 1 with the axis.

[JoeBob]

Does it smell? Yes! It stinks really bad! In a tournament situation though, if it's not against the rules or cheating, it can be done. If I were to run the tourney again with that scenario, I'd have a rule that the Soviet's must stay 2 hexes away from 24,0. Be nice if an exclusion zone could be added to protect the hex.

Or a scenario designer could simply extend the map upwards, so that the Soviet player would REALLY have to stretch his forces to stop the reinforcements from coming in...

[jlbetin]

Or a scenario designer could simply extend the map upwards, so that the Soviet player would REALLY have to stretch his forces to stop the reinforcements from coming in...
No Friends as I consider myself as a designer now, the solution is the following, for reinforcement, set 3 tracks depending of occupation of 24,0 hexes or nearby.

In Events engine an event check if ennemy occupy 24,0 with a radius of 3 by instance and then switch original objective track to track2 with entry in 18,0 or worst (demoniac) in 28,0 directly in back of Soviets, in this case you have to change the ownership of the hex if he is not occupied, if he is occupied switch to track 3 with 18,0 as entry point

Der WanderScenarioDesignerNoMoreSoNewbie

[mr_clark]

No Friends as I consider myself as a designer now, the solution is the following, for reinforcement, set 3 tracks depending of occupation of 24,0 hexes or nearby.

In Events engine an event check if ennemy occupy 24,0 with a radius of 3 by instance and then switch original objective track to track2 with entry in 18,0 or worst (demoniac) in 28,0 directly in back of Soviets, in this case you have to change the ownership of the hex if he is not occupied, if he is occupied switch to track 3 with 18,0 as entry point

Der WanderScenarioDesignerNoMoreSoNewbie
Sounds like an interesting idea....

[Bdr.Mallette]

only track 1 events have VP values though, or I mean to say, only track 1 VPs are counted.
or does this only relate to P.O. play?

bdr.

[jlbetin]

only track 1 events have VP values though, or I mean to say, only track 1 VPs are counted.
or does this only relate to P.O. play?

bdr.
Part of what I said is for PO but for human players you just need events checking occupation or not of 24,0 (and 28,0 hex in my scenario add on )

But concerning value no pbm you define value for objectives that's all, track is just change of direction. You even can define obj for air units, it seems not to interfere with them except if there are airfields in them as they will move to next airfield

DEr WanderTOAWAssistant

[El Cid]

Hey, I'd like to buy you a beer for saying that. And for the record I think that El Cid has played it swelly, but my stinking 24,0 tactics will get me the game unless I mess up in cleansing the Kharkov pocket... .
As my wife will be happy to tell anybody that ask, I am an idiot. :nuts: Based on the COW manual I was expecting that if 24,0 was occupied my reinforcements would appear somewhere else, along the same map edge. And turn after turn I kept waiting for the units to appear. Now after reading the manual more closely I noticed that it said, "within two hexes". :whist: Who would have guess that my wife had a point.

[CyberRanger]

Now after reading the manual more closely I noticed that it said, "within two hexes".The real situation is even weirder. I can't find the thread but I remember this:



If the reinforcement hex is on the NORTH edge and is occupied by enemy units, the reinforcements will not arrive.
If the reinforcement hex is on the WEST edge of the map and the reinforcement hex is occupied, the reinforcements will appear on the closest open edge hex.


The last point may be only if there is an open hex within two hexes of the reinforcement hex. A little TOAW oddity!

[Bdr.Mallette]

Once again,

'The West is the Best'

lol

[jlbetin]

Once again,

'The West is the Best'

lol
It depends on which side of the pond you stay !!!

Der WanderGeographist

[Dicke Bertha]

does anyone tried to send some infantry from belgorod to protect that hex from the russians?
i know it depends a lot of the russians results of the 1st turn as sometimes you have nearly nothing you can move on turn 1 with the axis.

No, but I sent the better part of a panzer division to bolster my Belgorod defenses, which also saved the infantry division in the area, and after many turns of fighting, (24,0) was very narrowly retaken, while Belgorod was still in Soviet hands, and this triggered the appearance of 371. Infanterie Division.

With it I hope to be able to retake Belgorod, but I may have compromised my Kharkov defenses by not having both panzer divisions down there... It's a gamble, and the short length of the scenario makes all decisions decisive... :nervous: On the other hand, Kharkov is not surrounded, and the situation south of the city is still just barely under control... It will be close... we're at T8 now.

[06 Maestro]

This whole thing about 24.0 is silly. It’s hard to believe that that portion of the German front was not manned; it’s close to a good road and rail, with a major city nearby- there most certainly were some units in the area. If viewed on a larger scale, all this activity north of Belgorod would look comical considering what this battle was all about.
Some qualified designer should revamp this scenario one more time and add the appropriate Soviet and German/Axis units on the northern front to bring an end to this silly sideshow.

[Dicke Bertha]

I agree Maestro. To add to my previous post, I received yet another infantry division at (24,0) one turn later!!! I think it was caused by the fall of Taranovka to the Soviets south of Kharkov.

Now my two reinforcement infantry divisions cannot really achieve much offensively given the few turns that remain, other than to maybe take some heat off the Kharkov sector. (A clever Soviet player won't mind losing 10 VP if the massive VP at Kharkov are reachable). It will be a wonder if they can actually push far south enough to either take any VPs or really threaten the Soviet push for Kharkov. I think maybe the time scope of the scenario is a bigger issue than (24,0) - with a longer scenario one cannot disregard flanks the way the Soviets and to some extents the Germans in the late game must do to score big...

All this could probably be made rather insignificant by eliminating the vicory points at Belogrod and in the Soviet northwest rear areas. That way, the Soviet player needs to decide early on whether to send forces north to stop German reinforcements (as in slow them down on a bigger map) without any gains VP-wise. By neglecting his northern flank, the Soviet invite disaster - not in this scenario, but on the turns after T12! So couple that with extending the time-frame by at least half a dozen turns...

Ah, what to do! :crosseye:

[06 Maestro]

Two divisions!? :mad: I agree that the scenario should be extended by a few turns, although that may be affecting the entire scenario by giving the Germans too much time to take advantage of the Russians poor supply, ect.

It is unrealistic that the Germans should be forced to retreat just to cover a location that was not an objective area, or that had adequate defenses already.

Two divisions!?? :cry: Alas, it's too late for me.

[viridomaros]

well it might not be really realistic but i find it fun to play
diverting panzers for taking hex 24,0 makes perfect sens now heading to retake belgorod is really risky, you need those panzers to defend kharkov.