View Full Version : TOAW Questions
Here are some technical questions for our TOAW gurus. It started off with one question and I kept coming up with more. Some are rather abstract and the answers will be mostly a matter of opinion seasoned by experience. If you have any good pointers that you don’t want your opponents to see, send them to me personally. I promise not to use them. ;) I apologize if some of these have already been addressed in past threads.
Note: “It depends” is not an acceptable answer. Get off the fence and take a position. You are allowed to start you answers with “if”.
1) What is the bonus for a flanking attack?
Example: Suppose you have three stacks in a row adjacent to an enemy unit. They contain 10, 20 and 10 factors each. If you attack with all three you get 40 attack factors but no flanking attack. If you attack with the two outside stacks, you attack with only 20 factors but you get a flanking bonus. Which is the better way to go?
2) What is the effect of cooperation or the lack of cooperation?
Example: Suppose you have two adjacent stacks, each with 10 factors from different allies. If they both attack, one stack gets all black flags in the combat setup screen. Is it worth it to attack with both or would it be better to attack with one only?
What if one stack had 10 factors and the other had 5 factors? Is it still worth it to include it?
3) If you set an artillery or naval unit to attack at the highest level (Ignore losses) to support a ground unit attack, will their attack use up a minimum of 3 phases, or is it possible to end sooner?
4) And now for a more abstract question: Can infantry alone beat a weak armour unit? For example, 1944, a weak Tiger tank unit of 2 factors (company or smaller) is attacked by British or American infantry battalions at 20 factors. Will they be able to beat it or will they be repulsed since they do not have anything to crack the high armour rating? Will artillery support using 75s or 105s make a big difference or will bigger guns be necessary to affect the outcome?
5) Big guns (155mm or bigger?) reduce fortification values. Do they do that themselves or do you need a ground unit to attack also? See next question regarding relevance.
6) How do you tackle the tough beaches? For example, a Normandy invasion type game. I have played some of these against the computer where I have not gained a foothold on Omaha beach or the turn ends early.
Which would work better?
i) Use naval and air to attack the beach (Ignore losses setting?) alone for the first combat phases to soften up the target. Then in the next combat phase, attack with ground units and air/naval support or
ii) Attack with everything (ground, air, naval) at once in the very first combat phase. Ground units at minimize losses or ignore losses?
CyberRanger
11 Jan 05, 10:20
It always depends! Have you read the various FAQs and articles available from the TOAW HQ (http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=toaw/toaw_news.php)? And don't miss this tutorial by S.H. (http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=toaw/siberian.shtml)
Ben Turner
11 Jan 05, 12:26
I know he might get the answers he's looking for from the tutorial pages, but I like answering these kinds of questions. Makes me feel smart :)
1) What is the bonus for a flanking attack?
"Passive Defender" equipment is more vulnerable. As such, it's more likely you'll kill enough of a unit's equipment to force it to break off combat.
Example: Suppose you have three stacks in a row adjacent to an enemy unit. They contain 10, 20 and 10 factors each. If you attack with all three you get 40 attack factors but no flanking attack. If you attack with the two outside stacks, you attack with only 20 factors but you get a flanking bonus. Which is the better way to go?
I don't follow you. In the first case, you're attacking from three hexes (180 degrees), in the second, you're attacking from only two hexes (120 degrees). The flanking benefits, I believe, come mostly from attacking from two opposite directions (not necessarily on the same round).
2) What is the effect of cooperation or the lack of cooperation?
I believe this causes your combats to take longer meaning you get fewer rounds. Might be other effects. Non-co-operative units won't support their neighbours on defence or passive artillery support (note that this is done on the basis of the whole defending stack rather than each unit)
3) If you set an artillery or naval unit to attack at the highest level (Ignore losses) to support a ground unit attack, will their attack use up a minimum of 3 phases, or is it possible to end sooner?
Artillery making indirect fire doesn't suffer any losses and as such will not break off from combat early, unless the defender has retreated.
4) And now for a more abstract question: Can infantry alone beat a weak armour unit?
Not in TOAW. Unless you get an RBC, always make sure you have some self-propelled AT (or a tank) or some air support with good AT numbers. Never, ever attack pure armour with just infantry.
Will artillery support using 75s or 105s make a big difference or will bigger guns be necessary to affect the outcome?
Artillery can't kill armour in TOAW, and as such it is only useful if the defenders are entrenched. See below.
5) Big guns (155mm or bigger?) reduce fortification values. Do they do that themselves or do you need a ground unit to attack also?
All artillery (and aircraft) does this to a certain extent, but the bigger the gun, the more the effect (regardless of AP strength). There is no need for a ground attack, but in most cases you might as well stick one in anyway.
6) How do you tackle the tough beaches? For example, a Normandy invasion type game. I have played some of these against the computer where I have not gained a foothold on Omaha beach or the turn ends early.
Avoid them. Is there any particular reason why you have to land at Omaha? Just stick the extra division into Utah beach instead, or wherever. Always avoid strongpoints.
Of course, the Allies didn't know that Omaha was a strongpoint until it was too late.
ii) Attack with everything (ground, air, naval) at once in the very first combat phase. Ground units at minimize losses or ignore losses?
Probably this one. Ignore losses for amphibious attacks, always, as if they're stuck at sea they will lose all their move.
Gentlemen,
Thanks for the advice.
My first question on flank attack arose after I read the excellent Notes from the Front by S.H. Here is what he wrote:
"Flank attack: This is a special modifier you get when attacking enemy defenders from 2 non-adjacent sides. You should always try to get a flank bonus if at all possible.
Here are a couple examples of flank attacks.
You want to attack from either opposite sides (ideally) or with at least one hex between both attackers (120 degrees of separation). Both illustrations above show flank attacks. If C and B attack at the same time, they will not get the flank bonus. The advantage of this type of attack is that any passive defenders (usually artillery and trucks) will be forced to fight actively against your attack...thus taking direct fire and more damage.
Always try to find a way to get flank attacks!"
Would four adjacent hexes surrounding an enemy unit count as a flank attack? Or do you have to have a gap between them?
Ben Turner
12 Jan 05, 16:29
Would four adjacent hexes surrounding an enemy unit count as a flank attack? Or do you have to have a gap between them?
There's no need for a gap. I'm pretty sure of that.
It seems the person you're quoting has gotten the wrong end of the stick in thinking that because a flank attack requires units to attack from opposite sides that by adding a unit in between you will cancel the bonus.
Something worth noting here are that if you attack a unit from three hexes which are each seperated by one hex (eg, from the north, southeast and southwest) then according to the manual you won't get the flank bonus because none of these sides are opposite each other.
Siberian HEAT
12 Jan 05, 17:21
He is quoting me. :cool:
It doesn't make sense unless you look at the pictures that go with the quote. The "gap" refers to the need to attack from non-adjacent sides to get the flank bonus. Yet, if 3 units are attacking an enemy, and they attack from 3 adjacent sides that is fine too.
More precisely, if you have two units they can't be adjacent when attacking the enemy unit.
If you have 3 separate units in 3 hexes attacking an enemy, they can be adjancent...simply because you will still be covering 120 degrees on the hex. You should never "hold back" a unit because you think it will harm your chances of taking a hex.
To my knowledge this is all that is required to get the passive equipment into the battle (the flank bonus). I could be wrong, but I've never seen anywhere that says you have to attack from opposite sides to get the bonus. At least anecdotally, 120 degrees seems to dislodge units faster than simply attacking from one hex. It is pretty rare to get to attack a unit from opposite sides...
Ben Turner
12 Jan 05, 20:21
The "gap" refers to the need to attack from non-adjacent sides to get the flank bonus. Yet, if 3 units are attacking an enemy, and they attack from 3 adjacent sides that is fine too.
Right- so Lester just misunderstood your advice.
At least anecdotally, 120 degrees seems to dislodge units faster than simply attacking from one hex.
Yeah- this is certainly the general impression I have. However this might just be because units under attack from two hexes are normally being attacked by more units.
CyberRanger
12 Jan 05, 20:57
...
More precisely, if you have two units they can't be adjacent when attacking the enemy unit.
..
To my knowledge this is all that is required to get the passive equipment into the battle (the flank bonus). I could be wrong, but I've never seen anywhere that says you have to attack from opposite sides to get the bonus. At least anecdotally, 120 degrees seems to dislodge units faster than simply attacking from one hex. It is pretty rare to get to attack a unit from opposite sides...Note also that the attacks do not have to occur during the same combat round only during the same turn.
If two units are attacking from non-adjacent hexes but not during the same combat round, the first unit to attack will not get the flank bonus but the second unit will.
CyberRanger
12 Jan 05, 21:01
Artillery can't kill armour in TOAW, and as such it is only useful if the defenders are entrenched. See below.
All artillery (and aircraft) does this to a certain extent, but the bigger the gun, the more the effect (regardless of AP strength). There is no need for a ground attack, but in most cases you might as well stick one in anyway.
Artillery attacks are MUCH more effective at digging out a defender if even one squad is launching a min loss, limited attack in conjunction with the artillery bombardment. Also, try to have one artillery unit in direct attack mode (as opposed to tactical reserve or dug-in). That also seems to greatly increase the odds of digging out the defender.
CyberRanger
12 Jan 05, 21:04
..Artillery can't kill armour in TOAW, and as such it is only useful if the defenders are entrenched. See below.I'm not sure that's true. It does depend on the gun and the type of armor. At the least, it can destory all the support assets that are in the unit, helping to render the armor unit ineffective.
Ben Turner
12 Jan 05, 22:28
I'm not sure that's true. It does depend on the gun and the type of armor.
I am quite sure that artillery cannot kill armour, except if that unit is embarked. Even then it's a long shot. Perhaps you're thinking of certain weapons which TOAW does not treat as artillery.
At the least, it can destory all the support assets that are in the unit, helping to render the armor unit ineffective.
This is true. Also see my point about digging the armour out of its entrenchments.
laszlo.nemedi
13 Jan 05, 04:23
Note also that the attacks do not have to occur during the same combat round only during the same turn.
If two units are attacking from non-adjacent hexes but not during the same combat round, the first unit to attack will not get the flank bonus but the second unit will.
oops, are you sure?
Artillery attacks are MUCH more effective at digging out a defender if even one squad is launching a min loss, limited attack in conjunction with the artillery bombardment.
This is about 4(!!!) times more effective, according my old tests. A "pure" bombardement possibility is a trap for naive players. There is unfortunately a gamey effect - it's very useful to have small sub-unit with low proficiency, to "lead" artillery fire. The unit should be set for "minimal losses" to avoid any real engagement. So, I always add a house rule to my scenarios - f.e.
It is forbidden to assign more artillery units (including HQ’s) to an attack than there are infantry regiments engaged in the attack.
CyberRanger
13 Jan 05, 06:05
Note also that the attacks do not have to occur during the same combat round only during the same turn.
If two units are attacking from non-adjacent hexes but not during the same combat round, the first unit to attack will not get the flank bonus but the second unit will.
oops, are you sure?
Yes. From the online help:
Most units are assigned a mix of actively defending equipment (such as infantry or tanks) and passively defending equipment (such as artillery). Usually, passively defending equipment is significantly shielded from losses in combat. The theory is that things like artillery are deployed in rear areas and out of harm's way. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case.
In units attacked from opposite directions in the same turn, passively defending equipment (such as artillery) is forced to participate directly in combat. The attacks need not be combined. One unit can "pin" from one direction while another later executes the "flanking" attack. If a unit that attacked earlier in the turn is itself later attacked, the original attack is considered a "defense" for this purpose. This means that if a unit attacks to the south, but is itself later attacked from the north, it will suffer the flank attack penalty. Units are not subject to the flank attack penalty immediately after any move.
The facing of the 3d unit icon graphics on the map is not significant for this purpose.
laszlo.nemedi
13 Jan 05, 06:57
Yes. From the online help:
:o Danke Herr WestZeiger! You really improved my style! :cool:
Ben Turner
13 Jan 05, 13:13
This is about 4(!!!) times more effective, according my old tests. A "pure" bombardement possibility is a trap for naive players. There is unfortunately a gamey effect - it's very useful to have small sub-unit with low proficiency, to "lead" artillery fire. The unit should be set for "minimal losses" to avoid any real engagement. So, I always add a house rule to my scenarios - f.e.
It is forbidden to assign more artillery units (including HQ’s) to an attack than there are infantry regiments engaged in the attack.
Is this in terms of disentrenching or just killing equipment?
Sorry SH. I couldn't figure out how to add the diagrams to this thread, or I would have included them. Good job on the tutorial. I found it very informative.
2) What is the effect of cooperation or the lack of cooperation?
I believe this causes your combats to take longer meaning you get fewer rounds. Might be other effects. Non-co-operative units won't support their neighbours on defence or passive artillery support (note that this is done on the basis of the whole defending stack rather than each unit)
Can we assume that non-cooperative (anyone with a black flag) units should not be able to attack together? Then, why does the computer let you add them to the combat and include them in the combat value calculation in the bottom left of the combat screen?
Ben Turner
13 Jan 05, 20:03
Can we assume that non-cooperative (anyone with a black flag) units should not be able to attack together? Then, why does the computer let you add them to the combat and include them in the combat value calculation in the bottom left of the combat screen?
They are supposed to be able to attack together. Just that doing so will mean your attack takes more rounds. My other statement was a reference to cooperation on the defence.
I Have A Bigger
15 Jan 05, 08:28
1) What is the bonus for a flanking attack?
The only bonus is that passive equipment is engaged as active equipment. That is very useful in division and corps scale scenarios. Perhaps even regimental. In battalion and lower it is of limited value, but still worthwhile if you can get it. If you are attacking a pure armor battalion it is 100% useless.
If you attack with the two outside stacks, you attack with only 20 factors but you get a flanking bonus. Which is the better way to go?
It doesn't matter.
2) What is the effect of cooperation or the lack of cooperation?
Mainly that artillery, airstrikes and other support assets may or may not join into the fray. There are also supposed to be penalties regarding round usage if units are at varying levels of cooperation, but I have never really noticed them.
3) If you set an artillery or naval unit to attack at the highest level (Ignore losses) to support a ground unit attack, will their attack use up a minimum of 3 phases, or is it possible to end sooner?
It will end as soon as the ground combat ends. Loss tolerance only applies if it is a pure bombardment and not in support of another attack.
4) And now for a more abstract question: Can infantry alone beat a weak armour unit? For example, 1944, a weak Tiger tank unit of 2 factors (company or smaller) is attacked by British or American infantry battalions at 20 factors. Will they be able to beat it or will they be repulsed since they do not have anything to crack the high armour rating? Will artillery support using 75s or 105s make a big difference or will bigger guns be necessary to affect the outcome?
Yes. The game engine has a simulated morale check based on the strength of the two forces engaged in combat. But you need to have very lopsided strengths for it to happen. In most cases you are better off not doing it, because if you don't send enough you are going to lose a lot of men and material and kill nothing.
5) Big guns (155mm or bigger?) reduce fortification values. Do they do that themselves or do you need a ground unit to attack also? See next question regarding relevance.
Always use supporting ground troops. Never pure bombard, except to hit naval units, airfields or if you really have nothing you can support the bombardment with. Sometimes house rules are in place that prevent you from having throw-away units to make these kinds of attacks anyways, so you can always just pure bombard.
6) How do you tackle the tough beaches? For example, a Normandy invasion type game. I have played some of these against the computer where I have not gained a foothold on Omaha beach or the turn ends early.
If your opponent has no ability to sink embarked units, hit the beach with a throw-away wave and as much naval and airpower as you can. Then make a heavy assault in following tactical rounds. If your opponent can sink embarked units and you really cant afford to lose them, then you should focus your attacks more and target fewer hexes to concentrate firepower in one single wave to capture the beacheads.
(This was about the two attacks (or more) that make up a flank attack not having to happen on the same round..)
oops, are you sure?
Yes, Laszlo, absolutely.
3) If you set an artillery or naval unit to attack at the highest level (Ignore losses) to support a ground unit attack, will their attack use up a minimum of 3 phases, or is it possible to end sooner?
This one has been answered, but in a somewhat confusing manner.
Ok, let's call 'passive support' when your arty unit is set to tactical or local reserve (always use tactical, not local, in case you get an early turn end). In this mode, the arty can support all attacks within it's range at half-strength. Loss tolerance makes no difference here.
'Direct fire' is when you actively assign the arty unit to attack a specific hex. It will attack at full strength, but support no other battles. NOW the loss tolerance comes into play. Min losses = 1 round, ignore losses = 3 rounds.
And yes, it is possible to have the round end, and not use up all the time (or use more!) than you thought you would. Things like shock, high prof. units continuing to attack, defenders breaking quickly, etc, can all affect the outcome.
The combat planner will also not reflect the additional time used if you have the arty on ignore losses as opposed to min losses. You have to track that on your own. Same thing for planes and naval bombardment. (Treat navies like big floating arty pieces and you'll do alright. Unfortunately... {Dreams one more time about a proper naval system integrated into TOAW})
6) How do you tackle the tough beaches? For example, a Normandy invasion type game. I have played some of these against the computer where I have not gained a foothold on Omaha beach or the turn ends early.
Ben gave you the perfect advice. Ignore the defended beaches, and land somewhere unopposed. You'd be surprised how far most vets will go out of their way to avoid hitting a defended port.
I'll assume, though, that you want a better answer. As in 'What if you have to hit that port?'
Still very messy. But there are a couple of things you can do. First off, a tip. Naval units that are adjacent to an attack will support that attack all by themselves, without you assigning them to any missions. (Imagine a tactical reserve setting for navies). This has the bonus of not eating up additional rounds.
Part two of this is simple. Take a throw away unit (something that will reconstitute, is not overly valuable, is tiny, and can split into 3 would be ideal; armored recon is almost always your best bet). Move the three 1/3rds adjacent to the hex you need to attack. (Also have the forces ready to hand for the main assualt, obviously). If possible, position the thirds such that you can attack from multiple sides, and gain the flank bonus. (The flank bonus happens if ANY two attacks {which can happen on different rounds} come from two hexes which are not adjacent. No need to over-complicate this: can you show me two hexes that are not touching each other which will both launch attacks on the target hex? Flank bonus).
Now, take your first 1/3rd, make sure the navies are adjacent, and make an attack. The navies will support it. Make another attack with the next third. The navies will support it... You get the idea.
I'll also point out that yes, this is blatantly taking advantage of the system, as losses caused by this tactic are excessive. My games have house rules which impose restrictions on this type of thing.
Ben Turner
18 Jan 05, 20:18
armored recon is almost always your best bet).
Plus you will be wasting the defender's AP firepower as the unit only has armoured equipment.
can you show me two hexes that are not touching each other which will both launch attacks on the target hex? Flank bonus
I'm not sure if this is exactly right- I believe they have to be opposite hexes. So there need to be two hexes between the attackers. These can have units of their own or not.
What Mantis describes is, as he says, viewed by some as something of a gamey tactic, and is generally known as a supply-drain attack (if I understand correctly).
As with attacking any fortified location, one should use a lot of artillery (when I say artillery I mean not only artillery and naval vessels but also bombers as these are virtually the same in TOAW terms) and a limited assault force from as many sides as possible. Only very occasionally is it essential to attack a fortified position which is not already surrounded and cut off from supply; attacking a defended port is the most likely occurance of this.
CyberRanger
18 Jan 05, 20:56
I'm not sure if this is exactly right- I believe they have to be opposite hexes. So there need to be two hexes between the attackers. These can have units of their own or not.Hmmm ... I was sure it was non-adjacent but the on-line help does say "opposite."
Could one of you gents that are experts at setting up tests, run one that could check this?
Ben Turner
18 Jan 05, 21:26
Hmmm ... I was sure it was non-adjacent but the on-line help does say "opposite."
Could one of you gents that are experts at setting up tests, run one that could check this?
Ugh. One of those things which is very tricky to test properly, since the results are far from absolute. Someone else do it...
I've never used the log, and I'm not learning how tonite... :laugh:
Siberian HEAT
18 Jan 05, 22:22
In a controlled environment you could probably test for this without using the logfiles. Simply attack a unit from one side, two sides, and opposite sides with the same amount of force...and see which one results in the greatest percentage of passive defenders being destroyed.
CyberRanger
19 Jan 05, 06:00
In a controlled environment you could probably test for this without using the logfiles. Simply attack a unit from one side, two sides, and opposite sides with the same amount of force...and see which one results in the greatest percentage of passive defenders being destroyed.Awesome! I eagerly await the results of your test!
Page 57 of the manual states attacks from "Opposite" directions.
Awesome! I eagerly await the results of your test!
:laugh:
Page 57 of the manual states attacks from "Opposite" directions.
Which still doesn't mean we believe it... ;)
I'll have some interesting results for you guys tomorrow, regarding flank attacks. Still have some more testing to do, in order to nail down all the possible cases, but when I do get it ready, I'll post the definitive treatment on flank attacks.
Oustanding. Looking forward to seeing it, Jam!
Secadegas
20 Jan 05, 05:20
I'll have some interesting results for you guys tomorrow, regarding flank attacks. Still have some more testing to do, in order to nail down all the possible cases, but when I do get it ready, I'll post the definitive treatment on flank attacks.
I'll hold all my attacks until Jamiam's "definitive treatment"... :devious:
I'll hold all my attacks until Jamiam's "definitive treatment"... :devious:
Don't do that. As I'm going through the testing, I find myself coming up with two new things to test for every one that I finish. I may very well not finish the "definitive treatment" for a few days. In the meantime, I can give you a definite answer as to the necessary direction to gain the flank attack effect, and that is at least 120 degrees from an attacking unit on a simultaneous, or subsequent, attack within the turn on a defending hex. In other words, at least one intervening hex. It does not need to come from exactly opposite directions (180 degrees).
There are a lot of other variables that may make some difference as to when the flank bonus might apply, and I'm trying to be complete, so please be patient.
One result, which will remain teasingly secret for a while though, will certainly surprise all of you. :surprise: I do promise to reveal it when I'm finished...;)
Secadegas
20 Jan 05, 13:43
In the meantime, I can give you a definite answer as to the necessary direction to gain the flank attack effect, and that is at least 120 degrees from an attacking unit on a simultaneous, or subsequent, attack within the turn on a defending hex. In other words, at least one intervening hex. It does not need to come from exactly opposite directions (180 degrees)
That was my idea... so will go on with my attacks :horse:
But i'll be waiting for the "juicy" details...
Siberian HEAT
14 Feb 05, 17:24
Nudge. Looking for Jam's "surprising" results. :whist:
Bdr.Mallette
14 Feb 05, 17:31
Don't do that. As I'm going through the testing, I find myself coming up with two new things to test for every one that I finish. I may very well not finish the "definitive treatment" for a few days. In the meantime, I can give you a definite answer as to the necessary direction to gain the flank attack effect, and that is at least 120 degrees from an attacking unit on a simultaneous, or subsequent, attack within the turn on a defending hex. In other words, at least one intervening hex. It does not need to come from exactly opposite directions (180 degrees).
There are a lot of other variables that may make some difference as to when the flank bonus might apply, and I'm trying to be complete, so please be patient.
One result, which will remain teasingly secret for a while though, will certainly surprise all of you. :surprise: I do promise to reveal it when I'm finished...;)
Jamiam,
When you are doing testing, are you using the toawlog or just observances from data within the game that you have become used to seeing? I notice things too but not that observant.
Are you testing a proven scenario or did you design an in-depth scenario for testing (pro'ly awhile ago right?).
just wondering!
Is that surprise thingie ready?
hehe
bdr.
Sorry, but I've been lagging, and totally distracted, by some other things lately. I finished all the testing with the exception of one thing that does need to be tested with the TOAWlog results. All of the rest of the results that I tested for were done by repeated testing and logging empirical results.
My laptop's power brick gave up the ghost, and it's Valentine's Day today, so right after I get these things attended to, and the Great War turn back to Dan Neely, I will try to fit in the last test case, and get to writing...
Bdr.Mallette
14 Feb 05, 19:06
Hey,
I just read your signature.
Uhmmmm, isn't that what is sort of happening in U.S. right now.
Not being Democratic or Republican, I wouldn't know but...
kinda, sorta?!
Hey,
I just read your signature.
Uhmmmm, isn't that what is sort of happening in U.S. right now.
Not being Democratic or Republican, I wouldn't know but...
kinda, sorta?!
Sorry, but I leave politics at the door, when I step into this portion of the site. In here, we are all just gamers, united in our passion for the game. Now, out in the rest of the site...that's a different matter... :devious:
Bdr.Mallette
14 Feb 05, 22:03
makes sense! lol
Politics and religion, bleah!
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.