flank/rear areas

[raintree_leaf]

Some noobie questions here, hope that any any veterans can answer.

Is there a differentiation between flank and rear areas? Or are both treated the same? For example, rear attack occurs when 2 attacks conducted in opposite direction while flank attacks occurs when 2 attacks. 1 hex apart. are conducted.

So can i say that having an horizontal defense line can result an easier flank rear attacks by enemy compared to a vertical defense line? IRL, horizontal or vertical defense line should have the same defensive characteritics instead of being restricted by the hex shape in the game.

[a white rabbit]

Originally posted by raintree_leaf
Some noobie questions here, hope that any any veterans can answer.

Is there a differentiation between flank and rear areas? Or are both treated the same? For example, rear attack occurs when 2 attacks conducted in opposite direction while flank attacks occurs when 2 attacks. 1 hex apart. are conducted.

So can i say that having an horizontal defense line can result an easier flank rear attacks by enemy compared to a vertical defense line? IRL, horizontal or vertical defense line should have the same defensive characteritics instead of being restricted by the hex shape in the game.

..yes, toaw differentiates betwen flank (one hex apart) and rear (oposite hexes) attacks..best not to let any get behind you..,

[raintree_leaf]

Originally posted by a white rabbit


..yes, toaw differentiates betwen flank (one hex apart) and rear (oposite hexes) attacks..best not to let any get behind you..,

Then isn't it strange that you can't have a horizational line of defense without getting flanked?

[MikeJ]

Originally posted by raintree_leaf


Then isn't it strange that you can't have a horizational line of defense without getting flanked?

EDIT: Oops, misunderstood. Yes you can't have a horizontal (as in straight across your screen horizontal) line without flank attacks.

I haven't found too many situations where I must go with a horizontal line though. Usually a slanted line works for most cases... if you absolutely must defend a horizontal line then you at least have opportunities to hit any unit that moves into every odd hex of your line with flank attacks. Mind you if your line isn't strong enough a good attacker can rip a hole in your line and start exploiting it within the span of one turn - before you get a chance to do that.

[Menschenfresser]

Yea, if the hexes are lined up the way I think they are, you have a point. If flank attack only begin after 120 degrees then in one direction two hex sides are exposed and in another 3.

However in a game that doesn't begin with static defenses set up running horizontally, you can minimize this effect. If I am setting up lines I position my forces so the line runs northeast for a few hexes before turning southeast. This way you are only exposing one or two units to flank attacks rather than 7 or 8. However, if he can get a flank attack on a horizontal line, that means you have two opportunities to flank for each one he creates (if your unit survives his initial attack).

[LaPalice]

I read somewhere that if a unit occupies a flank hex of a defending unit, the flank bonus is given to the attack on this defending unit even if the unit occupying the flank doesn’t participate in the attack. It’s very important, because in general the units moving in a flank hex spend a lot of MPs (ZoC). And if they participate to the attack, the attacker loses many rounds. Apparently the bonus given by the flank attack is better than the loss of the unit strength if this unit doesn’t join in the attack. In addition to that your attack is less complex, because there are less units in it, but I’m not sure if attack complexity has an influence on round spending.
But I’m not sure if these possibilities really exist in the game. Anyway I have the impression that frontal attack are very dangerous in TOAW except with big combat odds, and must be avoided each time it’s possible.

La Palice.

[MikeJ]

Originally posted by LaPalice
I read somewhere that if a unit occupies a flank hex of a defending unit, the flank bonus is given to the attack on this defending unit even if the unit occupying the flank doesn’t participate in the attack.

Don't quote me on this, but I believe it applies to either overrun attacks or disengagement in some way.

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by raintree_leaf


Then isn't it strange that you can't have a horizational line of defense without getting flanked?

Not quite sure what you are trying to imply here. The direction which a line runs is irrelevant. It is the direction from which the attackers launch their attacks, throughout the course of the turn, which dictates whether a "flank" attack is made.

The effect of the flank attack is to allow the AP/AT combat to include the defending players "passive defenders" as targets in the combat hex. Since most passive defenders have lower defense, and/or armor strengths, this results in easier hits, leading to higher losses, and finally more failed morale checks on the defenders.

Note that in games where the attrition dividers are too low (causing higher casualties), the flank bonus is largely negated as artillery fire targets passive equipment, regardless of direction of attack, and the artillery causes the vast majority of soft target casualties in these types of situations.

[Siberian HEAT]

Originally posted by a white rabbit


..yes, toaw differentiates betwen flank (one hex apart) and rear (oposite hexes) attacks..best not to let any get behind you..,

I've never heard of an extra bonus for attacking from opposite hexes. Obviously it isn't in the documentation (not much of the good stuff is!)...but can anyone confirm this?

[Mantis]

I thought all you had to do to get a 'flank' bonus was to be attacking (even at different times in the turn) from at least 2 different hexes, seperated by at least one hex? (In other words, not 2 attacks from 2 hexes that are adjacent to each other).

[MikeJ]

Originally posted by Mantis
I thought all you had to do to get a 'flank' bonus was to be attacking (even at different times in the turn) from at least 2 different hexes, seperated by at least one hex? (In other words, not 2 attacks from 2 hexes that are adjacent to each other).

That's right. I don't think anybody posted anything to the contrary though.

[Siberian HEAT]

Originally posted by MikeJ


That's right. I don't think anybody posted anything to the contrary though.

White Rabbit's post appears to say that attacking from 180 degrees of separation yields a greater bonus than attacking from 120 degrees of separation. I was just enquiring if that has been proven somewhere because it could be significant if true.

[MikeJ]

Originally posted by Siberian HEAT


White Rabbit's post appears to say that attacking from 180 degrees of separation yields a greater bonus than attacking from 120 degrees of separation. I was just enquiring if that has been proven somewhere because it could be significant if true.

I was actually curious about that myself, although given that flanking bonus just puts passive defenders into the front lines, I wonder what additional bonuses there could be? Nothing that is obvious to me at a glance, anyways.

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by MikeJ


I was actually curious about that myself, although given that flanking bonus just puts passive defenders into the front lines, I wonder what additional bonuses there could be? Nothing that is obvious to me at a glance, anyways.

You really have to peek under the hood at the engine to see the benefits. Disregarding artillery fire, for the purpose of emphasizing the effects, what you basically have in AP/AT fire exchanges are weapons systems firing at each other.

In AP fire, you have a comparison of attack strength vs defense strength (possibly modified on both ends). An algorithm defines the probability of a successful hit, a random number (0,1] is generated and compared with the probability. If the random number is within the hit range, the target is generally destroyed. However, many types of units are "agile" which essentially gives them a "saving throw" to avoid the hit. Infantry squads, for example.

Passive defenders suffer from a general lack of agility, though some passive defenders do carry this tag. More importantly though, most passive defenders have a very low defense strength. Thus, if they can be fired on, they will suffer disproportionate casualties. This pushes up the total losses for the unit. Then, during each series of firings between units, when the loss checks are made, the units suffering higher losses will be more likely to break off attacks, or retreat.

Anti armor (AT) combat is similar, though the initial to hit probablilities are determined by targeting capabilities and vision (terrain/environment) concerns. Then, a probability for a kill is generated and checked, based on AT/armor strengths. The same concerns with respect to low defense strengths on passively defending armored equipment applies, when considering how many losses will be usually be generated when the thin-skinned pieces of equipment are exposed to direct fire.

[Siberian HEAT]

Originally posted by JAMiAM


You really have to peek under the hood at the engine to see the benefits.

Gentlemen, what Jamiam is saying comes directly from the dusty 1000-page addendum to the manual. It is a crusty old tome that few can decypher. Lucky for us we have interpreters among us. Some good stuff to be found there!

:hail:

[MikeJ]

I actually meant what further bonuses could there be if the "rear" attacks (differing from "flank" attacks, as per rabbit's post) could have given that all passive defenders are put into the frontlines with a flank attack already - that's to say I wasn't sure if "rear attacks" even exist in so far as TOAW is concerned.

But that was a good write up anyways and the D&D reference didn't go un-noticed :).

Seeing as we're asking questions here though here's a list of questions my roomate (aspiring TOAW player and future WHQ ladder member) asked me that I had no clue about:

- chemical weapons... is their use abstracted in the game or something? I've played several scenarios where both sides are "using" chemical weapons but in so far as I can tell there's no way to use/target them? I figured it just means attacks deliver additional "readiness" penalties against your opponent if your side is using chemical weapons as I've never seen any way to fire them off manually. looking in the manual/help file I didn't see anything except mentioning that weather has an effect on chemical weapons and they impact readiness.

- the manual/help files have several headings for defensive terrain bonuses. they all explicitly say effects are not cumulative, except:


Defensive Anti Personnel Strengths

Defending units benefit from increased anti-personnel strengths in some deployments.
Defending, entrenched or bocage x1.5.
Fortified units benefit from increased anti-personnel strengths 3.0.


I've always wondered if that meant that if you're fortified and on bocage you get x4.5 or just x3.0. I'm assuming it was a typographical error and you only get x3.0, but hey one can never tell.

[Mantis]

Originally posted by JAMiAM
You really have to peek under the hood at the engine to see the benefits.

You know, we have yet to face off, so I have no idea if you're better than me at playing this game, James. But for sheer understanding and knowledge of the system, I'm lucky to remember the name of the game when I'm standing beside you.

I've been keeping a text file since I started playing PBEM, and I've clipped out everything that sounded like a pearl of wisdom. I swear, 1/4 of the quotes came from you, and it humbles me to no end to understand just how much you've improved my game without even having played me yet!

My deepest appreciation, and unending thanx for constantly having the patience to share these insights with the rest of us mere mortals!


:thumup: :clap: :hurray: :banana:

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Siberian HEAT
Gentlemen, what Jamiam is saying comes directly from the dusty 1000-page addendum to the manual.

There isn't really a manual addendum, aside from the help file thingee, is there?

[raintree_leaf]

Originally posted by JAMiAM


Not quite sure what you are trying to imply here. The direction which a line runs is irrelevant. It is the direction from which the attackers launch their attacks, throughout the course of the turn, which dictates whether a "flank" attack is made.



Let say if the attack runs from top to down. IMO, especially if you are short on troops, it is better to set up a horizontal defense which uses less troops than a diagonal defense which have a longer line(pythagoras theorem). Enemy coming down may also decides to grind up part of that diagonal defence nearer to them. I guess in these kind of situations, i will use what Menschenfresser recommends and set up a jagged horizontal defense.

[raintree_leaf]

Originally posted by LaPalice
I read somewhere that if a unit occupies a flank hex of a defending unit, the flank bonus is given to the attack on this defending unit even if the unit occupying the flank doesn’t participate in the attack. It’s very important, because in general the units moving in a flank hex spend a lot of MPs (ZoC).

La Palice.

Actually this doesn't constitute a flank attack right? you must attack on both flanks either as combined or within the same turn. On the problem of units that have moved participating in attacks grinding up movement points. You can solve it by attacking early in the turn with the unit that have not moved and later by the unit that have moved and flank it.

In the manual, it stated that the flank/rear attack occurs when a defending unit is attacked from opposites sites. So i'm not sure if a 120degrees will constitute a flank attack. Issit confirmed?

[a white rabbit]

Originally posted by Siberian HEAT


I've never heard of an extra bonus for attacking from opposite hexes. Obviously it isn't in the documentation (not much of the good stuff is!)...but can anyone confirm this?

..it was tweaked up in one of the woty/acow patches, to give a bigger advantage to attacks from opposite hexes as opposed to hexes one hex apart..i've no numbers, the only change i saw was that units attacked from 180° retreat more easily..,

[a white rabbit]

Originally posted by MikeJ
I actually meant what further bonuses could there be if the "rear" attacks (differing from "flank" attacks, as per rabbit's post) could have given that all passive defenders are put into the frontlines with a flank attack already - that's to say I wasn't sure if "rear attacks" even exist in so far as TOAW is concerned.



..pass-def have always taken hammer in flank attacks (1 hex apart)..and it's not really rear attacks, it's attacks from hexes at 180°..and rear attacks didn't exist under toaw1..,

[LaPalice]

Originally posted by raintree_leaf


Actually this doesn't constitute a flank attack right? you must attack on both flanks either as combined or within the same turn. On the problem of units that have moved participating in attacks grinding up movement points. You can solve it by attacking early in the turn with the unit that have not moved and later by the unit that have moved and flank it.


Yes, it’s a strange idea. I read that in an article in French about TOAW I. If I remember well, the author said that the presence of a unit which would give the flank bonus if it participated to the attack permits to have the bonus for the attack. Even if this unit don’t join in the attack.
But this assertion needs a confirmation. In reality I don’t understand how the flank attack works exactly, except that it’s a threat to passive defenders.

La Palice.

[a white rabbit]

Originally posted by Mantis


There isn't really a manual addendum, aside from the help file thingee, is there?

..there ought to be, but hey ths is toaw not Squad Leader..,

[MikeJ]

Originally posted by raintree_leaf


Let say if the attack runs from top to down. IMO, especially if you are short on troops, it is better to set up a horizontal defense which uses less troops than a diagonal defense which have a longer line(pythagoras theorem). Enemy coming down may also decides to grind up part of that diagonal defence nearer to them. I guess in these kind of situations, i will use what Menschenfresser recommends and set up a jagged horizontal defense.

The danger there is that you open up many points on your line to flank attacks rather than just one. With a slanted line, particularly if you have a strong line/reserves and breakthroughs aren't very likely (which encourages your opponent to attack the exposed flank position and "roll up your line", one hex at a time to minimize his own losses), giving him multiple flank positions lets him do it many times faster.

I personally find it better (usually anyways) to have one or two key hexes instead of many exposed because I can expect attacks there - so I can strengthen those hexes and keep reserves nearby.

[MikeJ]

Originally posted by a white rabbit


..pass-def have always taken hammer in flank attacks (1 hex apart)..and it's not really rear attacks, it's attacks from hexes at 180°..and rear attacks didn't exist under toaw1..,

Ok, had a couple of us confused here :). I thought there was yet another thing about this game that I still don't know.

Amazing how long I've actually played TOAW (granted, on and off at times) and still don't know half of the game mechanics involved.

[Richard]

Jamiam has successfully summed up effects

You must attack at 120 degree or greater to get the advantages- or if a unit has attacked in a direction and you counterattack from one of the three hex fronts in the other direction you also get the bonus. This is from the original manual.

I am not sure if the second part of this now applies- as they have tweaked how the game works several times and not altered the manual- and I believe it only applies within the same turn- which means it is a player 2 advantage only

The advantages of this are great because the best way to break a unit is to force it to retreat and get in disengagement penalties and subsequenet attacks while it is in minimise losses setting- causing another retreat and more disengagement losses

The much higher losses amongst the weak passive units such as trucks, artillery etc. can easily cause this retreat.

I also recall that it reduces the effects of a unit being dug in

Cheers

Richard