View Full Version : We have a new record!
Ladies and gentlemen:
Mantis just managed to achieve 28 attack rounds during his turn in an EA game !!!!
That's got to be a new record, after 27 attack rounds he even had enough % of his round left to move his planes!
I'm unworthy! :hurray: :o
How exactly does shock affect the tactical rounds?
Haven't played too many scenarios with it implemented.
I don't believe this! How could he break the old record by some many rounds? This is like a two minute mile.
:banana:
may I add that Mantis evaporated 3 of the big Maginot Forts during this turn and also executed a risky combined sea and airborne landing that successfully captured Athen ??
I know I sound like a lunatic but I have the replay to prove my words! :nuts:
Two words...
Case Yellow Shock.
One word: NO!
It's turn 15 and no additional Axis shocks, just the normal 115% Blitzkrieg bonus :)
Originally posted by JAMiAM
Two words...
Case Yellow Shock.
That's three words.:D
Actually, I ended the turn with 30% of it left. After Athens fell, there was really nothing to do with the last 1/3 of the turn; there were no more attacks to pursue. (Too bad you didn't try for the Finns, Kraut, I could've pushed for 40! :D )
I knew I had a good one going on, but I had no idea whatsoever that it got up that high...
:D
Sheik Yerbouti
30 Apr 03, 20:48
It defies laws of nature! :surprise:
I want Shane's random number generator. Time to send in the recovery team...:alien:
Fading Captain
01 May 03, 00:38
Haven't played EA yet (although it's fate; it will happen some day). Which side was Mantis playing, and what was the Force Proficiency?
Mantis is playing the Axis (force proficiency: 70) and I'm playing the Allied (force proficiency: 60)
viridomaros
01 May 03, 07:02
well there is something i have difficulties to understand how is it possible to have 28 rounds??????? i thought 10 was the maximum
when you are using movement and so on percentage of remaining rounds decreased and also you have to be lucky for getting more rounds when i play a force with a very good profeciency force i never had more than 7 or 8 round in a turn
Indeed i have noticed that when you play a pbem game and that your turn has ended you save the game and if you don't close the game you can still use your plane and sometimes units which didn't spend all their movement but i consider this as cheating so i'm not doing this
But when i read your article this is for me the only way to get this and even though i can't believe you could benefit 28 rounds in a turn
so can you explain me what happenned during this turn why not to send me the replay when the game will be over
Viridomaros@hotmail.com
As a novice, I'd love to hear more details on that also ... how can you possibly get 28 rounds in one turn????
Sheik Yerbouti
01 May 03, 09:45
Shock + lots of movement points = over 10 rounds of combat.
Mantis, UN inspectors will arrive soon (will they find anything, and would it be better to call US Army in, I don't know).
Edit: To the formula above should be added careful setting of attacks (limited attacks etc.) and plain good luck (no failed prof checks).
Originally posted by viridomaros
Indeed i have noticed that when you play a pbem game and that your turn has ended you save the game and if you don't close the game you can still use your plane and sometimes units which didn't spend all their movement
No, none of that. That's cheating. And Kraut's a vet, he'd notice. No, Viridomaros, believe it or not, it was righteous. I've had over 10 rounds in a turn probably 4 other times as well. (The highest being something like 17 times prior to this one).
Keep in mind that these are special circumstances; I'm operating with a shock bonus, I'm using fairly high proficiency units, and in special attack circumstances. I'm not pulling off 30 attacks per round, it started with 3, then after about 2 rounds it was just 2 attacks, and the bulk of it was probably done on just 1 spot. These attacks were on min losses, and I didn't advance after combat during 99.9% of them. (If I did, it would have eaten the turn).
For those that can't get their heads around this one, I'll give you a great example. Go load up Europe Aflame, and declare war on the Finns with the Russians. Mess around til the Finn Guerilla units arive. Now, start the turn with a Finn 'G' unit adjacent to a Russian. On the Axis turn, use the Finn (on limited attack, minimize losses) in an attack on the Russian. Do *no* other attacks. Save the game prior to launching the attack. (So you have a starting point). You'll notice that alot of the time, you'll do an attack with X% of the turn remaining, and it won't go down when the combat is over. Repeat. See how many of these attacks you can pull in a turn. Not over 10? Reload, try it again. It's not that hard to pull off!
Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti
Shock + lots of movement points = over 10 rounds of combat.
Edit: To the formula above should be added careful setting of attacks (limited attacks etc.) and plain good luck (no failed prof checks).
As a general rule, exactly. But to simplify even further:
If a unit has 6 points of movement, and launches an attack into a hex, and forces the defender out, advancing into the hex with a total of 3 movement points remaining, he will have eaten up 50% (I believe?) of the turn. If you use limited attacks, you *don't* advance after combat, so exploiting victories will not eat any of your turn.
Mantis, UN inspectors will arrive soon (will they find anything, and would it be better to call US Army in, I don't know).
Nothing here to see.
(Psssst!! Quick, drive around all day with my HD and CoW CD in your car until my people contact you!) :devil:
Originally posted by Mantis
If you use limited attacks, you *don't* advance after combat, so exploiting victories will not eat any of your turn.
This is not done as a standard attack! Newbies take note! *ONLY* do this when you are simply trying to bleed a hex empty of any supplies to resist the REAL attack! Also - most vet players agree on some sort of ratio/rules for these attacks. Kraut and I had our own rules (discussed prior to the turn in question, of course) in place, and all was righteous.
Be sure you have your own rules in place for supply-drain style attacks (especially if they are backed up by arty, which mine (unfortunately) weren't) prior to starting any game, especially a monster like EA!!
Originally posted by viridomaros
Indeed i have noticed that when you play a pbem game and that your turn has ended you save the game and if you don't close the game you can still use your plane and sometimes units which didn't spend all their movement but i consider this as cheating so i'm not doing this
Yes, that is a known TOAW shortage but it'll pop up during the replay! You'll get a nitice 'turn ended' or something and if after this notice your opponents troops continue attacking he's cheating. That wasn't the case in Mantis turn, he just got very lucky (you should have played Lotto instead of TOAW that day! :D ) but France is still fighting back!
:nofear:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mantis
If you use limited attacks, you *don't* advance after combat, so exploiting victories will not eat any of your turn.
I was under the impression that the advance after combat did not use any combat rounds, it just used movement point for the advancing unit. I think I have had instances where my percentage of turn remaining did not change after attacks which included advances.
Another nice round Shane! :thumup:
TOAW is:
The game where it doesn't matter how well you can play the given circumstances of a scenario but a game where it's more important on how well you can control the underlying "system" within the game.
In this type of scheme great player strategy will never triumph over a player with better "system" control.
Sheik Yerbouti
01 May 03, 13:22
Originally posted by Kerry
TOAW is:
The game where it doesn't matter how well you can play the given circumstances of a scenario but a game where it's more important on how well you can control the underlying "system" within the game.
In this type of scheme great player strategy will never triumph over a player with better "system" control.
I absolutelly agree.
I agree too ... but ....
That's true of any game.
If both players have a great strategy, the player that wins will be the one that understands the game mechanisms the best. That's just a part of gaming and, really, that's true of life too. I've seen many excellent PLANS fall apart due to a lack of understanding about how to use the available tools to execute the plan.
I don't see that as a shortcoming of the TOAW system. If we wanted a simple game, with basic rules, we'd all still be playing Risk and reading military history.
ER_Chaser
01 May 03, 13:35
Originally posted by Franco
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mantis
If you use limited attacks, you *don't* advance after combat, so exploiting victories will not eat any of your turn.
I was under the impression that the advance after combat did not use any combat rounds, it just used movement point for the advancing unit. I think I have had instances where my percentage of turn remaining did not change after attacks which included advances.
I agree with this. I also have the impression that I experienced some none changed % left after moving by attack. But need to be confirmed.
Kraut: the "end of turn" sign is only for the second player's move in a PBEM game. For the first player, there is simply no such problem: because the "turn does not end" when the first player finishes his play. When you review the first player's turn, you will see "end of playback" only, no "end of turn". Frankly speaking, so far I found no signal to detect whether or not the first player continued after a proficiency check. But nevertheless it does not bother me anyway.
Mantis and all other vets: a question for extremely high multi-rounds ---- as I (thought I ) "perfectly" understood how important the "multiround" technique is in this game, but I could not see a clear cut of something that MUST be done by a 20-round resolution which canNOT be done by a 7-round resolution ... yet. Or is this "excessive" multi-round attack just to make the target "softer" to gain higher chance of final attack?
Thanks, man
Sheik Yerbouti
01 May 03, 13:43
Originally posted by B-Man
That's true of any game.
If both players have a great strategy, the player that wins will be the one that understands the game mechanisms the best. That's just a part of gaming and, really, that's true of life too. I've seen many excellent PLANS fall apart due to a lack of understanding about how to use the available tools to execute the plan.
I don't see that as a shortcoming of the TOAW system. If we wanted a simple game, with basic rules, we'd all still be playing Risk and reading military history.
I absolutelly agree.
:laugh:
Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti
I absolutelly agree.
:laugh:
You sure are agreeable today...;)
Sheik Yerbouti
01 May 03, 13:46
Originally posted by JAMiAM
You sure are agreeable today...;)
Yes, I agree.
Originally posted by Franco
I was under the impression that the advance after combat did not use any combat rounds, it just used movement point for the advancing unit. I think I have had instances where my percentage of turn remaining did not change after attacks which included advances.
While that does seem to happen sometmes, phases eaten is also somehow calculated on remaining movement points of units that engaged in combat. I'm really not the one to be explaining this, perhaps James or someone can make it a little more clear. I'm great for absorbing this information, and making use of it in my moves, but alot of the time it's just a 'feel' thing; I don't have a handle on the 'under-the-hood' aspects of this game nearly as well as Jamiam, General Staff, and quite a few others that are regulars here.
Originally posted by Kerry
Another nice round Shane! :thumup:
Thank you.
TOAW is:
The game where it doesn't matter how well you can play the given circumstances of a scenario but a game where it's more important on how well you can control the underlying "system" within the game.
In this type of scheme great player strategy will never triumph over a player with better "system" control.
Which is why (and I did this in the game I played with Kerry as well) I generally insist on a unit ratio when using these types of attacks. But we're discussing mechanics here, not game philosophy, so suffice it to say that these types of attacks I generally frown on, but am still quite good at them when I do pull them out of the closet.. Kraut and I decided to allow them this game, with some slight restriction.
Siberian HEAT
01 May 03, 14:18
Originally posted by Mantis
Kraut and I decided to allow them this game, with some slight restriction. [/B]
Yes, I heard he "restricted" you to only 30 rounds per turn. :laugh:
A quick explanation on my theory of how shock affects the duration of the turn. Don't take it as gospel, as I've not bothered to set up any tests to verify it. The theory is merely based on observation of combat results, over a few games...;)
Normally, when combat occurs, the attack will begin at the tactical round indicated by the Attack Planner. It will then go on some number of rounds, depending on the circumstances in the particular battle. The longest lasting battle in the series of battles is noted, and the number of tactical rounds expended is added to the elapsed time within the turn. The next series of attacks, barring overall force proficiency check failures will begin from this point. In short, if on round 3, you begin a series of attacks that last at most two rounds, you will end up having expended 50% of the turn, i.e. 50% remaining. Advances, after combat by a large proportion of your units into high MP cost hexes will further degrade this remaining percentage.
This information is more fully explained in Bob Cross' excellent article on this site.
My theory on how shock affects this is that the number of rounds expended in the longest lasting combat is modified by the following formula:
RE = RC - GIF[(S-100)/10], where
RE is Modified number of tactical Rounds Expended,
RC is Number of tactical Rounds expended in longest Combat
S is Shock Value
GIF is the Greatest Integer Function, rounding up the fractions of [(S-100)/10]
I need to think about the allowable ranges for RE, and RC. However, I can't think clearly with lunch staring me in the face...:hog:
Like I said, this should not be treated as gospel, though I believe in its general accuracy to play as if it is true. Only Norm knows for sure...:hail:
Originally posted by ER_Chaser
Or is this "excessive" multi-round attack just to make the target "softer" to gain higher chance of final attack?
Thanks, man
Various reasons. You nailed one. The others could be just to bleed a stack white, when you have no intention of attacking it at all; you could be doing it defensively - you're the Russians, and the Axis are knocking at the door. HARD. This is how you penalize him for overstacking. Want to take the wind out of his sails? Do it all up and down the line, anywhere he has more than a few units together. Offensively - you're the Axis, and you're taking France down. Do it all up and down the line, eat the Allies' reserve deployments, keep all their units in the red so they can't offer a stiff defence or any serious counterattack.
Originally posted by Siberian HEAT
Yes, I heard he "restricted" you to only 30 rounds per turn. :laugh:
Quite limiting, but I'm trying to get by as best I can...
:D
ER_Chaser
01 May 03, 14:38
Originally posted by Mantis
Various reasons. You nailed one. The others could be just to bleed a stack white, when you have no intention of attacking it at all; you could be doing it defensively - you're the Russians, and the Axis are knocking at the door. HARD. This is how you penalize him for overstacking. Want to take the wind out of his sails? Do it all up and down the line, anywhere he has more than a few units together. Offensively - you're the Axis, and you're taking France down. Do it all up and down the line, eat the Allies' reserve deployments, keep all their units in the red so they can't offer a stiff defence or any serious counterattack.
hmm... when you are defending, usually, that means, you have lower proficiency units + shock penalty (which is true in the soviet case in EA I guess?) ---- you can still draw many rounds, first of all? I doubt it. Secondly, even if you did, I feel in most cases, you draw your own blood (squads and supplies) more than your opponents (I tried quite a few times in the Barbarossa sce with James, unless I mess an absolutely superior force locally, all my attacks almost uniformly resulted in meaningless suicide) ---- does a repeatitive attempt of such tactics improve the performance? Finally and most importantly, if you actively attack, your units will be out of its dig-in position, and by one time digging back, you at best can be in "Entrenched" status, so this is quite costy when your units were already in "Fortified" position --- how do you compute this tradeoff? And also, since you have a shock disadvantage, the turn may very likely end unexpectedly, that way, you do not even have a chance to dig in again, which, I guess, would be a disaster. Any good ideas of getting around this?
About attacking part, I mostly agree ---- but it seems depending on your opponents strategy..... .;p
Siberian HEAT
01 May 03, 15:02
Originally posted by Kerry
In this type of scheme great player strategy will never triumph over a player with better "system" control.
This is true at face value. However, conceptually it is not hard at all to get several rounds in a turn. With a little practice there is no reason any player shouldn't be getting 3 or 4 rounds per turn almost every turn they play. That is what I bank on in most scenarios (+/- depending on proficiencies and shock of course).
Don't be intimidated by "expert" players. Personally, in most games, I am able to win with only a few rounds per turn...and my record number of turns is only 7 or 8. Frankly I don't have the time to plan each and every combat round to perfection. :D
Originally posted by Siberian HEAT
This is true at face value. However, conceptually it is not hard at all to get several rounds in a turn. With a little practice there is no reason any player shouldn't be getting 3 or 4 rounds per turn almost every turn they play.
I agree.
When I started with TOAW, there was no way I was able to get in more than 1 combat round per turn.
Now I'm usually able to pull off 2-3 rounds, depending of course on the scenario.
Originally posted by tigersqn
I agree.
When I started with TOAW, there was no way I was able to get in more than 1 combat round per turn.
Now I'm usually able to pull off 2-3 rounds, depending of course on the scenario.
When I started I used to only get one. Then I started getting a taste of multiple rounds. I didn't know it, at the time, but I was getting hooked. Before I knew it, I found myself sneaking off into high shock scenarios and pulling off 6 or 8 rounds with ease. Things got worse for me, as I really got out of control, and hit 10, then 12 rounds in a turn. Now, I just take one day at time and am happy with myself. I really was turning into quite the monster...:clown:
JAMiAM said:
RE = RC -GIF[(S-100)/10], where
RE is Modified number of tactical Rounds Expended,
RC is Number of tactical Rounds expended in longest Combat
S is Shock Value
GIF is the Greatest Integer Function, rounding up the fractions of [(S-100)/10]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was my understanding there would be no math.
Quick question as I munch down my lunch here...
How do air attacks eat up/affect the rounds?
Sometimes my multiple rounds involve no combat actions on the ground, but are more used for destroying every rail bridge within a 100 miles.
Don't have any docs with me at the moment, so would like some insight you all may have on this. Not sure where one can see how much of a turn will be eaten up by just doing bridge attacks.
Mike
I'm certain that movement into a hex you pushed an enemy out of has no effect on combat rounds. I do it all the time when I force a breakout with no detriment on the combat rounds. This is without shock though... I really have no idea how shock affects all this.
a white rabbit
01 May 03, 16:39
..ltd-min-loss attacks are very useful when combined with flank positions, such as when defending against the pointed end of blitz-krieg-type attacks, better still if you can divide your attacking unit so one half digs-in on ignore..
Originally posted by G Man
Quick question as I munch down my lunch here...
How do air attacks eat up/affect the rounds?
Sometimes my multiple rounds involve no combat actions on the ground, but are more used for destroying every rail bridge within a 100 miles.
Don't have any docs with me at the moment, so would like some insight you all may have on this. Not sure where one can see how much of a turn will be eaten up by just doing bridge attacks.
Mike
If you make a bombardment via air or artillery and it has no supporting ground units, your loss tolerances (the highest one) determines how many rounds it takes.
Min = 1
Limited = 2
Ignore = 3
If you do have ground units in the attack however, it doesn't matter what loss tolerance you set for the bombardment units (in that they don't affect combat rounds expended.. only the ground units determine that). It may be (though I haven't tested this) that the bombardment unit tolernaces when combined with ground units determines how long they will support the attack (if it lasts multiple rounds), but it will have no effect on tactical rounds.
By the way, nice name ;).
Originally posted by G Man
Quick question as I munch down my lunch here...
How do air attacks eat up/affect the rounds?
Sometimes my multiple rounds involve no combat actions on the ground, but are more used for destroying every rail bridge within a 100 miles.
Don't have any docs with me at the moment, so would like some insight you all may have on this. Not sure where one can see how much of a turn will be eaten up by just doing bridge attacks.
Mike
Air/Naval/Artillery bombardments work a bit differently, depending on whether or not any direct fire combats are also present in the series of attacks.
With no shock modifiers, a bombardment of a hex (an attack against an enemy unit) expends one tactical round per level of loss setting. Thus, Minimize/Limit/Ignore expend 1/2/3 rounds respectively. This applies to airfield attacks, as well. Bridge attacks on the other hand expend only one tactical round regardless of the loss settings of the units involved. Keep in mind that the round which the combat begins is still determined by the proportion of the bombarding unit(s) remaining movement allowances.
With positive shock modifiers, pure bombardment rounds can execute over multiple tactical rounds, yet only expend single rounds (thus some evidence for my theory). So, depending on the level of shock, an artillery unit might make a ignore loss attack against an enemy hex and instead of firing for and expending 3 tactical rounds, it might fire for three rounds, yet only expend 1, or 2! With respect to my formula in the other post, the range of RE is greater than 0 in these cases. That is, at least one combat round will be expended.
Now, if units are involved in ground combats as well, then you can actually have bombardments not affect the amount of turn remaining, so in this case there must be some override which allows the minimum RE from ground combat to supersede the minimum RE of bombardment combat.
Someday, someone who is reliable and well versed with the system can set up a test to prove or disprove this. Chris (General Staff) is one that I would trust in his methodology. Me? I'm too lazy, and waste too much time on the boards, and playing... :p
Thanks MikeJ and JaMiAM!
Additional question just as a confirmation of what I think I'm seeing in my turns:
I assume re-basing an air unit before attacking uses up rounds as well? (Let's say no ground attacks are involved at all for this example).
So that I would most likely get more rounds by NOT moving air units and just attacking bridges, etc from start-of-turn locations, as opposed to re-basing then launching various bridge attacks and using up more of the turn??
Mike
Originally posted by MikeJ
I'm certain that movement into a hex you pushed an enemy out of has no effect on combat rounds. I do it all the time when I force a breakout with no detriment on the combat rounds. This is without shock though... I really have no idea how shock affects all this.
Not exactly correct...
At the conclusion of all combats that began on a particular round, the average unused movement points remaining will determine how much time has elapsed in the turn.
cbc72 be warned...math follows...:p
A brief example. No shock in effect. You have ten units attacking enemy hexes. Each of the units has a movement allowance of 10. You are starting the attack on tactical round one, and all of the units were in position to begin the attack with full movement points. You make the attacks and none of them take more than one round of combat. Either all attacking and/or defending units broke off after only one tactical round. However, two of your units advanced into the enemy hexes. They each expended 2 movement points to do so. The combat ends, and the turn increments by 10% because your attack lasted one round and your remaining average movement allowance is [(10*8 + 8*2)/10] = 9.6. Now, in this case, the two units that advanced in will only have 8 MP's remaining, but the others will all have 9. This is important for the planning of subsequent attacks.
If any of the attacks has lasted more than one round, then the remaining amount of the turn would be decremented by the number of rounds of the longest lasting attack. If you had more successful advances, then the remaining amount of the turn would also be decremented. Another example, if you had everyone successful in their attacks, and advance into hexes that cost 3 MP's then the remaining movement would be decremented to 70% remaining since the average is [(7*10)/10] = 7.
Another example is half of the units advance, but into very restrictive terrain, expending 4 MP's each. Then [(5*6 + 5*10)/10] = 8 will have burned 20% of the turn, for only one round of attacks, leaving half of your forces with 8 MP's remaining, and the advancing half with only 6 apiece.
Originally posted by G Man
Thanks MikeJ and JaMiAM!
Additional question just as a confirmation of what I think I'm seeing in my turns:
I assume re-basing an air unit before attacking uses up rounds as well? (Let's say no ground attacks are involved at all for this example).
So that I would most likely get more rounds by NOT moving air units and just attacking bridges, etc from start-of-turn locations, as opposed to re-basing then launching various bridge attacks and using up more of the turn??
Mike
Right. Or move some, with the intent of using them in subsequent attacks. If you need to know when the attack of a bridge hex will commence, you can set it to attack a ground unit adjacent to a friendly unit, then use that unit to open the attack planner dialogue. Or, you can break out your trusty calculator and divide the remaining MP's by the full MP's of the unit to see what percentage is left of its MP and plan accordingly from there.
Originally posted by G Man
Thanks MikeJ and JaMiAM!
Additional question just as a confirmation of what I think I'm seeing in my turns:
I assume re-basing an air unit before attacking uses up rounds as well? (Let's say no ground attacks are involved at all for this example).
Possibly.
Air units tend to have large amounts of movement points, so you have leeway to move without sacrificing additional combat rounds.
For example, if an air unit has 1000 MPs, then the cut off point for each new tactical round is every 100. 900, 800, 700, etc for each new tactical round. I'm not sure how the rounding works (maybe someone else does - it may round down, up, or may not round at all until after) but it's possible to move units, both air and ground, and attack wihtout expending additional combat rounds if they're moved.
But generally speaking, yes, re-basing air units before attacking with them specifically will usually burn more tactical rounds. However, if you put them in support roles and don't target them individually (eg. combat support) they will not burn additional combat rounds. They are like artillery in that respect.
So that I would most likely get more rounds by NOT moving air units and just attacking bridges, etc from start-of-turn locations, as opposed to re-basing then launching various bridge attacks and using up more of the turn??
Well, the best way to go about getting more tactical rounds is some simple planning.
If you've moved your air units 50% of their MPs at the start of the turn and only want to burn 1 round of combat in a bombardment attack on bridges, you can do so - you just have to wait until 50% or less of the turn is remaining before you use them in that manner. If you want to make the attacks right away, at the start of the turn, then don't move the air units first.
When you're attacking, plan ahead. When I'm on the attack, I usually determine how many combat rounds I intend to use before I start setting up attacks. Then I setup the attacks with that in mind. If 80% of the turn remains, only units with 80% of their turn remaining will attack (assuming I'm planning for a single tactical round of combat). Any others that I want to attack with but have less than that will wait.
I usually leave tough combats (eg, surrounded enemy stack, to evaporate them - these are a common place to lose a ton of tactical rounds) until the end of the turn (or near the end if I want to be able to dig in after). Sometimes I have to break an important hex(s) early in the turn to break out - in which case I'll plan to use more tactical rounds. If 80% of the turn remains and I'm allocating two phases of combat, and one of the attacking units has 70% of its turn remaning, well no problems using it right? Just don't give it a high loss tolerance setting and it should break off within 1 round.
Of course, things don't always go your way, but if you do this enough you get a good feel for what you can expect from certain combats and can easily get out 4-5 tactical rounds a turn. With high force prof it shouldnt be difficult to get around 7-8 a turn without shock. Often though, 7-8 combat rounds is gratuitous. As with Siberian Heat, I often don't need more than 4-5 combat rounds, the exception being when I'm trying for a single turn breakout/exploitation, then you need every tactical round you can get. For those really beautiful attacks that smash open a line, reinforces the shoulders and funnels mobile units through, all in the span of a single turn, you really have to plan out several rounds ahead and check every unit (you can use the attack planner to help in that respects)'s movement allowance.
This can be time consuming and tedious, which is why I generally don't like those massive scenarios. I'm really meticulous and I almost died trying to playing DNO as the germans hotseat :D.
Originally posted by JAMiAM
At the conclusion of all combats that began on a particular round, the average unused movement points remaining will determine how much time has elapsed in the turn.
Ah yeah, forgot about that.
But that will rarely come into play for me. Maybe for others though.
Only a fraction actually move in to occupy the hex they've cleared. Furthermore, you may or may not expend additional movement points from moving into a hex, it just depends on the terrain and ZOCs, which, if you plan ahead aren't an issue.
For absolute clarity, at the end of the round is it
a) the average movement points left of the entire army that determine the number of rounds used, or
b) the average movement points left of the units in each combat, with the worst result taken across all combats
I assumed it was b) - one duff attack can wipe out the entire turn for the entire army.
Also - I thought the movement points used at the start of the combat dictated which round the battle started on, then the number of combat rounds in the battle are added to find out which round it ended on ? I didn't think movement points left at the end was the determining factor for how many rounds are left ...
I'd be pleased to be told I'm wrong.
Originally posted by GunnerC
For absolute clarity, at the end of the round is it
a) the average movement points left of the entire army that determine the number of rounds used, or
b) the average movement points left of the units in each combat, with the worst result taken across all combats
I assumed it was b) - one duff attack can wipe out the entire turn for the entire army.
Also - I thought the movement points used at the start of the combat dictated which round the battle started on, then the number of combat rounds in the battle are added to find out which round it ended on ? I didn't think movement points left at the end was the determining factor for how many rounds are left ...
I'd be pleased to be told I'm wrong.
It doesn't quite work like a)/b).
The act of attacking takes no MPs at all. Only combat rounds used remove MPs from units. Not sure if that makes sense to you.
Every round of combat will take a set amount of MPs as per the % of the turn left.
Only units in combat affect how many rounds are used. You can move every single unit on the map to 0 MPs except 1 and attack with that unit for 1 round and have 90% of the turn remaining.
The trick is, if units occupy a hex after combat it's possible that, in our previous example, instead of 800 MPs a unit that was in combat will have 795 (or something like that as it moved). If enough units do that you're in danger of losing an additional combat round (or possibly more in low movement scenarios). It's also possible that units that moved have 800 MPs left, depending on the terrain and ZOCs.
In other words, you're guaranteed to have no less than what % of the turn remains on units that attacked if they did not move into the enemy hex after combat.
The average MPs of units in combat doesn't seem to happen very often though, at least not for me.
I seem to get by fine ignoring it entirely.
a white rabbit
02 May 03, 14:43
Originally posted by GunnerC
For absolute clarity, at the end of the round is it
a) the average movement points left of the entire army that determine the number of rounds used, or
b) the average movement points left of the units in each combat, with the worst result taken across all combats
.
..almost b), but it's per combat, then if one combat area fails the test it's "lose more gold squares" to "early bathnight"across the board..,
Originally posted by B-Man
I agree too ... but ....
That's true of any game.
Actually this is not literaly true of any game-except TOAW.
It's not true of say Combat Missions/Steel Panthers/or, even Risk.
Every one gets the same number/ability to attack.
Can someone name another game that has hidden features allowing you excessively more attacks than your opponet in a UGO/IGO system?
How many games say: "Due to the nature of the system your opponet can get 2x, 3x, 5x or 10x the number of attacks to your 2 or 3? And if you don't- tough. You'll just have to make your own house-rules to compensate for your shortcomings."
In how many games can one side get in (ex.) 100 hex moves compared to "a" normal 10? And if not why not? Why doesn't TOAW offer that unique ability as well? It is due to nothing other than the SYSTEM. And having nothing to due to your ability to read, command, design "strategy" or knowing how to move a truck into a hex.
If both players have a great strategy, the player that wins will be the one that understands the game mechanisms the best. I've seen many excellent PLANS fall apart due to a lack of understanding about how to use the available tools to execute the plan
But that is where TOAW falls apart combat wise.
I've played strategy board games for 30+ years not one rule book says: "Please note that due to "underlying" rules one side may get to attack (sorry Shane) 14-28 times but the other will get only 3.
Someone in TOAW that has great strategy will lose everytime against someone who can pull off (sorry again Shane) 28 combat rounds. It has nothing to do with, "The Art of War."
I guess the rational is that "my tankers have figured out a way to load 28 152mm shells a minute compared to your 3 88mm's."
TOAW is suppose to be the "Art of War" not the "Art of Complex Underlying System Understanding-Maybe."
I don't see that as a shortcoming of the TOAW system. If we wanted a simple game, with basic rules, we'd all still be playing Risk and reading military history.
There are basic games then there are games with basic understandable "rules." TOAW fails miserably in this department...
TOAW is a fine game that I like but the ability for such a wide range of "allowed" combats makes this not an IGO/UGO game but an IGO (maybe) 3 times UGO 14+.
I can't name one game that this obvious short-coming (hidden feature) is a purposely "set part" of the game.
I'm happy for all those who have cracked that system and way to go! But for a "strategy" game to "make it" (combat) a mystery for the players makes no sence.
This is just a game of course so the best to all those who can master this very complex system, and good gaming.
Kerry :cheeky:
Originally posted by Kerry
This is just a game of course so the best to all those who can master this very complex system, and good gaming.
Ok so make min. loss attacks and don't attack with any unit that doesn't have enough MPs - enough being defined as the % of turn remaining ~ % of movement points remaining for any given unit?
That's all you need to know to crank out 6-8 combat rounds a turn without shock. It should be noted that getting 8 combat rounds a turn, while looking nice, doesn't necessarily win you a game.
TOAW inherently favors the attack because of this "bug", but all that really means is you can't passively defend - eg you can't dig in a line of units, sit around and expect it to hold. Active defence is really the only way to stop a good attacker.
Knowing that and all other things being equal, it will come down to operational/strategic choices/decisions players make.
It's true that the combat system has a lot of nuances, but all you really need is the basics. The rest is mostly icing on the cake, IMO. I personally don't pay very much attention to most of the nuance rules and it seems to work fine for whatever it is I'm trying to do.
CyberRanger
02 May 03, 22:48
Originally posted by Kerry
But that is where TOAW falls apart combat wise.
I've played strategy board games for 30+ years not one rule book says: "Please note that due to "underlying" rules one side may get to attack (sorry Shane) 14-28 times but the other will get only 3.
ah ... but to me (an admitted TOAW novice) that is the beauty of the game. The fellow who got 28 rounds wasn't POSITIVE he'd get that many. BUT he did understand how to maximize the potential to get rounds. I see that as an excellent simulation of the uncertainty of combat.
Originally posted by Kerry
But that is where TOAW falls apart combat wise.
I've played strategy board games for 30+ years not one rule book says: "Please note that due to "underlying" rules one side may get to attack (sorry Shane) 14-28 times but the other will get only 3.
Someone in TOAW that has great strategy will lose everytime against someone who can pull off (sorry again Shane) 28 combat rounds. It has nothing to do with, "The Art of War."
To run with this analogy, let's take the example of the boardgame player who goes through the trouble to move his units to cause additional enemy losses from retreats through ezoc's, and to factor count to get just the perfect amount of units to hit the minimum point breaks on the ideal odds columns across several dozen attacks. After 5 hours of sitting across from this player in a face to face game, he finally starts rolling dice.
Now, this may not be the best of fun for the player who neither takes the time to finesse the system, or adjust his play accordingly to eek out the most minute advantage, meanwhile twiddling his thumbs as his opponent "games" the system. But, it is good play on the part of the opponent who does take the time to get the most of his forces.
And this, my friends, is the great beauty of pbem games. While your anal retentive friend is agonizing for 15 minutes straight, where to send that dinky little recon battalion in his game of DnO, you can be browsing the web, chatting, downloading pr0n, hugging your wife, et cetera, while he's so involved. If you choose not to be so involved in learning the system and making it work to your advantage, then accept that you will not play to the same level - competitively - but can still have fun at the level that you are comfortable at.
And you get a bigger pr0n collection than that counter pushing geek...:D
a white rabbit
03 May 03, 04:06
..my 6-pennyworth on the vs counter games..you can stuff counter-games where the sun don't shine, especially DnO...most certainly DnO, unplayable brute it was..,
..toaw does all that a board game of it's hex-scale does and with out all the tedious sitting around..a player who judges the scen correctly and understands something of the tricks of the game-engine will win , but one without the other and you lose..
..i've got around 15 attack-rounds in some scens, i even managed 2 in Wserbürung (cheers, aplause) but you can never be certain you'l get them, especially when working on the edges of the calculations where the numbers get funny...everybody's had the tiny attack that elim'ed the enemy, it wasn't expected to, then lost you the turn, or the gotta-win that was a disaster, and lost the turn..,
.. i disagree Kerry, it makes perfect sense that we don't understand the nut's and bolts of the engine and so can't predict the outcomes of combat, it's not chess afterall..it is the best sim around for representing actual war, at the operational/strategic level especially over the last year or so as designers have finally started to come to grips with the complexities of the design-process..,
..read all the toaw-math you want , but you still end up playing by intuition..,
Sheik Yerbouti
03 May 03, 08:50
Although TOAW is the best operational level wargame around, it is the asymmetry between player 1 and 2, that bugs me most. Asymmetry is a necessary evil of an igo ugo -game, but TOAW emphasizes it too much for my tastes.
While I dare to say that I master the 'multiple combat rounds' -concept, operational wargame that emphasizes such a feature over traditional aspects of "operational art of war", whether using its Soviet definition or whatnot, is *weird* to say the least, how ever 'right' the end result may be.
Now it's James' job to trash this point of view. :D
How many games say: "Due to the nature of the system your opponet can get 2x, 3x, 5x or 10x the number of attacks to your 2 or 3? And if you don't- tough. You'll just have to make your own house-rules to compensate for your shortcomings."
All attacks aren't equal - if you launch a minimise losses attack the chances are only one round of combat will take place (in one round all the components of a unit can fire a fixed number of times - look at the manual). It may take several attacks to damage an enemy sufficiently to move them out of the target hex. Using a higher loss tolerance will generally force more rounds of combat in a particular combat BUT if the enemy is a pushover, only one round of combat will be used.
The general rule is to use minimise loss attacks in the early part of the turn - if hexes are taken you then have the chance to exploit. The risk of using minimise losses toward the end of a turn (and, sometimes, even at the begining) is that one combat can go on longer than expected and leave your troops hanging out their washing.
I think the combat round system leaves a fun element of uncertainty in a game. If you are feeling lucky you can try to get the maximum amount of movement flexibility out of a turn, but risk being left open to a counter attack. If you want to be much more conservative, then you can do that too.
a white rabbit
03 May 03, 13:46
..and it would appear following tests on aircraft, that as well as proficiency, an obvious factor, readiness and formation efficiency, play a part in time-consumed so chance of early-bathnight...,
.. especially readiness where i'd go as far as saying if it isn't green don't risk it (and bright green for the low prof units)..,
..however, my opponent will have a nice surprise..:D..,
Originally posted by Kerry
But that is where TOAW falls apart combat wise.
I've played strategy board games for 30+ years not one rule book says: "Please note that due to "underlying" rules one side may get to attack (sorry Shane) 14-28 times but the other will get only 3.
Someone in TOAW that has great strategy will lose everytime against someone who can pull off (sorry again Shane) 28 combat rounds.
LOL! That's ok, Kerry. The other 14000 turns I've played that didn't go 28 rounds, and the 99.9% that are well under 10 rounds didn't seem to suffer from lack of strategic depth and planning. :D
But I hear you. Bridge bombing and spoiling/supply drain attacks are *my* major things that I hope Norm addresses in the next patch. This one doesn't worry me so bad, as it's only possible with shock.
Originally posted by WestPointer
ah ... but to me (an admitted TOAW novice) that is the beauty of the game. The fellow who got 28 rounds wasn't POSITIVE he'd get that many.
Well, that's certainly true... I would've been quite happy getting off between 6 - 8. But I wasn't complaining!
Originally posted by JAMiAM
And you get a bigger pr0n collection than that counter pushing geek...:D
So how the hell do *you* manage to have the net's largest collection, then?
:hmmm:
(Blows that theory all to hell!)
Oh wait - it could also be cuz you can DL pr0n (lol) while you're (ahem) working...
:D
Mantis, get thineself to Vegas or the nearest Indian Gaming Casino immediately (who's having the last laugh now?)
I about wet myself when I get THREE moves, sometimes TWO even.
Maybe I should go buy those depends on the off chance I'll get one of those 10'rs.
:)
I wish!
I've been dying to try my luck at a roulette table for years now. I'm pretty good at poker, tho... :whist:
Originally posted by Mantis
:)
I wish!
I've been dying to try my luck at a roulette table for years now. I'm pretty good at poker, tho... :whist:
For those really dying to try their hand at roulette, try Russian Roulette...:hurt:
No, man...
I watched Deer Hunter...
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.