TOAWIII Questions

[Neutrino 123]

Hello, I’ve started playing TOAWIII with the advanced rules in the Patton 45 scenario, but have a few questions:

1. Why don’t I have air superiority? I set all my fighters to perform air superiority missions, but always get swamped by hordes of Yaks and La-7s. The computer attacks my airbases, but does very well, even if it attacks fighter bases with just bombers. By turn ten, all my air units are reorganizing after suffering hundreds of losses. Is there something I missed? It’s very distressing being the Americans and suffering from enemy air supremacy in 1945 (but I’m still giving the AI a good pasting:) ).

2. During the beginning of the game, I found it difficult to retreat since it was hard to disengage, and a few of my units were routed, so I couldn’t pull back without getting some important units overrun. If I want to retreat in this situation, should I disband the reorganizing/routed units, perhaps after splitting them to leave a rearguard? Will they reconstitute properly (with the patch, of course)? If so, where? The HQs perhaps?

3. What’s the point of HQs? In this scenario, they have the engineers, but they otherwise seem to do nothing but take up tactically important space (despite their traffic control ability). They seem to have support squads, so where should I put them?

4. Some of the equipment values are blatantly wrong. The ones I spotted (without looking for them specifically) are the Yak-3/Yak-9 comparison and the B-17/B-24/B-29 comparison. The Yak-3 was an improved version of the late Yak-9s (which should probably also have ‘early’ and ‘late’ versions), much the same except for better streamlining. Meanwhile, the B-24 had a somewhat longer range and greater payload (besides possibly at short-range) then the B-17 (certainly not half the payload as the soft attack indicates!). Also, the B-17 and B-24 have more defense then the B-29s, but this seems odd since the B-29 had more guns and a better cruising speed. Are these equipment errors well-known or should I be keeping an eye out for them and possibly suggesting specific changes?

[viridomaros]

this scenario has many flaws, as it is the russians don't stand a chance though the americans will have a hard time to win the battle in the air

i'm working on an improved version of this scenario, i'm 50% done. I hope to be able to post it soon.

[Neutrino 123]

Well, I'm not sure about the overall balance of the scenario, but from what I know of 1945 TO&E, the Russians should have mostly T-34/85s, not 76mm ones. Also, the Americans should have more 75mm Shermans and fewer 76.2mm ones (the proportion was about 50-50 only a little earlier if I remember correctly). The Americans should have fewer M-26s, and a greater variety of tank destroyers (M36s and M10 as well as the M18s). Some of the US armored divisions seem to be missing their third combat command, but this may be intentional.

[Telumar]

2. During the beginning of the game, I found it difficult to retreat since it was hard to disengage, and a few of my units were routed, so I couldn’t pull back without getting some important units overrun. If I want to retreat in this situation, should I disband the reorganizing/routed units, perhaps after splitting them to leave a rearguard? Will they reconstitute properly (with the patch, of course)? If so, where? The HQs perhaps?

Disengagement rules are outlined in the manual. The general point in this scenario is that the russians have bigger units than the US (regt<->btn) so they should have higher recon values than the US which makes disengagement more difficult. Units disengaging from the enemy have better chances if they retreat into a location occupied by a friendly unit. It is also terrain dependent (better in forests than in the open). Armoured units have a better chance than non armoured ones. Disengagement is automatic for: Commandos, HQs and Artillery if the destination is occupied by a friendly unit.

3. What’s the point of HQs? In this scenario, they have the engineers, but they otherwise seem to do nothing but take up tactically important space (despite their traffic control ability). They seem to have support squads, so where should I put them?

Headquarters increase the level of re-supply to adjacent units by 50%. But if a HQ is destroyed or loses some of its assigned supply squads the formation's supply distribution percentage is reduced. Take care of them. But this is only true if the HQ has support squads assigned. If a headquarter has commando squads assigned its formation may become reorganizing if these are destroyed. It's scenario design dependent.

Further i can second what viri said, and recommend you to play another scenario.

[Neutrino 123]

Is there a list of scenarios that should be avoided? I figure all the ones that Matrix added are probably good, right?

P.S. I ended the scenario and looked at all the units in more detail. There are indeed tons of flaws...

[Telumar]

The Patton'45 scenario was included in TOAW I (i believe) and in TOAW-COW, the reason why Matrix included it in TOAW3 is just completeness i think.

Can't give you a list of to be avoided scenarios, but just try some of the scens in the TOAW3 folder, the user made scens are often better than those that came with the initial release. Though Patton'45 is a figurehead of "how not to make it"..

[nemo]

Every scenario that came with TOAW CoW, whatever its quality or lack thereof is to be found in the Classic TOAW subfolder in TOAW III. Now, you have to consider that the original scenarios were designed under very harsh time constraints, that is without the benefits of extended playtesting and without the intimacy that time has given us with the game engine.

[nemo]

I figure all the ones that Matrix added are probably good, right?Well, they're supposed to, at least ;)
If you haven't seen it yet, you can read Daniel McBride's article over at Armchair General (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?p=2680&page=1), it'll give some information on the scenario selection process for TOAW III.

[ralphtrickey]

In the classics, Korea 50-51 is an excellent scenario for solo play. It's also the tutorial scenario.

[viridomaros]

Well, I'm not sure about the overall balance of the scenario, but from what I know of 1945 TO&E, the Russians should have mostly T-34/85s, not 76mm ones. Also, the Americans should have more 75mm Shermans and fewer 76.2mm ones (the proportion was about 50-50 only a little earlier if I remember correctly). The Americans should have fewer M-26s, and a greater variety of tank destroyers (M36s and M10 as well as the M18s). Some of the US armored divisions seem to be missing their third combat command, but this may be intentional.

there were a lot of problems with the toe i have used new for all units. i'm going to post it here so you can put your comments on it. i still have to do the allied airforce as well as allied armored divisions.
Then i'll have to build a good dynamic for the scenario using events, probably the most difficult thing to do for me.

[viridomaros]

russian infantry division:

82/162 rifle squads
36/81 smg squads
27 engineeer squads
16 su 76
162 Medium mg
83 82mm mortars
21 120 mm mortars
20 122 mm howitzer
24 57mm at gun
24 76mm gun
24 45 mm at gun
12 76mm howitzer
1 t70
45 trucks

[viridomaros]

russian artillery division

108 120mm mortars
84 122mm howitzers
36 152mm guns
32 152mm howitzers
36 BM-13 122mm SPMRL
48 76 mm gun
36 160mm mortars
24 203mm howitzers
10 20mm aa guns
165 horse teams
2 medium mg

[Ben Turner]

Is there a list of scenarios that should be avoided? I figure all the ones that Matrix added are probably good, right?

Of the original scenarios, I would recommend you stay away from the following;
Burma 42-43
France 40
Patton 45
Malta 42 (note that there is a separate revised version which I can't comment on)
Market Garden 44

The following are decent enough as simulation, but have dubious balance:
Crete 41
Luzon 41-42

Naturally this is just my opinion- but I have solid reasons in each case. If you want them I'll post them. I don't mean this as necessarily an endorsement of any of the scenarios I haven't listed. I don't think I've looked at them all in enough detail.

[JMS]

In the classics, Korea 50-51 is an excellent scenario for solo play. It's also the tutorial scenario.

Not a coincidence, ever heard of "Conflict: Korea"?

[Neutrino 123]

russian infantry division:

82/162 rifle squads
36/81 smg squads
27 engineeer squads
16 su 76
162 Medium mg
83 82mm mortars
21 120 mm mortars
20 122 mm howitzer
24 57mm at gun
24 76mm gun
24 45 mm at gun
12 76mm howitzer
1 t70
45 trucks

russian artillery division

108 120mm mortars
84 122mm howitzers
36 152mm guns
32 152mm howitzers
36 BM-13 122mm SPMRL
48 76 mm gun
36 160mm mortars
24 203mm howitzers
10 20mm aa guns
165 horse teams
2 medium mg


I don’t have much precise information, but there seem to be a few things I could easily find at first glance (assuming that the Soviets are using the 1944 organization, sources are Combat Mission, Strategy and Tactics number 224, and my own memory from past readings):

1. Not all Soviet infantry divisions had AFVs, so the SU-76s should probably only be present in guards divisions.
2. Soviet infantry divisions had many AT rifles.
3. I don’t think the infantry divisions had organic 12mm howitzers.
4. Not all Soviet infantry units were 1/3 smg. Some battalions had no smgs.
5. There was a regimental smg company and recon company in the infantry divisions.
6. Your infantry division doesn’t seem to have enough transport assets to carry its guns.
7. I don’t think the artillery divisions had 160mm mortars, 203mm howitzers, or any organic AA guns.
8. Weren’t the artillery divisions motorized?
9. I have 108 motors, 108 howitzers, and 72 direct-fire guns for the artillery divisions.
10. The artillery divisions had one brigade of 122 and 152mm howitzers, one of 122 and 152mm guns, one of 76mm (doesn’t specify guns or howitzers), and one of 120mm mortars.

[liuzg150181]

Not a coincidence, ever heard of "Conflict: Korea"?
Oh my,the first wargame that i had played!:shock:
Though my little puny mind at that time couldnt appreciate it and it was deleted from my 386 PC soon after.

[Wolfe Tone]

Not a coincidence, ever heard of "Conflict: Korea"?

I had a loan of that a good few years ago now. By Norm IIRC?

One thing I recall is the ability to merge units into a larger force even if they were from different formations or even armies.

Is that in TOAW III?

Be good if it was.

[nemo]

I had a loan of that a good few years ago now. By Norm IIRC?

One thing I recall is the ability to merge units into a larger force even if they were from different formations or even armies.

Is that in TOAW III?

Be good if it was.As of now, no. The formation / unit system remains more or less unchanged in that respect.