View Full Version : Relevance for other scales?
Heldenkaiser
01 Aug 06, 05:45
I have been wondering how much of what we're learning here is scenario or scale specific and how much would be relevant for other scenarios, especially at other scales. I haven't yet looked at all the stuff in the box (far from it), but the one other game that I am playing is France '40 which is at a completely different scale than 2WIN, with the basic units being divisions rather than battalions. There are armoured and (mot) infantry divisions plus HQs and that's it ... no engineers, no AA, AT, AG, no artillery at all; no recce units. On the other hand, plenty of air.
So combined arms and all that won't much apply to that division scale, or should I still stack one armoured with one infantry element? Still breakdown in smaller units, in this case: regiments (hell, I am having problems with the stacking limit even with divisions). Should HQs still be one hex behind, or should they be in the frontline to provide artillery support? (They seem to have an artillery element, I recall, but I am at work right now and can't check.) LA/ML doesn't seem to help much since there is no arty support that can add its weight ... and is 2 up 1 back still a good concept?
[Of course a main difference that has nothing to do with scale is that in France I am the attacker ... which makes it equally hard to apply lessons from 2WIN to that game. And the other problem is that my opponent there doesn't really seem to make an effort (30-50 playback records when I easily do several hundred a turn) ... so it's easy to get used to getting away with sloppy play. :nervous: Which is why I am double grateful for the hard lessons we're learning here.]
Anyway, what was my point? .... :rolleyes:
Good questions.
I've played Barbarossa 41 by Brian Topp (I think). Its one of those divisional level/25Km hex/half-week-turn games ... (I think ... I'm at work so I'm going from memory). Its a lot of fun if you're looking for other larger scale battles.
I haven't played Barbarossa since we started this workshop but I may crank it up tonight as I'm waiting on moves and see how some of these new goodies I've learned work at that scale.
... hope you get some answers to your questions ... I'll be watching
General Staff
01 Aug 06, 15:04
The advice here I dish out for better or worse is totally scenario-specific. It can be applied at higher levels. Regarding Combined Arms check your units- Soviet units in Barbarossa for example are essentially CA stacks. Look at AP/AT ratings per unit.
HQs behind- and arty if you can- works everywhere, even today I believe.
TOAW is designed for an operational level along the lines of a Korea scenario as NK created. Anything else is IMO fitting a large foot in a small shoe, but many would disagree. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Hope this helps.
I have been wondering how much of what we're learning here is scenario or scale specific and how much would be relevant for other scenarios, especially at other scales. I haven't yet looked at all the stuff in the box (far from it), but the one other game that I am playing is France '40 which is at a completely different scale than 2WIN, with the basic units being divisions rather than battalions. There are armoured and (mot) infantry divisions plus HQs and that's it ... no engineers, no AA, AT, AG, no artillery at all; no recce units. On the other hand, plenty of air.
First, you have to remember that all of your AT, AA, AG, and Arty are all combined into different, larger units. Your HQs probably have your Arty inside of them. If you get their unit reports it will tell you what is inside the unit. So your HQs, if they have the arty inside, have two functions at that scale. They are your HQs and they are your Arty. You have to keep that in mind when placing them.
So combined arms and all that won't much apply to that division scale, or should I still stack one armoured with one infantry element? Still breakdown in smaller units, in this case: regiments (hell, I am having problems with the stacking limit even with divisions). Should HQs still be one hex behind, or should they be in the frontline to provide artillery support? (They seem to have an artillery element, I recall, but I am at work right now and can't check.) LA/ML doesn't seem to help much since there is no arty support that can add its weight ... and is 2 up 1 back still a good concept?
In this scale you will likely still end up with much of your AT and anti-infantry assets seperate. You'll have Panzer divisions and Infantry divisions. Make sure that you are attacking the right targets with the right equipment.
Two up and one back is a damn good idea in 2WIN on the defensive. In France '40 it could still be a good idea if you are on the offensive. On the offensive, with the Germans, however, you will probably not need to brek your unts down as much, except when you need that extra unit to complete an encirclement.
Where you place your HQs/Arty is dependent on their range. If their range is more than 1, then you can have them behind your lines, in resevre status and they will still support your attacks.
[Of course a main difference that has nothing to do with scale is that in France I am the attacker ... which makes it equally hard to apply lessons from 2WIN to that game. And the other problem is that my opponent there doesn't really seem to make an effort (30-50 playback records when I easily do several hundred a turn) ... so it's easy to get used to getting away with sloppy play. :nervous: Which is why I am double grateful for the hard lessons we're learning here.]
Anyway, what was my point? .... :rolleyes:
Well, if you're opponent isn't making many moves there could be two reasons for that. Either there isn't much for him to do on the defensive, or he isn't putting much effort in to it. If the first, well, no worries. If it's the second, then win this one, chalk it up as a win and then move onto an opponent that will actually put up a fight.
Anything else is IMO fitting a large foot in a small shoe, but many would disagree. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Hope this helps.
I disagree. :p
In this scale you will likely still end up with much of your AT and anti-infantry assets seperate. You'll have Panzer divisions and Infantry divisions. Make sure that you are attacking the right targets with the right equipment.
In some scenarios at the divisional scale you have also some small independent units, i.e. StuG battalions or independent Heavy Panzer Battalions i.e., you can certainly use them like you do in Two weeks in Normandy, stack them with your infantry divisions for the purpose of combined arms or add them to an armoured attack to concentrate your forces and give the attack some extra spice.
Just want to add the Korea 50-51 scenario is pure beauty...:laugh:
Heldenkaiser
02 Aug 06, 07:17
Very helpful, as always. :)
Just want to add the Korea 50-51 scenario is pure beauty...
Is this a "stock" Korea sce that comes with TOAW? If not, is it one on Rugged Defense?
Just want to add the Korea 50-51 scenario is pure beauty...
Is this a "stock" Korea sce that comes with TOAW? If not, is it one on Rugged Defense?
It is the Korea 50-51 scenario by the Norm Koger, original designer of the game. It should be in the classic Toaw folder, i think it's even part of a tutorium.
It was the scenario of the demo version of toawI and ACoW, so it was the scenario i played first and i learned toaw with and for sure many others, too. It's really a good scenario, it contains almost all elements for each side: Defence and delay, the offensive, counterattack, amphibious operations, even a small airdrop. Best played as the UN/South Korea but it can be played also as the Communists vs. Elmer. You should give it a try, it's worth it and good to learn, test and improve your skills in all mentioned categories.
General Staff
02 Aug 06, 14:57
I'd probably agree, but I just am not interested in anything post-WWII/nuclear folly, so cannot comment. IMO you've got to draw a line somewhere.
I'd probably agree, but I just am not interested in anything post-WWII/nuclear folly, so cannot comment. IMO you've got to draw a line somewhere.
There are no nukes in this one and it is just shortly after WWII, it's almost fought like a WWII scenario, not really modern stuff at all. Except some jet fighters, but not even that is un-WWIIish..
Anything other than land warfare I'll need help with. I've never landed amphibious, or dropped para's. So i'll need to do this one. Thanks for clearing it up for me.
General Staff
02 Aug 06, 15:45
There are no nukes in this one and it is just shortly after WWII, it's almost fought like a WWII scenario, not really modern stuff at all. Except some jet fighters, but not even that is un-WWIIish..
Yes, but once nukes are out and about it's a totally different ball game and not my cup of tea (un?)fortunately. Rather like today.
There is actually only a small chance of the nukes coming out in Korea 50-51. Other than that it plays out just like a WWII scenario. The jets are simply aircraft with higher air defence and that other stats. :D
General Staff
03 Aug 06, 07:50
There is actually only a small chance of the nukes coming out in Korea 50-51.
I know, but I'm just frightened I'd get a desperate urge to wheel them out of the garage or silo and use them.
I know, but I'm just frightened I'd get a desperate urge to wheel them out of the garage or silo and use them.
Believe it or not, i have never used nukes in toaw until today.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.