COMBAT formulas etc...

[Bloodstar]

Yes, I know that I could turn on detailed combat and maybe found this out by myself or get a better view on combat but anyway to ask and this is also interesting to new players as well...

As there is a big deal of randomness in TOAW that is also for consideration but here is a topic...

I need to know some basic formulas on TOAW combat:

Ie. heavy infantry squad have defense rating of 10, when fortified it goes to 30 (?). Now, what happens when other heavy infantry squad shooting at him, or some other equipment?

I understand armored combat but here are some shadow areas.

Also, that howitzer of 203 mm, have attack value of 6, and Norm once said that here is important thing RATE OF FIRE. What this means? Is this arty firing more times on the target and everything is added to strength of fire?

Back to infantry, defense of 30 is a lot, now how some low weap
on can kill this squad with attack of 3 let's say?

Is there anything else in the formula?

Encircled units tends to evaporate easily because unit lost cohesiveness so you shoot his trucks and even if you cannot destroy T-34 unit evaporates as it lost it's cohesiveness. Another point.

Combat needs to be explained a little bit better. Defense factor (D, E, F) as well plays big role and TERRAIN FACTOR (although not cumulative).

Beside this:

All unit strengths are increased by the unit's reconnaissance capability on the first round of combat. Reconnaissance capability has no effect on subsequent rounds. Example: If a unit has a anti-personnel strength of 15 and a reconnaissance capability of 30%, its effective anti-personnel strength on the first round of combat would be 19.


Infantry and non static weapons in defending units benefit from increased defensive strengths in some terrain or deployments. Effects are not cumulative.

· Light woods, forest, hills, wadi, or defending x2.0

· Bocage, urban, urban ruin, jungle, dunes or entrenched x3.0

· Dense urban, dense urban ruin, badlands, fortified line or fortified deployment x4.0

and many other things to considerate.


I would welcome discussion about this in this Workshop, as it could benefit to the new players as well.



Mario

[Secadegas]

Yes, I know that I could turn on detailed combat and maybe found this out by myself or get a better view on combat but anyway to ask and this is also interesting to new players as well...

As there is a big deal of randomness in TOAW that is also for consideration but here is a topic...

I need to know some basic formulas on TOAW combat:

Ie. heavy infantry squad have defense rating of 10, when fortified it goes to 30 (?). Now, what happens when other heavy infantry squad shooting at him, or some other equipment?

I understand armored combat but here are some shadow areas.

Also, that howitzer of 203 mm, have attack value of 6, and Norm once said that here is important thing RATE OF FIRE. What this means? Is this arty firing more times on the target and everything is added to strength of fire?

Back to infantry, defense of 30 is a lot, now how some low weap
on can kill this squad with attack of 3 let's say?

Is there anything else in the formula?

Encircled units tends to evaporate easily because unit lost cohesiveness so you shoot his trucks and even if you cannot destroy T-34 unit evaporates as it lost it's cohesiveness. Another point.

Combat needs to be explained a little bit better. Defense factor (D, E, F) as well plays big role and TERRAIN FACTOR (although not cumulative).

Beside this:

All unit strengths are increased by the unit's reconnaissance capability on the first round of combat. Reconnaissance capability has no effect on subsequent rounds. Example: If a unit has a anti-personnel strength of 15 and a reconnaissance capability of 30%, its effective anti-personnel strength on the first round of combat would be 19.


Infantry and non static weapons in defending units benefit from increased defensive strengths in some terrain or deployments. Effects are not cumulative.

· Light woods, forest, hills, wadi, or defending x2.0

· Bocage, urban, urban ruin, jungle, dunes or entrenched x3.0

· Dense urban, dense urban ruin, badlands, fortified line or fortified deployment x4.0

and many other things to considerate.


I would welcome discussion about this in this Workshop, as it could benefit to the new players as well.



Mario

There is only one thing "worst" than newbie's question... it's veteran's question :rolleyes:

[Bloodstar]

There is only one thing "worst" than newbie's question... it's veteran's question :rolleyes:

Why? I think that my question is interesting, I don't know why you are negative...

Hmmm.... :blab:


Mario

[Secadegas]

Why? I think that my question is interesting, I don't know why you are negative...

Hmmm.... :blab:


Mario

I seem negative... i'm not negative... Mario :thumup:

I even refered to you as a veteran... :p

[Secadegas]

Why? I think that my question is interesting, I don't know why you are negative...

Hmmm.... :blab:


Mario

And your question is, of course, interesting (i just find it too interesting... :nuts: )

[Bloodstar]

I seem negative... i'm not negative... Mario :thumup:

I even refered to you as a veteran... :p

Ah, allright sorry didn't meant to be offensive :p

I just felt that manual of COW is not so detailed on some aspects (or maybe it is I didn't read it lately hehe)... so some gray areas would be nice to have explained by James or anyone else.
No too much wisdom just explanation that every peasant like me can understand :D


Mario

[Bloodstar]

And your question is, of course, interesting (i just find it too interesting... :nuts: )

Hehe...

Well, we veterans must spice this a little bit, I don't want to scare noobs of course but that is the beauty of TOAW system - there is still some mistery in there :cool: and witchcraft lol.


Mario

[Secadegas]

Ah, allright sorry didn't meant to be offensive :p

I just felt that manual of COW is not so detailed on some aspects (...)


Mario

You're right, even if much better than before (speaking about TOAW III...)

... and you are also allowed to wreck my next thread... :crosseye:

[Bloodstar]

You're right, even if much better than before (speaking about TOAW III...)

... and you are also allowed to wreck my next thread... :crosseye:

Then we are waiting for answer... As I said I could have turned on detailed combat and maybe come to the conclusion by myself, just being too lazy for that. :umbrella:


Mario

[Telumar]

Hi guys, just that i am subscribed to the thread and don't miss anything. :smoke:

Uh! And i can answer one question! ..though i don't consider myself a veteran.. let's say a somewhat experienced player, but learning never ends in toaw..

Also, that howitzer of 203 mm, have attack value of 6, and Norm once said that here is important thing RATE OF FIRE. What this means? Is this arty firing more times on the target and everything is added to strength of fire?

Fire rate and i think also the common quality and type of ammunition (if it's a country specific equipment) have been factored into the combat values. I've read this once somewhere...sounds not very hard proofed, but i think it was from an "official speaker".

[Joao Lima]

...
Fire rate and i think also the common quality and type of ammunition (if it's a country specific equipment) have been factored into the combat values. I...

Type of amunition?... So we can choose between HE and HP and APCR and smoke?... :D

Or do in the world of TOAW a gun fires only one type of amunition?... :laugh:

Just joking, quite honestly I don't see how the type oif amunition can be factored in, but I'll wait for the 'specialists' to put some light onto this subject...

[Bloodstar]

Hi guys, just that i am subscribed to the thread and don't miss anything. :smoke:

Excellent :D


Uh! And i can answer one question! ..though i don't consider myself a veteran.. let's say a somewhat experienced player, but learning never ends in toaw..

That's true... TOAW is like alchemy ahem :ogre:everybody want to make gold out of lead but TOAW hides the secret deep inside of the code :cheeky:



Fire rate and i think also the common quality and type of ammunition (if it's a country specific equipment) have been factored into the combat values. I've read this once somewhere...sounds not very hard proofed, but i think it was from an "official speaker".

Hmmm... yes... but then higher calibres of guns would not have value of just 6 or 8 - that rate of fire maybe suggest that they fire their guns more often than those guns that have higher values but are sometimes less caliber... Some very heavy weapons also have highr number but that suggests that they also takes more time to put a grannate in them.

EDIT: ups, I said exactly what you have said hehe so yes it is factored

Mario

[Telumar]

Hmmm... yes... but then higher calibres of guns would not have value of just 6 or 8 - that rate of fire maybe suggest that they fire their guns more often than those guns that have higher values but are sometimes less caliber... Some very heavy weapons also have highr number but that suggests that they also takes more time to put a grannate in them.

EDIT: ups, I said exactly what you have said hehe so yes it is factored

Mario

As far as i know, guns with a big caliber (155mm+) reduce the entrenchment level of the bomarded unit/hex.

[Heinz57]

Interesting questions...

In more simple terms than I can state, some important information can be found on page 69 of the manual - Notes on Combat Resolution, "Individual weapons try to engage appropriate targets. There is some randomization, but the toughest targets will tend to draw fire from the most lethal enemy systems." It also covers rates of fire by unit type relative to attacking/defending, and notes relative for attacks to generate kills on armor.

Heavier artillery usually fires LESS FREQUENTLY than lighter artillery, it takes more time, effort and energy to lift and load a 300mm shell than it does a 155mm shell. In some, though not all cases, this does not necessarily mean a larger shell has a wider burst/kill radius than a smaller one.

As Telumar notes though - heavier artillery has a better chance of shifting a fortified/entrenched unit's status to mobile than lighter artillery does.

Every instance of a loss of a unit or equipment is not necessarily indicative of a kill - can equally be associated with being damaged beyond recovery (some portion going back to the replacement pool), wounded, loss of cohesion as you referenced, as well as outright surrender or loss of will to fight - which represents a fairly massive portion of overall "losses" in WW1 and WW2.

Odds are that the light weapons are not going to be inflicting very significant damage to units with higher defensive strengths...but going equipment type by equipment type the casualties are likely to be in the range of what one would expect. One reason why you don't send in infantry against fortified positions without combined arms support. Extract all of the heavy stuff and pure infantry going against a fortified position will suffer heavily with minimal losses to the defender - unless it is short on active equipment.

As for what can put a T34 out of action - if infantry are close enough to assault it and it doesn't have cover, it may button up...and while an HE shell might not put it out of action - the sounds of point blank explosions has a slight tendency to play havoc with the nervous system after a while. If there are warnings on cell phones and walkmans to not listen to them on maximum volume...30 pounds of heavy metal hitting heavy metal, repeatedly can produce some headbanging nose bleeds.

I don't know the exact formulas, but the randomness is not any worse than rolling dice and comparing them with modifiers to a chart. I don't know how many times in Third Reich I'd seen two panzer korps and some infantry korps get eliminated by a single rifle corps sitting behind a river - or forced into an EX... Leastwise in TOAW, you don't lose "everything" - you just lose parts, with the occasional evap on the attack.

While there may be mystery to the code, if the results were consistently abnormal we probably wouldn't be here. The formulas might very well be simple - or they might not be - suffice that adding multiple stacking modifiers to each engagement would likely increase the complexity when some standardization helps simplify it. If x * y = z produces consistently acceptable results, modifying one element of the equation will likely lead to having to modify another element of the equation...so if you take increase the value of x by 50% and decrease the value of y by 50%, you will still end up with the same z.

This probably doesn't answer much as I don't have specific formulas, but conceptually these points should help qualify the results of those formulas.

[Bloodstar]

Interesting questions...

In more simple terms than I can state, some important information can be found on page 69 of the manual - Notes on Combat Resolution, "Individual weapons try to engage appropriate targets. There is some randomization, but the toughest targets will tend to draw fire from the most lethal enemy systems." It also covers rates of fire by unit type relative to attacking/defending, and notes relative for attacks to generate kills on armor.

Heavier artillery usually fires LESS FREQUENTLY than lighter artillery, it takes more time, effort and energy to lift and load a 300mm shell than it does a 155mm shell. In some, though not all cases, this does not necessarily mean a larger shell has a wider burst/kill radius than a smaller one.

As Telumar notes though - heavier artillery has a better chance of shifting a fortified/entrenched unit's status to mobile than lighter artillery does.

Every instance of a loss of a unit or equipment is not necessarily indicative of a kill - can equally be associated with being damaged beyond recovery (some portion going back to the replacement pool), wounded, loss of cohesion as you referenced, as well as outright surrender or loss of will to fight - which represents a fairly massive portion of overall "losses" in WW1 and WW2.

Odds are that the light weapons are not going to be inflicting very significant damage to units with higher defensive strengths...but going equipment type by equipment type the casualties are likely to be in the range of what one would expect. One reason why you don't send in infantry against fortified positions without combined arms support. Extract all of the heavy stuff and pure infantry going against a fortified position will suffer heavily with minimal losses to the defender - unless it is short on active equipment.

As for what can put a T34 out of action - if infantry are close enough to assault it and it doesn't have cover, it may button up...and while an HE shell might not put it out of action - the sounds of point blank explosions has a slight tendency to play havoc with the nervous system after a while. If there are warnings on cell phones and walkmans to not listen to them on maximum volume...30 pounds of heavy metal hitting heavy metal, repeatedly can produce some headbanging nose bleeds.

I don't know the exact formulas, but the randomness is not any worse than rolling dice and comparing them with modifiers to a chart. I don't know how many times in Third Reich I'd seen two panzer korps and some infantry korps get eliminated by a single rifle corps sitting behind a river - or forced into an EX... Leastwise in TOAW, you don't lose "everything" - you just lose parts, with the occasional evap on the attack.

While there may be mystery to the code, if the results were consistently abnormal we probably wouldn't be here. The formulas might very well be simple - or they might not be - suffice that adding multiple stacking modifiers to each engagement would likely increase the complexity when some standardization helps simplify it. If x * y = z produces consistently acceptable results, modifying one element of the equation will likely lead to having to modify another element of the equation...so if you take increase the value of x by 50% and decrease the value of y by 50%, you will still end up with the same z.

This probably doesn't answer much as I don't have specific formulas, but conceptually these points should help qualify the results of those formulas.


Good reading...

But, about arty I've noticed that 75 mm have 11 attack value then, interesting this value goes up to 33 for 150 mm... then it decreases for 170 mm to 10, 210 mm - 7, 240 mm -10, then again goes up for 305 mm - 22...

BTW, 120 mm mortar have attack value (AP) - 25...

Hmmm, maybe I will test this in detailed combat on - that could maybe give some answers...


Mario

[Snefens]

I guess once you reach a certain caliber you need a hoist to handle the shell. ROF then wouldn't change much whether it's a 210 or 305mm shell you are lifting. Same ROF and bigger caliber then gives higher attack value.

[Bloodstar]

I guess once you reach a certain caliber you need a hoist to handle the shell. ROF then wouldn't change much whether it's a 210 or 305mm shell you are lifting. Same ROF and bigger caliber then gives higher attack value.

Yes, but again it's not make much logic...
How much mortar shells can mortar of 120 mm fire in a minute... I guess a lot more than 210 mm ER Gun whitch have AP strenght of 7...

I am just confused by this logic... because I was thinking, smaller value, higher rate of fire... then mortar have hmm strange value of 25.
Just don't get it.



Mario

[Snefens]

By some very rough calculations you can see why this is so.
Generally Norm is setting the value to reflect the amount of explosive delivered per time unit and not looking how much destruction each shell brings. I kinda disagree on this, thinking that in the first impact when defenders haven't had time to dive for cover it matters a whole lot if it's a 120mm or 203mm round that explodes nearby, and not as much how long before next round hits.

Now if we increase the caliber of the shell, the ammount of explosive, very roughly, rises with the caliber squared.

So lets take the 120mm mortar. It has the value of 25. If we assume it has a ROF of 17rounds/minute.

1.2*1.2*17=24.5

using the same formula, we can see that in order to give the 210mm gun a value of 7 it's ROF needs to be about 1.6/minute.

2.1*2.1*1.6=7

Now we assume that this rate of fire can be maintained with slight increases in caliber, like 240:

2.4*2.4*1.6=9.2

If we go the other way we can take the 107mm mortar. We take the same ROF as the 120mm and it gives us:

1.07*1.07*17=19.5, close the the 18 it has in TOAW.

Now these are just very rough approximations. One would need the actual ammount of explosive and ROF for each gun.

[Bloodstar]

By some very rough calculations you can see why this is so.
Generally Norm is setting the value to reflect the amount of explosive delivered per time unit and not looking how much destruction each shell brings. I kinda disagree on this, thinking that in the first impact when defenders haven't had time to dive for cover it matters a whole lot if it's a 120mm or 203mm round that explodes nearby, and not as much how long before next round hits.

Now if we increase the caliber of the shell, the ammount of explosive, very roughly, rises with the caliber squared.

So lets take the 120mm mortar. It has the value of 25. If we assume it has a ROF of 17rounds/minute.

1.2*1.2*17=24.5

using the same formula, we can see that in order to give the 210mm gun a value of 7 it's ROF needs to be about 1.6/minute.

2.1*2.1*1.6=7

Now we assume that this rate of fire can be maintained with slight increases in caliber, like 240:

2.4*2.4*1.6=9.2

If we go the other way we can take the 107mm mortar. We take the same ROF as the 120mm and it gives us:

1.07*1.07*17=19.5, close the the 18 it has in TOAW.

Now these are just very rough approximations. One would need the actual ammount of explosive and ROF for each gun.


Great, thanks...

Yes, I think that you got it right.



Mario

[Heinz57]

For these issues, some research on artillery will help quite a bit. Apparently someone did some research into the different weapons systems to come up with the corresponding artillery and armor values according to more than ROF. Not everyone is going to agree with the values assigned, and there's a difference between trying to explain them simply and explaining them technically...as in why would an Austrian 104mm howitzer be more effective than a 105mm howitzer?

I don't mean to imply to blindly accept the statistics in TOAW, nor would I try to engage technically to explain them. Numerous factors apply that I can think of without being an artilleryman - rate of fire, burst radius, accuracy, trajectory, type of ammunition, variable fuses - whether and how the shell detonates upon impact or whether it detonates prior to impact. A 120mm mortar does have a significantly higher rate of fire than a 210mm gun - but they fire very different types of shells; and usually different types of firing missions. 120mm mortars are typical to a regimental and even battalion level TO&E making it a high localized support weapon; whereas 210mm guns are usually found in the artillery assigned to corps level and army level headquarters, associated with a different need.

I would question why artillery does not have an anti-armor rating - because a 210mm gun firing point blank at a virtually anything would put it out commission - but these types of uses would be greatly more the exception than the rule. There are simply far too many exceptions than there are rules in warfare.... How does one explain a half platoon of starving riflemen equipped with some grenades and machineguns hold-off the combined efforts of assault engineers with flamethrowers, tanks, point blank 105mm artillery fire, etc. - for a month - historically possible, as was the case of Sgt Pavlov in Stalingrad. Probable...no.




http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/dispersion.html - provides a reasonably basic description of the chance an artillery shell is likely to land in any given are within a larger area.

[Heinz57]

Wow....good information, Snefens!

[RhinoBones]

. . . I was thinking, smaller value, higher rate of fire... then mortar have hmm strange value of 25. Just don't get it.
Mario

This is something I have always called the Norm Koger Syndrome. On the surface some things in the data base just do not make sense until it is explained. The explanation is not always perfect, but who am I to complain. I can always make my own data base.

BTW, do you know of the villages of Prilisce?

Regards, RhinoBones

[Bloodstar]

This is something I have always called the Norm Koger Syndrome. On the surface some things in the data base just do not make sense until it is explained. The explanation is not always perfect, but who am I to complain. I can always make my own data base.

Exactly



BTW, do you know of the villages of Prilisce?

Somewhere near Karlovac I guess? If it is there, nice scenery, 4 rivers nearby, lot's of woods and hills... I like that region.


Mario

[RhinoBones]

Somewhere near Karlovac I guess? If it is there, nice scenery, 4 rivers nearby, lot's of woods and hills... I like that region.
Mario

You never know . . . we might be related. Then again, we may have been shooting at each other!

[RhinoBones]

You never know . . . we might be related. Then again, we may have been shooting at each other!

A little bit bigger map.

[Bloodstar]

You never know . . . we might be related. Then again, we may have been shooting at each other!

How? Hehe :D

Tell me the story... You can pm if you want to keep it between us...

No, we didn't shoot at each other because I didn't participated in this lousy balkan wars... and for which side hehe... this war was anyway dirty and result is here many Balkan hacienda states with corrupted politicians on the helm who rule brainwashed nationalist volk... even devil would rule better here...

So in war like this I didn't wanted to participate. Something inside of me was telling that it's no good... Maybe I should change that I am from a Mars or something like that because I am quite opposite most of Croatian here so I am not quite representative of Croatian population...
In fact, I don't give a damn about Croatia. Yes, I live in Croatia but I could live anywhere - man like me, it doesn't really matter where cosmopolit man lives - I could live in Kongo if I want. :bite:

Unfortunately, Croatia is backward country, and like Serbia still very deep in nationalistic mud, barking at each other etc... On some places mindset is still XV century and now is XXI century... I am certanly not proud of this backwardness. Yes, I am lousy patriot. In fact even Yugoslavia was better than this.

EDIT: And beside this I live in Croatia since 1995. I am here still almost stranger. I was not born here and that is very important. Maybe I would think a little bit differently if I was born here.


Mario

[Hank2]

I'm not getting good answers at Matrix.

The question is: what precedure do players use to calculate (or get that good fuzzy feeling) whether an attack has a chance of success ... without using the attack planning window?

I assume the old 3:1 odds attacker vs defender ratio is good to use with toaw?

Then do I simply add up the attack values and defense values straight off the counters to determine the ratio?

I know this all sounds elementary especially since I've been playing for a month our two but my contempt now for the Attack Planning Window has driven me to ask questions about it with replies that basically say don't use it ... use the Force Luke.

But how do I use the Force to figure out if 3:1 odds are right based on terrain, troop quality, supply, armored factors, artillery, etc etc etc etc.

thanks for your patience with me ... I'm sure those who will reply will be gentle with me. ... no ... I'm not fooling my self ... fire away

hank

[Heinz57]

Well...if you are looking for a simple answer, I don't think I can provide one that correlates in any way to a simplified Combat Results Chart typical to most board games. If there is anything comparable to a Combat Results Chart, of rolling two dice and comparing it to row and column based upon attacker and defender values - it resides on the individual piece of equipment vs. individual piece of equipment level.

Each battle considers all the factors of the types of weapons involved, terrain, weather, proficiencies of units involved, whether they are veterans or untried, what their loss tolerance settings are (ignore/limit/minimize losses) etc. There's the random element to whether any given piece of equipment is able to score a hit. There's the random element whether it passes its proficiency check, etc. There will be times when a unit withstands repeated assaults and times when it evaporates upon first contact.

Getting down to this level would involve examining your unit's equipment, and if you've already attacked a particular enemy unit - you know what kind of equipment is in it. From here, you can make a rough estimate not so much on the basis of an odds ratio - but the unit types and conditions that will make it budge. It really isn't a matter of odds in a conventional or simplified sense - at least in my assessment, but of unit composition and conditions.

If there is an infantry regiment fortified behind a river with plenty of supporting artillery, it might require by conventional standards several 3 to 1 frontal assaults. Conversely, if you are able to get the flank attack bonus, the same unit might fold after one or two 3 : 1 ratio attacks. On the other hand, if you commit a battalion of recon from one direction and a battalion of tanks from another might reduce that to 2 : 3 odds.

Moreover, there is the issue of the cost involved in forcing a unit to retreat - as in most cases if you throw enough at it in one shot, at ignore losses, it probably will retreat - it might generate excessive casualties in the process, it might burn the entire turn.

So, the simple answer is there is no CRT.

[Hank2]

Thanks ... all I know to do is to start practicing against the PO without using the Attack Planning Dialog ... and see how it goes.

... the replies I get from Matrix is that experience is the key. ... guess I don't have enough experience yet.

... by the way Heinz ... I work with a guy who I've known since 1977 who uses Heinz57 as one of his email names. We live in TN, this isn't the same guy as you is it? :-)
I'm sure that's pretty common though ... oops now I see your in KY ... my error

[Bloodstar]

Thanks ... all I know to do is to start practicing against the PO without using the Attack Planning Dialog ... and see how it goes.

... the replies I get from Matrix is that experience is the key. ... guess I don't have enough experience yet.

... by the way Heinz ... I work with a guy who I've known since 1977 who uses Heinz57 as one of his email names. We live in TN, this isn't the same guy as you is it? :-)
I'm sure that's pretty common though ... oops now I see your in KY ... my error

Another advice, maybe it is obvious but arty is the key also in attack, maybe with added some air support. And also in spite of good defensive bonus vs. armor - many time armor is best tool for chasing out some unit out of hex you need.

But, if you have plenty of arty then success is almost guaranteed.



Mario

[Hank2]

I played thru about 21 moves of the Korsun battle against the AI (me Axis).

Not once did I use the attack planning dialog - aka APD.

Some things I noticed:
- I started mixing up attacks with both normal attacks and limited loss attacks which I don't think you can set up through the APD ... of course you can go back and change how a unit attacks after using the apd

- You have to watch the circle of stars more closely since its the only way to see how much of the turn you're using up per attack

- I tended to mix up different types attacks and bombardments more without using the apd

those are just a few observations of a brainwashed AttackPlanningDialog guy. I think setting up attacks without the APD is managable now that I've tried it.

hank

... by the way, Korsun is an awesome battle ... this rendition is a fun scenario to play through but I don't see how axis wins. I was in a terrible defeat by move 21 but I had extracted the Wiking division in its entirety plus many other units before the red scourge cut the rest off

[Secadegas]

... by the way, Korsun is an awesome battle ... this rendition is a fun scenario to play through but I don't see how axis wins. I was in a terrible defeat by move 21 but I had extracted the Wiking division in its entirety plus many other units before the red scourge cut the rest off

Korsun scenario is heavilly unbalanced which is great to play against soviet PO. It was already a good challange under TOAW-ACOW and suppose it's even more now with TOAW III.
It took me 3 games (and 2 humiliating defeats) to beat the soviets...

[Secadegas]

I absolutely recommend (from the "top" of my 5 years experience with this game... :clown: ):

- Kharkov 1943 (vs soviet PO) by Joao Lima
It isn't on the TOAW III files but Joao Lima is a regular member here, so ask him - it's a must...

- Barbarossa 1941 (vs german PO) by Brian Topp (TOAW III East Front file)
For those who care about micro-management... and like to win in the end... but isn't easy

- West Wall - Holland 1944 (vs allied PO) by Trey Marshall (TOAW III West Front file)
same as Barbarossa 1941 - above

- Korsun 44 (vs soviet PO) by Doug Bevard (TOAW III classic file)
The "impossible" mission...

- Italian campaign 1943-1945 (vs allied PO) modified by Marc J. Custer (TOAW III Mediterrean file)
The first 20 turns are very interesting... then it becomes easier

or Gothic Line 1944 (vs allied PO) by Chuck (Charles Kotraba) (TOAW III Mediterrean file)
Never played this scenario but looks very good... (also when PBEM)

- El Alamein 1942 (vs british PO) by Daniel McBride (TOAW III Mediterrean file)
Very difficult - do not try it on your first experience...

- Operation Mars (vs soviet PO) by Daniel McBride
This scenario is one of the best. But it's bugged on it's current version and we must wait for a new one (to TOAW III) by the author.

- Last but not least - Korea 50-51 (vs communist PO) by Norm Koger (TOAW classic file)
Designed by the "God" of TOAW... has everything a TOAW scenario should have... (can be PBEM)

These scenarios are very good for PO play. Most of them are really tough to win. Avoid most of them when PBEM. For that purpose there are better ones.

edit:
Kharkov 1943 »» http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=684

[General Staff]

Korsun 44 (vs soviet PO) by Doug Bevard (TOAW III classic file)
The "impossible" mission...
I always liked this one. Shows how desperate things really were for Axis in 44 on the EF. So it's unbalanced but I think very historical in flavour. If you read anything on this you'll usually come across the # of German fatalities due to the inability to swim- something that even today crops up and I find a criminal failure in parents who don't teach their children something so elemental related to survival. I think everyone hale enough in a civilized society should be taught how to swim in the same way they are taught to speak or read or write.

One piece of lateral thinking that's worked here for me is to break German units into 3 and launch attacks supported by the heaviest DIRECT arty bombardment you can muster against (undug in and out in the open) Soviet stacks at the get go on T1. For as many rounds as you can get. Even break your arty units into 2s and 3s for maximum effect.

Then run like hell. And don't look back.

[Secadegas]

So it's unbalanced but I think very historical in flavour.
Exactly


Then run like hell. And don't look back.
Good piece of advise

[Hank2]

Korsun is one of my favorite untold stories of the e.f. ... I only say "untold" because it used to be a fairly unheard of battle until the last decade or two. The story was documented many years ago in the book "Hells Gate" (I think) which is out of print and will cost you well over a "c-note" for a used copy.

To have fun this weekend (learning how not to use the APD), my goal was only to extract the Wiking and Wallonian units then all the others I could get out ... focusing on arty and vehicles first. I succeeded in getting all the Wiking units out yet sadly ... the Wallonians were left behind with another dozen of so units to hold the lines until their comrades escaped. A valiant effort it was.

... it should go without saying I came out with an overwhelming defeat - numbers-wise - but by golly I had fun!

[General Staff]

I succeeded in getting all the Wiking units out yet sadly... the Wallonians were left behind with another dozen of so units to hold the lines until their comrades escaped. A valiant effort it was.
There are some stories you read of in warfare where altruism and camaraderie shine through the desperate ugliness of war, and Korsun would be right up there in any Pantheon of unsung heroes- reading of that human chain across the gorge is a haunting tale in any language.

No matter their cause, these boys on both sides deserved better- and for sure longer- lives than most of them got. Salute.

[JAMiAM]

If you want a quick, challenging game against the PO, then try the Anonymous Heroics scenario that is in the Tutorials folder. Of course, I'm a little biased regarding this one...:devious:

[General Staff]

If you want a quick, challenging game against the PO, then try the Anonymous Heroics scenario that is in the Tutorials folder. Of course, I'm a little biased regarding this one...:devious:
Yes, there are days (sometimes gone bye) where you need to stop, pause,
and reflect that TOAW is just a game...

[Okimaw]

Yes, there are days (sometimes gone bye) where you need to stop, pause,
and reflect that TOAW is just a game...

Good point, sometimes I wonder if we are like a bunch of trekkies without the conventions, anyone here speak Klingon? :bite:

[Heinz57]

TOAW is NOT just a game!!! TOAW ... is ... ART!

[Okimaw]

I forgot to add that probably the only reason we don't have conventions like the trekkies is that it would take away from the time we spend on the forums :nuts:

[General Staff]

If you want a quick, challenging game against the PO, then try the Anonymous Heroics scenario that is in the Tutorials folder. Of course, I'm a little biased regarding this one...:devious:J- apologies- caught me on a bad couple of days every year since I used to work/travel to/from there.

You've a right to be be biased because it's excellent.

[Hellen]

There are some stories you read of in warfare where altruism and camaraderie shine through the desperate ugliness of war,....

an interesting observation, and true it is. TOAW I think captures that aspect of warfare with the dice rolls (or whatever you want to call combat resolution.)

I am reminded of the Russian tank, seemingly abandonded and useless beside some road after the Wehrmacht plowed thru its area of concern. Two Russian soldiers managed to hold out in that tank for weeks, conducting night operations and disrupting a division or more of Nazis. I forget where it was mentioned, some book about Op. Barbarrosa, but it shows that sheer firepower isn't the only deciding factor in warfare.

TOAW captures that aspect well, and is why one can't boil it down to "X number of THIS should always overrun Y number of THAT."

just my 2 pfennigs. Cheers!