Artillery in ignore losses + infantry\tanks in limited attacks = super power???

[hoochiecoochie]

Artillery in ignore losses + infantry\tanks in limited attacks = super power???

I use TOAW:CW ver 1.04.01, and sometimes i think what this metod sometimes produce VERY unrealistical results... There are many illustrations for this.
What you think about this??? Which version of TOAW:CW do you use?

p.s. yes, i know, i know, what my english is very bad...

[Dicke Bertha]

I hate limited attacks, the more I use them, the less I like TOAW.

[Mark Stevens]

I think the general concept of not being obliged to commit your units to an all-out attack every time is sound: what I don't like, and won't play, is the very artificial tactic of deliberately setting up limited attacks set on minimise losses with a tiny, fast moving combat unit backed by plenty of artillery and air support. That has the effect of allowing several rounds per turn, severely damaging the target stack way out of proportion to the attacker/defender strengths. If you're very skilled at this, and some players have raised it to an art form, you can achieve quite ridiculous results.

On the other hand, some players feel happy that this is the art of TOAW generalship.

[Secadegas]

I hate limited attacks, the more I use them, the less I like TOAW.

I know what you mean... i also went throught same "problem" some time ago.

Now when using limited attacks i also use units of proportional strenght with the defense units. And i don't care about optimizing battle results - i play this way or don't play at all...

[Secadegas]

I think the general concept of not being obliged to commit your units to an all-out attack every time is sound: what I don't like, and won't play, is the very artificial tactic of deliberately setting up limited attacks set on minimise losses with a tiny, fast moving combat unit backed by plenty of artillery and air support. That has the effect of allowing several rounds per turn, severely damaging the target stack way out of proportion to the attacker/defender strengths. If you're very skilled at this, and some players have raised it to an art form, you can achieve quite ridiculous results.


Agree 100%

[nemo]

I think we can pretty much agree that splitting-up armoured or recon units in thirds on purpose to mount limited ant-attacks on minimize losses backed up by massive amounts of supporting artillery against enemy stacks borders indeed on gamey. Not that it bothers me the least if employed against me, there are means to counter this too, it's not the ray-of-death kind of tactic.

That said...
Limited attacks are not evil per se: they're extremely useful during the opening rounds of a turn not to soak up supply and readiness but to un-dig a well-entrenched opponent. My standard modus operandi is to assign the maximum number of units (be them regiments or divisions, but never split up) on limited attacks, hitting the target hex from flanking locations when possible with the heaviest artillery support I can muster, very often with direct artilley attacks ordered too. Limited attacks on minimize or limit losses at maximum strength usually work well and leave the enemy stack on mobile status, i.e. ripe for the all-out assault on the following combat round. That is, when the game doesn't leave you stranded after the very first combat round :halo:

Learnt this from MikeJ (where has he been these last two years? I really miss his insight on game mechanics) along with a couple of other things during the Wintergewitter tournament way back then.

[Bloodstar]

Learnt this from MikeJ (where has he been these last two years? I really miss his insight on game mechanics) along with a couple of other things during the Wintergewitter tournament way back then.

What other things? Hehe, share this with your friends, don't hide it back :D


Mario

[nemo]

What other things? Hehe, share this with your friends, don't hide it back :D


Mario

There's no secret involved here - it's all somewhere buried in the Tournament discussion sub-forum. Search for threads started during spring 2004. These were very simple and basic tenets, yet too easily overlooked while embattled in difficult situations.

Know your forces' strengths and weaknesses in detail. Work on the former and plan to offset the latter.

Grab and keep the initiative whatever the apparent odds against you. Risky and easier said than mastered but it'll keep the opponent worried about your moves and not the other way round.

Aim high and don't falter during the course of the game.

Note that all this doesn't prevent the Peter principle from applying, see me for instance :D

[Bloodstar]

There's no secret involved here - it's all somewhere buried in the Tournament discussion sub-forum. Search for threads started during spring 2004. These were very simple and basic tenets, yet too easily overlooked while embattled in difficult situations.

Know your forces' strengths and weaknesses in detail. Work on the former and plan to offset the latter.

Grab and keep the initiative whatever the apparent odds against you. Risky and easier said than mastered but it'll keep the opponent worried about your moves and not the other way round.

Aim high and don't falter during the course of the game.

Note that all this doesn't prevent the Peter principle from applying, see me for instance :D

Ah, OK, thank you. I think that I have mastered that.

Dicke Bertha have you had time to play a turn of our FiTE hehe just wondering...


Mario

[Dicke Bertha]

Mario, not yet, hope to be able to do it very very soon, have to finish the Weserübung tournie game first. Then FitE, and a few Plan Martin turns. Sorry, it might be a week yet.

[jlbetin]

Mario, not yet, hope to be able to do it very very soon, have to finish the Weserübung tournie game first. Then FitE, and a few Plan Martin turns. Sorry, it might be a week yet.


Yeap it is you interest man !!!

I really regreat you do not join tournament round2, there is 5 month to finish it, far more than for 2004:weserubung II

Tssssss

Der WanderSadSad

[Bloodstar]

Mario, not yet, hope to be able to do it very very soon, have to finish the Weserübung tournie game first. Then FitE, and a few Plan Martin turns. Sorry, it might be a week yet.

All right, no problem Pontus. That will give me time to do my other things as well. Thanks.


Mario

[Joao Lima]

I think the general concept of not being obliged to commit your units to an all-out attack every time is sound: what I don't like, and won't play, is the very artificial tactic of deliberately setting up limited attacks set on minimise losses with a tiny, fast moving combat unit backed by plenty of artillery and air support. That has the effect of allowing several rounds per turn, severely damaging the target stack way out of proportion to the attacker/defender strengths. If you're very skilled at this, and some players have raised it to an art form, you can achieve quite ridiculous results.

On the other hand, some players feel happy that this is the art of TOAW generalship.

Well, but then again, there's no way to play a PBEM , unless you know your opponents and you are sure that they won't use that sort of 'tactics' which basically consist in taking advantage of game design flaws and then call it 'strategic mastery'... That's probably a very good reason , in my view, never to play any TOAW tournament, you never know what other design faults are being used to the best effect by your opponent...

[jlbetin]

Well, but then again, there's no way to play a PBEM , unless you know your opponents and you are sure that they won't use that sort of 'tactics' which basically consist in taking advantage of game design flaws and then call it 'strategic mastery'... That's probably a very good reason , in my view, never to play any TOAW tournament, you never know what other design faults are being used to the best effect by your opponent...

I do not agree with you.

You master your strategic knowledge or not !!

If you manage your forces in mass concentration whatever the gameys used by your opponent you will make the breakthrough and then either your oponent knows its job and he stops you, nor whatever the tricks he uses he is FOOBAR.

This is especialy true with scenario which are well balances as Blitzkrieg, I played it twice against Raver and twice I did the breakthrough, same with Eric Weider that I played once.

I respect your decision but I think you miss lot of fun and pleasures

Der WanderModerator

[Joao Lima]

...
If you manage your forces in mass concentration whatever the gameys used by your opponent you will make the breakthrough and then either your oponent knows its job and he stops you, nor whatever the tricks he uses he is FOOBAR.
...

Rght, like when there were those 'sorcery' tricks , now more in the open, that decided how many rounds you managed to have on your turn to do that breakthrough you mention?...

[Mark Stevens]

Well, but then again, there's no way to play a PBEM , unless you know your opponents and you are sure that they won't use that sort of 'tactics' which basically consist in taking advantage of game design flaws and then call it 'strategic mastery'... That's probably a very good reason , in my view, never to play any TOAW tournament, you never know what other design faults are being used to the best effect by your opponent...


Don't agree, and you're missing out if you're letting this hold you back from playing PBEM: I've been playing TOAW - which I should say I think is a great game - PBEM for almost as long as its been around. You just have to agree in advance with your prospective opponent that neither of you will use these tactics. I've never come across anyone who's lied about this, and I've played at least twenty different opponents. Some players who do use these tactics are happy to drop them in order to play a particular scenario.

If you're worried that they may be doing this, just look at the playback and you'll soon know if these tactics are being used, because you'll see a tiny little unit attack your stacks half-a-dozen or more times in a turn and find that your readiness has dropped to nothing. That's the only way I cottoned on to the potential of this tactic many years ago. I wasn't even aware of it, and my opponent was crushing me like a beetle, when I began studying the playbacks and saw what was happening. To be fair, we hadn't discussed it in advance, this was just the way he always played, and he was suprised that I didn't consider it right.

So do try a PBEM, but mention in your invitation that you don't play 'ant' or 'soak-off' attacks: there are plenty of opponents who don't do it.

I fear I agree with you about tournament play, because someone who feels these tactics are OK won't agree to handicap themselves by abandoning them. But you're missing out on a good experience by not PBEMing at all.

[Joao Lima]

...

I fear I agree with you about tournament play, because someone who feels these tactics are OK won't agree to handicap themselves by abandoning them. But you're missing out on a good experience by not PBEMing at all.

Don't misunderstand me, I do play PBEM, and played a lot in fact, with opponents I know well, my comment was much more directed at tournament play.

[Trafix]

This is as exerpt from a strategy article on TOAW written by Wilhelm. He advised against setting arty on Ignore losses. Would this be the same situation as you guys are talking about? Or does having another ground unit involved make a difference?



"Artillery and Ignore Losses Ever launch a round of combat that is composed of only artillery attacks and have it come to an end? I have had it happen to me more then once and I have seen it happen to other players also. In one particular case this happened to my opponent two turns in a row. He was most upset. So I asked him "What loss setting is your artillery set to?" to which he replied "Ignore losses." I told him "That is your problem." His artillery was doing exactly what it had been instructed to do - ignore losses. The first phase of combat the artillery attacked its assigned targets, did a loss check, passed and attacked its assigned targets again, did a loss check, passed and attacked its assigned targets again, did a loss check… until the ten phases of combat were all used up. Front line infantry being shelled by 105's that are five miles away are very unlikely to inflict any casualties on the artillery, so being set to ignore loss setting means the artillery will continue to attack over and over - just as ordered. Ignore losses does not in any way relate to how hard a unit is to attack - it means how high a casualty threshold it will accept before breaking off combat. I still use mostly the limit loss setting for artillery, saving the ignore loss setting to that final end of turn push. But when I am beginning a turn with a round of artillery attacks to soften up some target hexes I will always mix in one or more front line units making attacks at minimize loss settings. This seems to help insure that the round of combat will be terminated quickly."

Article Link (http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/docs/strategy/Ignore-and-Minimize-Loss-Settings.php)

EDIT: My quote thingy didnt work right

[JAMiAM]

This is as exerpt from a strategy article on TOAW written by Wilhelm. He advised against setting arty on Ignore losses. Would this be the same situation as you guys are talking about? Or does having another ground unit involved make a difference?

With respect to TOAW III, or even Century of Warfare, Wilhelm is simply wrong. I cannot vouch for the engine behavior prior to CoW, and I will point out that many of the articles found on Rugged Defense are either based on older versions of TOAW, or again - simply wr...errr...misguided.

In short, for Century of Warfare and later, an artillery unit will nominally expend one tactical round for each pip of its loss tolerance in a pure bombardment attack. It may expend fewer rounds, if it breaks off the attack due to counter-battery fire, or if it begins the attack late in the turn, with fewer tactical rounds remaining than the loss tolerance would otherwise allow. For example 20% remaining in the turn, will only allow two rounds of attacks to occur.

If an artillery unit is supporting (directly or indirectly) a combat, then regardless of its loss tolerance, it will do so for each round that a friendly attacking ground unit also continues to execute attacks against the hex. This is subject only to the situation whereby a directly supporting unit is in a hex conducting an attack on an adjacent hex, since in this case, the unit may actually take return fire, and in doing so, break off the attack, before the last of the other friendly ground units do.

There is no discrete counter-battery fire in cases of attacks mixed with ground units and bombarding units. There is, of course, regular bombardment type attacks made by the defenders, but it does not discretely target the artillery units which may be bombarding at range, and will only affect those that are in adjacent hexes. There may be counter-battery fire in situations where there is a pure bombardment attack against a hex, depending on the range of any artillery equipment in the defending hex.

This paradigm has a parallel in the use of air/naval/helo units on ground support missions, and the use of those units on direct bombardment attacks. Thus, the terms should be considered interchangeable throughout the course of this post.

In all of this, the remaining movement of the firing units should be kept in mind as it is this proportion that determines at which of the tactical rounds the unit commences its designated activity. An artillery unit that has already expended all of its movement allowance is the kiss of death to your round management when set to directly attack a hex, whether in a pure bombardment, or as part of a larger, coordinated attack, since it will push the start point of the attack to the tenth and final tactical round. In cases like this, you should have the unit in a support deployment (D,E,F,L or T) and trust to the luck of your communications check to have it support at half-strength, rather than have it screw up everything else that you are trying to accomplish within the space of a turn.

Hope this is all clear enough.

[JoeBob]

finally installed TOAW III, and am liking what I see, but if I am getting the gist of this thread, it sounds like "ant attacks" are still alive and well. Is this a correct assumption?

i am also assuming that everyone is making the switch to TOAW III (why wouldn't you?)

looking forward to getting some PBEM going again, as I have held off for some time waiting for the new version to be released...

[m5000]

I think the general concept of not being obliged to commit your units to an all-out attack every time is sound: what I don't like, and won't play, is the very artificial tactic of deliberately setting up limited attacks set on minimise losses with a tiny, fast moving combat unit backed by plenty of artillery and air support. That has the effect of allowing several rounds per turn, severely damaging the target stack way out of proportion to the attacker/defender strengths. If you're very skilled at this, and some players have raised it to an art form, you can achieve quite ridiculous results.

On the other hand, some players feel happy that this is the art of TOAW generalship.


hmm, i don't see anything wrong in attacking larger units with smaller units many times per round if this is done with a realistic choice of your units, e.g. if you have a small anti-tank unit or something simillar and you attack larger armoured units

after all your smaller units may eveporate, and besides your opponent should learn (at last!) that it is not a good idea to stack all his/her units in one hex :)



what is not right in my opinion is attacking with some unrealistic choice of units, ones that would never atack like this, e.g. attacking a stack of 4 inf divs with an anti-aircraft batalion or something similar

[Mark Stevens]

"hmm, i don't see anything wrong in attacking larger units with smaller units many times per round if this is done with a realistic choice of your units, e.g. if you have a small anti-tank unit or something simillar and you attack larger armoured units"

I can't agree - even anti-tank units don't attack large armoured formations, and certainly not on a repeated basis. However, they can and do in TOAW just to artificially weaken the targets because of the way the engine works. My understanding is that anti-tank units usually operate as an integral part of other units to protect them against tanks. They might conceivably join larger units in attacks on enemy containing armour, which is fair enough, and can be simulated in the game.

But if you do consider that's how military units operate in reality, and that's what TOAW is modelling, that's fine. My fear is that this particular tactic becomes an end in itself and leads to a distorted style of play.

[m5000]

you may be right, but then who should decide that a unit is big enough to operate independently, this is something relative in my opinion and often depends on the situation on the front, even in reality, during ww2 for instance, it happened that smaller units attacked larger ones, take tiger batallions

anyway, this is a kind of problem that is larger in scope and also encompasses unrealistic use of small units to create encirclements, e.g. using anti-aircraft units or hqs to seal them, quite common even in posted aars...

[JoeBob]

so....the ant attack problem has not changed with TOAW III?

[Joao Lima]

so....the ant attack problem has not changed with TOAW III?

From reading the above it certainly seems to be the case...

[JAMiAM]

The ant attack "problem" is, in large part, a scenario design issue. There are plans to make some changes in the engine to reduce the negative effects of asymmetrical engagements on superior forces and to increase it on inferior forces, but for now, that aspect of the TOAW code has not been touched.

[JoeBob]

The ant attack "problem" is, in large part, a scenario design issue. There are plans to make some changes in the engine to reduce the negative effects of asymmetrical engagements on superior forces and to increase it on inferior forces, but for now, that aspect of the TOAW code has not been touched.


Thanks for the clarification Jam...

Guess I'll go back to "drilling" with my AA companies (with lots of artillery support). :rolleyes:

at least there is a potential for the issue to be patched in the near future. (god how many years since I was able to say that!) Nice to have TOAW supported again. :halo:

[JAMiAM]

Thanks for the clarification Jam...


No problem. Thanks for the purchase and welcome back into the fold.

Are you still in touch with Bill? If so, tell him we should all get together at El Toritos in Milpitas. Dinner and first round is on me.

[Dicke Bertha]

Quite intuitive and not backed up by experiment and its documentation, I have to say there must be somthing severly wrong with the engine. The harder I hit, all else equal, the worse the result. If I go minimise losses, limited attack, I will almost always be better off, all else equal. I used to have a diametrical view of Mark's, now I am in repentence. Maybe I am wrong, but the behaviour of the engine is killing my interest in TOAW. The only way I can see any game holding any interest for me, is to clearly lay out a principle of play with an opponent in advance, and that means sometimes, often, holding back.

[m5000]

Quite intuitive and not backed up by experiment and its documentation, I have to say there must be somthing severly wrong with the engine. The harder I hit, all else equal, the worse the result. If I go minimise losses, limited attack, I will almost always be better off, all else equal. I used to have a diametrical view of Mark's, now I am in repentence. Maybe I am wrong, but the behaviour of the engine is killing my interest in TOAW. The only way I can see any game holding any interest for me, is to clearly lay out a principle of play with an opponent in advance, and that means sometimes, often, holding back.

i've also noticed a similar regularity, i noticed it for the first time whem i started playig against humans

i seem to get better results attacking with minimise losses on (and i don't mean with ant units, normal ones) - i usually lose fewer men and less equipment and the enemy units are likely to suffer more losses
it's not to say that with ignore losses i always lose fights, but my units are defenitely better off with minimise losses...

[Dicke Bertha]

I'd accept that using minimise losses, minimise attack would spare my own people, but I have a perverse feeling it actually also additionally hurts the enemy more than using a limited, normal attack, which in which would hurt my people more. All else equal. Maybe I need to eat less mushrooms, but I think there must be a faulty battle resolution principle somewhere between the attacker's settings and the defender's.

[Joao Lima]

... but I think there must be a faulty battle resolution principle somewhere between the attacker's settings and the defender's.

Which if proven completely mines the game, at least to me...

[Bob Cross]

I'd accept that using minimise losses, minimise attack would spare my own people, but I have a perverse feeling it actually also additionally hurts the enemy more than using a limited, normal attack, which in which would hurt my people more. All else equal. Maybe I need to eat less mushrooms, but I think there must be a faulty battle resolution principle somewhere between the attacker's settings and the defender's.

We've been over this before, Pontus. Your observations need more rigour. It's easy to be mislead by results from very complicated, fog-of-war impacted situations, based entirely on memory well after the fact.

Before we could identify this as a problem, we would need rigourously recorded test results from test scenarios that had been specifically designed to isolate the problem free of extraneous effects.

[viridomaros]

my own observations:

i can't understand why people say that attacking with minimize losses will hurt ennemy troops more than with ignore losses?? with the same amount of support ignore losses is just more effective. Your troops do take more losses.

what i don't like is that the loss tolerance settings don't work when you're on the defence, as it is it's just impossible to conduct a mobile defence type. The way to go is to put units in each hexes of the front line with ignore losses. Has anyone tried a minimize/limit losses strategy in a barbarossa scenario as the russians? or as the germans in 1944?
retreating units are too easily going into reorganization/routed status after battles.

on the offence it would be good to have a system like this:
limited attack would just have the effect of not advancing into the hex but not the 50% losses instead of the 100%
minimize losses attack 1/3 *(unit quality + support)
limit losses attack 2/3* (unit quality + support)
ingore losses unit quality+ support
to definitely eliminate the problem of ant attack, one would need to eradicate the increasing efficiency of artillery when you combine its effect with an attacking ground unit. why not using a formula in which artillery does the same damage to dig in troops no matter if you include ground troops or not.
Looks like it's easier to do that than what we have now. Does someone know if the present system we have is something Norm implemented or a kind of bug?

[JoeBob]

No problem. Thanks for the purchase and welcome back into the fold.

Are you still in touch with Bill? If so, tell him we should all get together at El Toritos in Milpitas. Dinner and first round is on me.

Excellent concept and offer!

Talked to Bill and he's up to it as well. :banana:

How 'bout dropping me an e-mail and we'll take it from there...

Cheers! :toast:

[Kraut]

For me there is no doubt that TOAWs combat resolution and general game/combat mechanics needs some serious remodeling, there are far to many situations where the combat results are simply so bogus, that I'll often find myself cursing at the computer out loud ;)

Why do you usually get the best air to air results in interdiction missions (in destroying defending ground equipment as well as in shooting down intercepting enemy fighters), roughly equal in combat support missions and horrible results in attacking airfields (all in the same scenario)?

Why are there still those odd 0% defender losses (and I mean 0%, not a single pice of equipment destroyed) combats, where an attack with overwhelming strength and arty support is beaten back for no apparent reason at all?

Why is attacking with overwhelming number often simply leading to increased losses, as apparently the defender gets a chance to shoot at each and every single piece of attacking equipment before the first round of combat is resolved (and the defender destroyed/retreated)?

Why is an ignore losses attack automatically burning 3 combat rounds? It should only be a limiter as to when your units break off attacking, not how long a combat lasts (example: a PzDiv attacking an artillery unit with a single 75mm gun left at IgnLoss... why should this battle always last roughly 2-3 days in a 7 day/turn scenario?)

Why is there no chance of escape calculated when performing a retreat before combat? I am so tired of seeing heavy artillery with all transports destroyed continuously running away from a fast mechanized unit... so, let me guess, the gun-crew is faster in pulling their 150mm guns using themselfs as mules than my chasing panzers?

Why is artillery so much more performant in supporting an attack (even if the attacker is just 1 rifle squad) compared to a pure bombardment?

Why can a defender be 'undig' at all? Attacks should reduce the fortification level of a hex (and that level alone should determine how well a defender is protected, why should I have to order my units to dig in after entering a well fortified hex? Would a fresh french division refuse to enter the Maginot-Line bunkers and instead rather stand next to them... and would it really take 2 weeks to man those bunkers (reach fortified status)? Of course the speed at which the entrenchment level rises in a hex would have to be corrected, but that doesn't seem to hard to do. If a defender is pushed out of his trenches we could assume that they would be either pushed well back (retreated to nearby hex) or managed to finally repulse the attack, but than they should man the trenches immediately again, and not remain in mobile status as they do now.

There are many more quirks in TOAW (theather recon, naval combat, proficiency and untried/veteran status, supply, ...) that I'd like to see sqashed (and I havent given up hope just yet, that TOAW III might do so some day), but it's a sad fact that, besides its age and apparent design weaknesses, there still is no worthy successor for TOAW in sight... so, I guess until than, we have to learn to live with its weaknesses :)

[Telumar]

Very good points.

Could be continued:

Why is there no hierarchic OOB with the possibility to assign/reassign/detach units to different HQs/formations during a scenario?

Why are there no supply points with different levels of supply?

but it's a sad fact that, besides its age and apparent design weaknesses, there still is no worthy successor for TOAW in sight...so, I guess until then, we have to learn to live with its weaknesses

:cry:

would be interesting what Ralph and Jamiam have to say - or even Erik Rutins (i believe he's registered here).

[Veers]

Kraut and Telumar:
Good points all around, but I think Kraut brings up the points that should be looked at first and foremost.

While I am a very big perponent of having this: Why is there no hierarchic OOB with the possibility to assign/reassign/detach units to different HQs/formations during a scenario? I think that Kraut's points about the actual flaws in the combat model should be looked at before we begin to add new things. Most of all I would be curious to hear what Ralph and Jamiam have to say about the combat model's quirks that Kraut has brought up. I am sure that they will pop in and give us their thoughts.

[Telumar]

Kraut and Telumar:
Good points all around, but I think Kraut brings up the points that should be looked at first and foremost.

While I am a very big perponent of having this: I think that Kraut's points about the actual flaws in the combat model should be looked at before we begin to add new things. Most of all I would be curious to hear what Ralph and Jamiam have to say about the combat model's quirks that Kraut has brought up. I am sure that they will pop in and give us their thoughts.

Sure, Kraut's points are the most important ones, and if 'fixed' they would be more than well appreciated by the community; my points are more or less chrome. I can imagine that any tweaks on the combat system would require intense testing, remember that even the minimal changes from acow to toaw3 had messed up things like reconstitution and unit/army withdraw events in the initial release version.

Yes they shall pop-up! Trick or treat! Besides the coding and programming time and money is a major factor in doing anything on this i think. :upset:

[Veers]

You didn't quote me very well, Telumar. Makes me look like I'm a little disjointed without your quote in between mine. :laugh:

Yes they shall pop-up! Trick or treat! Besides the coding and programming time and money is a major factor in doing anything on this i think.

Raises a question: What is the incentive of Matrix to continue development? Increase sales? Keep us happy?

[Secadegas]

(...) I'll often find myself cursing at the computer out loud ;)

Don't we all?...:p


Why are there still those odd 0% defender losses (and I mean 0%, not a single pice of equipment destroyed) combats, where an attack with overwhelming strength and arty support is beaten back for no apparent reason at all?


How many times this already happen to you? I play this "bloody" game every single day for the last 6 years and that happened to me very few times... (of course we all know the story about the "little Stug Bn" holding against all expectations... but would you prefer to have "mathematical" results when planning an attack? Real life doesn't work that way so I don't...)


Why is an ignore losses attack automatically burning 3 combat rounds? It should only be a limiter as to when your units break off attacking, not how long a combat lasts (example: a PzDiv attacking an artillery unit with a single 75mm gun left at IgnLoss... why should this battle always last roughly 2-3 days in a 7 day/turn scenario?)


An ignore losses attack doesn't automatically burns 3 combat rounds and a single 75 gun (passive defender...) left at ignore losses usually will not last for 3 "days"... It will retreat without combat most of the times.


Why is there no chance of escape calculated when performing a retreat before combat? I am so tired of seeing heavy artillery with all transports destroyed continuously running away from a fast mechanized unit... so, let me guess, the gun-crew is faster in pulling their 150mm guns using themselfs as mules than my chasing panzers?

Here you have a good point


Why is artillery so much more performant in supporting an attack (even if the attacker is just 1 rifle squad) compared to a pure bombardment?

One of the most discussed matter here... but i think that never stopped you from beeing one the hardest defenders of supply draining tactics...:devious:


Why can a defender be 'undig' at all? Attacks should reduce the fortification level of a hex (and that level alone should determine how well a defender is protected, why should I have to order my units to dig in after entering a well fortified hex? Would a fresh french division refuse to enter the Maginot-Line bunkers and instead rather stand next to them... and would it really take 2 weeks to man those bunkers (reach fortified status)? Of course the speed at which the entrenchment level rises in a hex would have to be corrected, but that doesn't seem to hard to do. If a defender is pushed out of his trenches we could assume that they would be either pushed well back (retreated to nearby hex) or managed to finally repulse the attack, but than they should man the trenches immediately again, and not remain in mobile status as they do now.

Some good ideas (as usual from you...)


(...) but it's a sad fact that, besides its age and apparent design weaknesses, there still is no worthy successor for TOAW in sight... so, I guess until than, we have to learn to live with its weaknesses :)


TOAW isn't perfect... it's clear to all ...but "design weaknesses"?? IMHO that's more than unfair...

On the contrary most of TOAW reflects a strong design (which can still be improved...) and that's the reason we still play it after all these years.

[Hank2]

Kraut has some good points that I'm just beginning to see happen in my games. Every games has imperfections and toaw is no different. I tend to play through these issues and enjoy the battle.

Arty, air power, and how rounds are calculated, disturb me the most at this point. The abysmal user interface is something I can deal with but it could really use a good going over which I think would not take as much work as say, fixing combat resolution issues ... but I've only got a few years programming experience in industrial situations ... so what do I know.

I sometimes grow to lose interest if those imperfections affect the overall outcome of a battle. It happened to me with SSG's Battles in Normandy ... so much so I quit playing it and I didn't upgrade to the last title, Battles in Italy.

[Kraut]

An ignore losses attack doesn't automatically burns 3 combat rounds and a single 75 gun (passive defender...) left at ignore losses usually will not last for 3 "days"... It will retreat without combat most of the times.


That actually brings up another quirk of TOAW... retreat before combat checks are only performed _once_! So if you want to force a retreat-before-combat, be sure to probe with your strongest unit first, if you dont want them to retreat before combat (because you want to avoid automatically advancing into that hex) break down your weakest unit, right click on the enemy unit, the retreat-before-combat check will fail, than use your PzDiv and the lonely artillery pice will surely not retreat-before combat... guaranteed ;)


Oh, and by design weaknesses I didn't want to imply that TOAW is broken, far from it, but simply say that it isn't perfect either (yet ;) )

[Telumar]

Sorry Veers, this time i also quote you just partially..


Raises a question: What is the incentive of Matrix to continue development? Increase sales? Keep us happy?

Btw, Erik Rutins is a big fan of toaw and has ever been, he even made some scenarios.

Customer service, coporate philosophy, quality, essential in a niche market. $, € certainly. Keep us happy? They should.. :freak: :freak: !

[Secadegas]

That actually brings up another quirk of TOAW... retreat before combat checks are only performed _once_! So if you want to force a retreat-before-combat, be sure to probe with your strongest unit first, if you dont want them to retreat before combat (because you want to avoid automatically advancing into that hex) break down your weakest unit, right click on the enemy unit, the retreat-before-combat check will fail, than use your PzDiv and the lonely artillery pice will surely not retreat-before combat... guaranteed ;)


Of course... most of us know that but a weak unit will retreat-before-combat if the attacking unit is strong enough. If you split your weakest unit... probably it will not be enough... and (you're right) that's checked only once.


Oh, and by design weaknesses I didn't want to imply that TOAW is broken, far from it, but simply say that it isn't perfect either (yet ;) )

You see... we agree...;)

But your first post left Telumar and Veers very worried...

[Joao Lima]

Y...
Raises a question: What is the incentive of Matrix to continue development? Increase sales? Keep us happy?

At this point Matrix have very little incentive to continue patching the game, wether people like it or not , the bulk of the game sales is done. The patches that may come will address minor things, as usual in those cases, the things that Kraut pointed out (correctly) would require a very big overall of the engine, and that can be done by Matrix but it will most certainly be called TOAW 4 , not TOAW3-1.00.6798... They have a business to run not a charity, moreover the points raised are more or less well known of the community, and therefore very few people can come here and say, 'I bought the game and I did not knew, I demand a patch...', it's the way the thing is for now, I must confess that I play less and less TOAW and if it wasn't for the editor I would have quite simply stopped playing it, as all this small things summed up give a very significant array of problems...

[JAMiAM]

Though Stefan raises a few good issues here, there is quite a bit that is misguided, misinterpreted, or just plain wrong.

For me there is no doubt that TOAWs combat resolution and general game/combat mechanics needs some serious remodeling, there are far to many situations where the combat results are simply so bogus, that I'll often find myself cursing at the computer out loud ;)
You should switch to decaf, for starters...;)

Why do you usually get the best air to air results in interdiction missions (in destroying defending ground equipment as well as in shooting down intercepting enemy fighters),...?
Interdiction missions are more effective in destroying enemy ground equipment - when they hit - because these are modeling attacks against targets of opportunity that are caught unprepared, or in transit. If they are destroying more enemy fighters, then that is only because the enemy fighters are being outnumbered, and/or outclassed by friendly fighters. This could be due to range considerations, or actively setting up CAP traps to draw in enemy fighters to zones where friendlies have a marked local air superiority. Since interdiction attacks generally occur behind your own lines, it is easier to set up these zones to take advantage of numbers and ranges to the enemy's detriment.

roughly equal in combat support missions ...?
Moving right along...this is because most ground support missions take place right on the active front lines, where presumably, you generally have the greatest equality in ranges and numbers of aircraft that are able to participate.

...and horrible results in attacking airfields (all in the same scenario)?
Probably because you're doing it wrong, having poor luck in your comm checks for escorting fighters, or you are not considering the issue of local superiority in the attacks. Airbase attacks should be made by bombers against the airfields, and within range of a greatly superior number, and/or quality, of friendly fighters on AS missions, that fly escort. You do NOT assign your fighters to directly attack airfields, since then the engine treats them as bombers.

Why are there still those odd 0% defender losses (and I mean 0%, not a single pice of equipment destroyed) combats, where an attack with overwhelming strength and arty support is beaten back for no apparent reason at all?
I guess it wasn't as overwhelming as you thought, then...

This is because your units take losses in the enemy bombardment attacks before they get to execute their own, and if they fail their morale checks, break off without firing. Your artillery, for one reason or another, fails to create enough attrition in the attacked hex to score any hits against defending units during this round(s), and as soon as there are no more friendly attacking ground units, breaks off their attacks, as well.

However...

Why is attacking with overwhelming number often simply leading to increased losses, as apparently the defender gets a chance to shoot at each and every single piece of attacking equipment before the first round of combat is resolved (and the defender destroyed/retreated)?
There are some tweaks that I want to make to the combat engine to reduce the negative effects of grossly asymmetric pairings leading to stalemated or ridiculously lop-sided results. This is part of a general overhaul of the combat system that I want to integrate into future patches, and products. That said though, often people set up their attacks poorly, and subject themselves to severe density penalties in their attempts to secure "overwhelming odds" which end up being counterproductive, since the attacking units end up taking more losses, and are thus more likely to break off combat more suddenly, or with aggressive loss tolerances, continue attacking in the face of defensive fire, from units that are not likewise affected.

Why is an ignore losses attack automatically burning 3 combat rounds?This is only correct for pure bombardment attacks. Otherwise, it is a false claim.

It should only be a limiter as to when your units break off attacking...
That is indeed, how it works and...

...not how long a combat lasts...
...how long a battle "lasts" is a function of how long the antagonists continue trying to kill each other, until either A) it happens, or B) one or both of the sides stop due to their own losses.

... why should this battle always last roughly 2-3 days in a 7 day/turn scenario?)
I went over this in more depth at the Matrix Games forums in response to your misunderstanding of the tactical round system being a one-to-one correspondence of sequentially discrete elements, representing a sub-divided time period. They are not. They measure your abilities as a commander to take advantage of opportunities within the overall time frame represented by the turn. This is a necessary level of abstraction in the game, as it is designed, and as it plays.

Why is there no chance of escape calculated when performing a retreat before combat?There is, and it could probably be tightened up a bit, however...

I am so tired of seeing heavy artillery with all transports destroyed continuously running away from a fast mechanized unit... so, let me guess, the gun-crew is faster in pulling their 150mm guns using themselfs as mules than my chasing panzers?
Then either A) use it to your advantage in avoiding the ezoc cost for the pursuing unit (a intended game mechanic feature) or B) chase it with a recon unit, or broken down infantry unit, or something else entirely, so that you can save your panzers for a worthwhile task or C) get smart about setting up interlocking zocs in the hexes that the unit will retreat to, so that it is more likely to suffer a disengagement attack that will actually kill it.

Why is artillery so much more performant in supporting an attack (even if the attacker is just 1 rifle squad) compared to a pure bombardment?

This is another area where a better scaling of effects would be in order. Pure bombardment should always be less effective, however there should be a scaling of this effectiveness, dependent on the level of supporting attacks that are simultaneously occurring in the hex. There are some competing schools of thought as how to best approach this, but something will be implemented in the future that meshes well with the overall changes in the combat system.

Why can a defender be 'undig' at all? Attacks should reduce the fortification level of a hex (and that level alone should determine how well a defender is protected, why should I have to order my units to dig in after entering a well fortified hex? Would a fresh french division refuse to enter the Maginot-Line bunkers and instead rather stand next to them... and would it really take 2 weeks to man those bunkers (reach fortified status)? Of course the speed at which the entrenchment level rises in a hex would have to be corrected, but that doesn't seem to hard to do. If a defender is pushed out of his trenches we could assume that they would be either pushed well back (retreated to nearby hex) or managed to finally repulse the attack, but than they should man the trenches immediately again, and not remain in mobile status as they do now.

I was originally going to dissect this rant on a line by line basis, but I think a more holistic approach might be helpful, as there may be some basic confusion on your part as to how TOAW handles combat.

Combat is essentially handled by using hex scale/density algorithms to determine how much of each side's equipment is actively participating in and being fired at, during each tactical round's combat. This is generally referred to as "attrition", and is subject to various modifiers, for terrain, deployment, unit strength (i.e., supply, prof, readiness), etc. In some cases, these values affect the attrition with a psuedo-continuous distribution. In some cases, the effects are more discrete (mathematically speaking) and vary by a larger step-wise function. An example of the first would be the unit strength, which itself being a function of supply, readiness, and proficiency varies over a wide range of percentage values. An example of the second would be for terrain, or deployment, where the values vary with discrete multipliers, depending on the relative positions of the attackers and defenders, and their deployments. As an aside, it should be noted at this time that the values for terrain and deployment modifiers in the TOAW III manual are correct, both for it and for Century of Warfare. The section dealing with this section in the CoW manual was both poorly written, and wrong in very many respects. I suspect Stefan's comment about French Divisions and Maginot hexes stems from his confusion on this issue.

<insert shameless plug to buy TOAW III and RTFM!>

The respective attrition rates affect the number of pieces of attacking and defending units that are fired with, and upon. In the vast majority of cases, these formulae yield reasonably plausible results. In some extreme cases, they may yield results where things are not so plausible. Usually these extreme cases are due to a wide discrepancy in the relative sizes of the units, and this is primarily a scenario design issue. Anyhow, I digress. Back to the issues in your above paragraph.

With respect to entrenchment, there is a major confusion on the parts of what disentrenching means. During combat, artillery reducing entrenchment refers to the adjusting of the attrition rate of the fire against enemy units, by a calculation based on shell weights falling within the effective fire zone of the hex. It means something entirely different, when applied to a unit that has had its deployment bounced out of D,E, or F into Mobile. The first affects the attrition against the hex in a psuedo-continuous fashion for the immediately executing combat round, while the other causes a step-wise loss of positive attritional modifiers to the defenders on subsequent attacks (within the same round, or on later rounds). Further, the second case, can only happen after failing morale checks, due to losses. One should make note of which type of "disentrenchment" he is referring to, if the context of the term is not crystal clear.

When a unit occupies a hex that has terrain modifiers, then depending on those modifiers, and those for its deployment, it uses the most favorable set of modifiers for each type of equipment that it possesses. In some cases, the base value of the terrain, is the same as the values of the defensive deployments (D,E,F) and it gains no further benefit from being in one of those deployments. An extreme example of this is the fortified line terrain feature, which confers the same benefit of being in a fortified deployment to all the equipment in its hex.

The "entrenchment level" of a hex is only used in determining how easily a unit successfully digs in, when it makes an entrenchment attempt. This, along with the engineering assets available in the hex at the time of entrenchment drive that distribution. Again, a point of confusion, even among grognards, is to mistake entrenchment level, for something it is not. What it refers to is the amount of preexisting fieldwork in the hex, and overall defensibility, that a unit might be able to take advantage of, if it deploys appropriately within the hex. The active choice of deployment must still be made by the player.

In cases where the terrain modifiers are less favorable to the defense, than the deployment modifiers, then of course it makes sense to consider that a unit that has suffered enough losses to fail its morale checks should be in a lesser state of defensive preparedness, that a loss of deployment status entails. For example, a unit defending in light woods that was fortified, but suffered enough losses to its unit to go into Mobile, is assumed to be temporarily unable to take advantage of the prepared fields of fire, and earthworks it had previously constructed during its change from D, or E, to F. Its defensive posture is too disrupted to be able to take advantage of any more than the base advantages that the hex's terrain offers, and until it is again able to prepare during a lull in the combat, it is in what is termed Mobile deployment.

Now, one could very well argue that there should be a more continuous range of effects from deployments and terrains, rather than the set of stepwise functions we have now, but that would be more of a complication than is necessary, and would really best implemented in a completely different game.

There are many more quirks in TOAW (theather recon, naval combat, proficiency and untried/veteran status, supply, ...) that I'd like to see sqashed (and I havent given up hope just yet, that TOAW III might do so some day), but it's a sad fact that, besides its age and apparent design weaknesses, there still is no worthy successor for TOAW in sight... so, I guess until than, we have to learn to live with its weaknesses :)
As with any game, there are design compromises and abstractions, features present and features only dreamed about. As with any game that has been abandoned and then rescued, there are a number of things that can be done to "improve" it, and in some cases, there may even be a fairly broad consensus of what those changes "should be". Hopefully, with the ongoing support of the buying public, we can continue to evolve TOAW III into a more compelling simulation of operational warfare than it has ever been. In spite of the fact that it is the best all-purpose operational gaming engine out there, we at Matrix Games still want to see it become even better, and welcome your suggestions, comments, and yes, even the occasional, well thought out rant...;)

Now that I've spent a good chunk of my morning replying to Stefan's concerns, I need to figure out a good plan for devastating him in the BOEA tourney, how to fight off Jean-Luc's perfidious, back-stabbing Euro's, get Chris back a turn of EA, Paul a turn of Kharkov, and start testing for the latest TOAW III patch we've got in the oven.

Did I mention it's Halloween and the kids are really looking forward to it tonight? It's enough to drive a man...:nuts:

[JAMiAM]

At this point Matrix have very little incentive to continue patching the game, wether people like it or not , the bulk of the game sales is done.
This is incorrect. The highest monthly volumes in the lifetime of the product have likely already been achieved, but the bulk of the game sales happen over the long run. Since those of us who are involved in the project are also players and designers of the game, who have stuck with it for years, it is ludicrous to suggest that we would not take this opportunity to continue improving it.

And we do have plans for that, and more...:hush:

[Veers]

:hurray:
You see, you knwo what I like about this forum? (Mind you I've only ever been on three here, Matrix and another game-related one) No flame-stuff!

This is part of a general overhaul of the combat system that I want to integrate into future patches, and products.

Is this an indicator of the plan? To develop TOAW III to a point and then really overhaul the entire thing and put out a TOAW IV? If so I have to admit that that'd make me feel just peachy:D. Frankly, Matrix is a business and they certainly have to make a profit. If Matrix was to patch and fix this thing up for a year and then release a totally re-done, wish-list stuffed TOAW IV, in another year or so, I'd buy it.

I was originally going to dissect this rant on a line by line basis, but I think a more holistic approach might be helpful, as there may be some basic confusion on your part as to how TOAW handles combat.

Combat is essentially handled by using hex scale/density algorithms to determine how much of each side's equipment is actively participating in and being fired at, during each tactical round's combat. This is generally referred to as "attrition", and is subject to various modifiers, for terrain, deployment, unit strength (i.e., supply, prof, readiness), etc. In some cases, these values affect the attrition with a psuedo-continuous distribution. In some cases, the effects are more discrete (mathematically speaking) and vary by a larger step-wise function. An example of the first would be the unit strength, which itself being a function of supply, readiness, and proficiency varies over a wide range of percentage values. An example of the second would be for terrain, or deployment, where the values vary with discrete multipliers, depending on the relative positions of the attackers and defenders, and their deployments. As an aside, it should be noted at this time that the values for terrain and deployment modifiers in the TOAW III manual are correct, both for it and for Century of Warfare. The section dealing with this section in the CoW manual was both poorly written, and wrong in very many respects. I suspect Stefan's comment about French Divisions and Maginot hexes stems from his confusion on this issue.

<insert shameless plug to buy TOAW III and RTFM!>

The respective attrition rates affect the number of pieces of attacking and defending units that are fired with, and upon. In the vast majority of cases, these formulae yield reasonably plausible results. In some extreme cases, they may yield results where things are not so plausible. Usually these extreme cases are due to a wide discrepancy in the relative sizes of the units, and this is primarily a scenario design issue. Anyhow, I digress. Back to the issues in your above paragraph.

With respect to entrenchment, there is a major confusion on the parts of what disentrenching means. During combat, artillery reducing entrenchment refers to the adjusting of the attrition rate of the fire against enemy units, by a calculation based on shell weights falling within the effective fire zone of the hex. It means something entirely different, when applied to a unit that has had its deployment bounced out of D,E, or F into Mobile. The first affects the attrition against the hex in a psuedo-continuous fashion for the immediately executing combat round, while the other causes a step-wise loss of positive attritional modifiers to the defenders on subsequent attacks (within the same round, or on later rounds). Further, the second case, can only happen after failing morale checks, due to losses. One should make note of which type of "disentrenchment" he is referring to, if the context of the term is not crystal clear.

When a unit occupies a hex that has terrain modifiers, then depending on those modifiers, and those for its deployment, it uses the most favorable set of modifiers for each type of equipment that it possesses. In some cases, the base value of the terrain, is the same as the values of the defensive deployments (D,E,F) and it gains no further benefit from being in one of those deployments. An extreme example of this is the fortified line terrain feature, which confers the same benefit of being in a fortified deployment to all the equipment in its hex.

The "entrenchment level" of a hex is only used in determining how easily a unit successfully digs in, when it makes an entrenchment attempt. This, along with the engineering assets available in the hex at the time of entrenchment drive that distribution. Again, a point of confusion, even among grognards, is to mistake entrenchment level, for something it is not. What it refers to is the amount of preexisting fieldwork in the hex, and overall defensibility, that a unit might be able to take advantage of, if it deploys appropriately within the hex. The active choice of deployment must still be made by the player.

In cases where the terrain modifiers are less favorable to the defense, than the deployment modifiers, then of course it makes sense to consider that a unit that has suffered enough losses to fail its morale checks should be in a lesser state of defensive preparedness, that a loss of deployment status entails. For example, a unit defending in light woods that was fortified, but suffered enough losses to its unit to go into Mobile, is assumed to be temporarily unable to take advantage of the prepared fields of fire, and earthworks it had previously constructed during its change from D, or E, to F. Its defensive posture is too disrupted to be able to take advantage of any more than the base advantages that the hex's terrain offers, and until it is again able to prepare during a lull in the combat, it is in what is termed Mobile deployment.

Now, one could very well argue that there should be a more continuous range of effects from deployments and terrains, rather than the set of stepwise functions we have now, but that would be more of a complication than is necessary, and would really best implemented in a completely different game.


And, to get things straight: Technically speaking, there's no real point to using the dig-in command when sitting in a Fortified line hex? WOuld this also be the same for a hex at 100% fortification?

EDIT: Cut out first quote of Jam's entire post, made this one far too long.
EDIT2: Speaking of the BOEA tournament, I guess Telumar's Euros decided the white cliffs of Dover looked prettier from the south side of the Channel...:)

[JAMiAM]

Is this an indicator of the plan? To develop TOAW III to a point and then really overhaul the entire thing and put out a TOAW IV? If so I have to admit that that'd make me feel just peachy:D. Frankly, Matrix is a business and they certainly have to make a profit. If Matrix was to patch and fix this thing up for a year and then release a totally re-done, wish-list stuffed TOAW IV, in another year or so, I'd buy it.

When I've alluded to a TOAW IV in the past, it was with the intent to show that a particular request, or wish, or feature, was not really compatible with TOAW III code, or the direction that we are taking TOAW III. That is, it may very well be a splendid idea, or a great feature, but not one that could fit well within the existing game that Matrix has the rights to develop, and publish.

Would I like to see such an operational game come about, and would I like to be at the ground level designing and producing it? Sure. Will it happen? That would rely on people other than myself to provide the financing and programming experience that I lack. Whether it could be called TOAW IV depends on the holders of the various IP rights. Whether Matrix Games has an interest in this, or a similar product is dependent upon many things, not the least of which is the success in the marketplace that such a product could reasonably be expected to achieve. In this respect, I absolutely can NOT speak for Matrix Games. I know...I'm talking a lot here, but I'm not saying anything. Don't worry...it's intentional!

I'm not going to worry about that set of peculiar circumstances until after we've done all that we can reasonably do with TOAW III.

And, to get things straight: Technically speaking, there's no real point to using the dig-in command when sitting in a Fortified line hex?

That is correct, as far as combat modifiers go. However, you may still want to do so, in order to allow indirect support by your ranged weapons. Also, I'd have to check with Ralph on the code, but there may be a benefit to morale checks based on the unit's deployment status. That said, out of an abundance of caution, and several years of habit, I still do dig in everything that I can, unless it serves a specific purpose by adopting a different deployment.

WOuld this also be the same for a hex at 100% fortification?
No. In this case, you want to actively dig in, if you want the defensive benefits of the combat modifiers.

Keep in mind that the entrenchment level of the hex, is only used for determining the ease of entrenching. It is true that a fortified line hex grants a 100% entrenchment level, but the converse is not true. A 100% entrenchment level does NOT grant the benefits of a fortified line hex.

[Telumar]

And, to get things straight: Technically speaking, there's no real point to using the dig-in command when sitting in a Fortified line hex? WOuld this also be the same for a hex at 100% fortification?

That is correct, as far as combat modifiers go. However, you may still want to do so, in order to allow indirect support by your ranged weapons. Also, I'd have to check with Ralph on the code, but there may be a benefit to morale checks based on the unit's deployment status. That said, out of an abundance of caution, and several years of habit, I still do dig in everything that I can, unless it serves a specific purpose by adopting a different deployment.



Thanks Veers for posting this question - otherwise i had done it.

EDIT2: Speaking of the BOEA tournament, I guess Telumar's Euros decided the white cliffs of Dover looked prettier from the south side of the Channel...

I've been occupied with the screwy WF44-45 OOB, a reason for my low turn output recently..

Driving on the right with my Leo2 soon..all the way up to Manchester (in alteration on someone other's post)


Everytime James gives lectures about the game engine one can learn some more... ;)

[Veers]

1) Thanks Jamiam for answering all of my questions. :D
2) Don't worry about turn turn around, Telumar, I have yet to get out my first turn of Sea Lion II, as well, as I have not yet had the several hours vailable that it will take me to plan out my assault. (Am I the ony one that would take many hours over many days before I can even touch my units? I bet not. :laugh: )

Driving on the right with my Leo2 soon..all the way up to Manchester (in alteration on someone other's post)

Excellent, I shall inform my engineers to barricade the right side of all north-bound roads, so that I can still use the left to mve around... :laugh:

EDIT: I tried to give you both (Jam, Telumar) some rep, J for his answers, T for his work on WF 44-45, but I need to spread the love some more first :laugh: so I'll just mention it here, instead! Kudos to both of you. :D

[JAMiAM]

By the way, lest my sloppy reply above confuse issues, I should have said that you might want to dig in to allow indirect support by your ranged units, and not ranged weapons. Otherwise, someone will take this to imply that ranged equipment in non-ranged unit A, can lend indirect support to a friendly unit B, not stacked with unit A. Definitely not true.

[Secadegas]

Everytime James gives lectures about the game engine one can learn some more... ;)

True...

(i only wish i could understand half of it... :paperbag:)

[nemo]

I've been occupied with the screwy WF44-45 OOB, a reason for my low turn output recently..



<cough> <cough> :laugh:

[Telumar]

1) Thanks Jamiam for answering all of my questions. :D
2) Don't worry about turn turn around, Telumar, I have yet to get out my first turn of Sea Lion II, as well, as I have not yet had the several hours vailable that it will take me to plan out my assault. (Am I the ony one that would take many hours over many days before I can even touch my units? I bet not. :laugh: )

You are not. This has to be carefully planned.

And thank you Jam for answering all of Veer's questions.



Excellent, I shall inform my engineers to barricade the right side of all north-bound roads, so that I can still use the left to mve around... :laugh:

lol


EDIT: I tried to give you both (Jam, Telumar) some rep, J for his answers, T for his work on WF 44-45, but I need to spread the love some more first :laugh: so I'll just mention it here, instead! Kudos to both of you. :D

:cheeky:

[Telumar]

<cough> <cough> :laugh:

In the meantime you could order the SS to open the roadbridge..oh and if you could tell them to clean the road from all those shell splinters lying around, that'd be fine. Not all of the corps' vehicles are tracked. :paperbag:

[viridomaros]

By the way, lest my sloppy reply above confuse issues, I should have said that you might want to dig in to allow indirect support by your ranged units, and not ranged weapons. Otherwise, someone will take this to imply that ranged equipment in non-ranged unit A, can lend indirect support to a friendly unit B, not stacked with unit A. Definitely not true.

i had the feeling this was occuring from time to time, definitely one more thing to change in toaw

[Dicke Bertha]

We've been over this before, Pontus. Your observations need more rigour. It's easy to be mislead by results from very complicated, fog-of-war impacted situations, based entirely on memory well after the fact.

Before we could identify this as a problem, we would need rigourously recorded test results from test scenarios that had been specifically designed to isolate the problem free of extraneous effects.

Yes Bob, you're right, and I am the first to admit that I have no specific data to build any case here. My point is more of intuition and feeling, true or false, that the combat resolution is not working in a realistic way, actually I think it is way off. Maybe it is because I am using the game wrongly, for unintended purposes (monsters) or technically incorrectly (less and less inclination to whip the engine to achieve what I want), but the fact remains, apart from less time presently for TOAW, I also want less to play TOAW. Nothing special with that, just a personal note of estrangement.

The way I see it, the engine is one of perhaps three or more major parameters, but the basic one; some kind of predictability and realism is required longterm, while shortterm the opposite should be very possible. Secondly, scenario design will affect gameplay, possibly offsetting what the engine tends to want (I know not rigorous statement), and thirdly, players need to synchronise their style, or intent.

It is a dynamic setup, and while the latter two will be of great importance in tournaments, between new buddies/players, the first one, that of engine strangeness (if only perceived by me) will still make play between old sparring partners being a schizofrenic combination of enthusiastic all-outs and imposed restraints.

Sccenario design notes, and tournament rules, as well as informal and somewhat more formal contracts between players can do much for some of the parameters, but not for perceived engine strangeness.

Not the most stringent post ever, but it's a game, not an academic journal. :)

[Bob Cross]

Not the most stringent post ever, but it's a game, not an academic journal. :)

Actually, it's an engineering project - just like a bridge. You wouldn't want a bridge design to be based on the engineer's "feelings" about what loads it can handle, would you? You would hope that it would have been designed based on hard engineering calculations of load factors - especially if you're going to be driving over it.

The requirements are the same for TOAW. We can't work on your "feelings". We have to have unambiguous, repeatable evidence. That's not an impossible order (although it does have pitfalls). Most problems that have been fixed in TOAW have first required test scenarios to be designed to isolate the problem.

[jlbetin]

Not the most stringent post ever, but it's a game, not an academic journal. :)

What It is not an Academic TOAW Journal ?? :(

I won't renew my subscription!!:blab:

Der WanderNotEnoughSeriousHere

[Dicke Bertha]

Actually, it's an engineering project - just like a bridge. You wouldn't want a bridge design to be based on the engineer's "feelings" about what loads it can handle, would you? You would hope that it would have been designed based on hard engineering calculations of load factors - especially if you're going to be driving over it.

The requirements are the same for TOAW. We can't work on your "feelings". We have to have unambiguous, repeatable evidence. That's not an impossible order (although it does have pitfalls). Most problems that have been fixed in TOAW have first required test scenarios to be designed to isolate the problem.

I am an engineer but not in TOAW mechanics. With TOAW, I am just a user. For the bridge analogy, do you mean that the motorists should be obliged to provide data to the engineers for the bridge construction? If the bridge doesn't feel safe or pleasant to use, is it the motorist's fault for not being able to clearly specify what they feel is wrong in the design? If habitual motorists start avoiding the bridge shouldn't that be indication enough for the engineering department? :) And nota bene, I repeat, it is a feeling I have, and I could shut up about it and fade away, or I can voice my concern, however unspecified. I cannot and will not design or re-engineer it. I also do not demand anything.

[Mark Stevens]

I agree with the above. The individual elements that make up a TOAW game (e.g. movement, terrain effects, combat effects, even the unit colouration, etc.) have to 'feel' right for it to work for me.

It's no good being told how much research has gone into the OOBs, TOEs, and the chances of a angled hit penetrating a tank's side armour, if you don't get that gut feeling.

In a way, I much prefer not to know the mathematics underlying the game, as I think that expert players are then tempted to play to them, rather than the scenario that's meant to be being modelled.

[Bob Cross]

I am an engineer but not in TOAW mechanics. With TOAW, I am just a user. For the bridge analogy, do you mean that the motorists should be obliged to provide data to the engineers for the bridge construction? If the bridge doesn't feel safe or pleasant to use, is it the motorist's fault for not being able to clearly specify what they feel is wrong in the design? If habitual motorists start avoiding the bridge shouldn't that be indication enough for the engineering department? :) And nota bene, I repeat, it is a feeling I have, and I could shut up about it and fade away, or I can voice my concern, however unspecified. I cannot and will not design or re-engineer it. I also do not demand anything.

If the motorist is going to credibly claim that the bridge is unsafe and should be redesigned, then YES, he would be expected to back that up with hard evidence. Try telling your department of transportation that you "feel" a particular bridge is designed incorrectly:

"Why do you think that, sir?"

"Oh, I don't really know - I just have a feeling."

See if the bridge gets redesigned.

[Bob Cross]

I agree with the above. The individual elements that make up a TOAW game (e.g. movement, terrain effects, combat effects, even the unit colouration, etc.) have to 'feel' right for it to work for me.

It's no good being told how much research has gone into the OOBs, TOEs, and the chances of a angled hit penetrating a tank's side armour, if you don't get that gut feeling.

Here we differ. I would much prefer that the game model reality than that it "feel right" to anyone. God knows what every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there thinks the game should "feel" like. It's a fundamental principle of simulation.

In a way, I much prefer not to know the mathematics underlying the game, as I think that expert players are then tempted to play to them, rather than the scenario that's meant to be being modelled.

No one is asking anyone to know any mathematics or the game's underlying mechanics. I am asking that observations be rigourous.

[jlbetin]

Here we differ. I would much prefer that the game model reality than that it "feel right" to anyone. God knows what every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there thinks the game should "feel" like. It's a fundamental principle of simulation.
No one is asking anyone to know any mathematics or the game's underlying mechanics. I am asking that observations be rigourous.

I feel both,

I want to give a good touch/impression a shining thing which gives this feeling that Pontus or Mark likes, you can call it the French touch but it is not a legend.
I try to be as rigourous as possible even in my imaginative 2004 series scenario, Weserübung II, Opération Lion de Mer, Second Battle for France, Fall of USA, I spent 3 years on Internet to get the more realistic/exact TO&E and OOB of US and European armies. I read lot of strtagy publications of US army, USMC, I spent hours to understand foreign DoD web sites with Languages I never spoke, but the final result is here and it could be seen a triumphalism but I'm proud of the result. Without accuracy a scenario is an empty shell.It could be seen as maniac but I can't stand to see, by instance, in some modern scenarios French army with 2300 Leclerc tanks or 1000 airplanes.

It was my 1st remark to Mark Stevens when I saw his EA scenario, the DCR and DLM TO&E were totaly false, but he explained me that he was not searching for accurate values but rather he was tempting to give a real shell facing others units shell, whatever was inside the shell. Only unit's attack and defense numbers were important in EA

It is probably my scientific teaching which drives me to this fussy will

So I think both of you are partially right. BUT You need to mix both to get the right path

Der Wander2004ScenarioDesigner

[Mark Stevens]

Wandering fatally off topic, but '...totally false...' for the DLM TOE in the EA scenario is a little harsh, although I absolutely agree that my aim is to get it to feel right rather than mirror every nut and bolt:

Niehorster's site gives the paper organisation in 1940 as:

96 H-35s
69 AMRs
48 AMD 178s
24 75mm guns
12 105mm guns
8 47mm AT guns
6 25mm AA guns
One motorised dragoon regiment

EA's got:

98 H-35s
35 AMRs
48 AMD 178s
12 75mm guns
6 105mm guns
4 47mm AT guns
6 25mm AT guns
36 25mm AA guns

I've represented their supporting dragoons and other assets by:

36 Rifle Squads
24 Engineer Squads
36 Motorcycle Squads
3 81mm mortars

My understanding is that most French mechanised/armoured units were nowhere near their paper strength, and had had various bits and pieces attached to and detached from them so, for a corps level game, I don't think this is tooooooo bad. Knocking off the excess 25mm AA guns or a few motorcyclists won't make much difference.

Back to the main topic!

[jlbetin]

Wandering fatally off topic, but '...totally false...' for the DLM TOE in the EA scenario is a little harsh, although I absolutely agree that my aim is to get it to feel right rather than mirror every nut and bolt:

Niehorster's site gives the paper organisation in 1940 as:

96 H-35s
69 AMRs
48 AMD 178s
24 75mm guns
12 105mm guns
8 47mm AT guns
6 25mm AA guns
One motorised dragoon regiment

EA's got:

98 H-35s
35 AMRs
48 AMD 178s
12 75mm guns
6 105mm guns
4 47mm AT guns
6 25mm AT guns
36 25mm AA guns

I've represented their supporting dragoons and other assets by:

36 Rifle Squads
24 Engineer Squads
36 Motorcycle Squads
3 81mm mortars

My understanding is that most French mechanised/armoured units were nowhere near their paper strength, and had had various bits and pieces attached to and detached from them so, for a corps level game, I don't think this is tooooooo bad. Knocking off the excess 25mm AA guns or a few motorcyclists won't make much difference.

Back to the main topic!

Marc you are right do not polute here.

1st) do you read French ??
2nd) H35 ? you mean Somua S35 the most modern French cavalry tank, as H 35 is name of Hotchkiss 35 which is a light tank with the small 37/18 gun.
in DLM there was 80 S35 and 80 H39, I stop there for the OOB but, sorry for that, your data are uncorrect
3rd) Do you have my email Adress ? I can forward you some interesting data
4th) if you are interested you can join too, as I did, this yahoo group France1940@yahoogroups.com (France1940@yahoogroups.com)

Regards

Der WanderMaiJune40