Why so easy against the AI?

[bennyb]

Hi guys.

Just getting back into TOAW(using version III) after a long hiatus. So far I've played Kasserine '43 and Crusader '41 as the Germans. In both instances I've had an overwhelming victory, what am I doing wrong? I've got Strong AI enabled with "Advanced Rules", just seems too easy?

cheers

Ben

[jlbetin]

Hi guys.

Just getting back into TOAW(using version III) after a long hiatus. So far I've played Kasserine '43 and Crusader '41 as the Germans. In both instances I've had an overwhelming victory, what am I doing wrong? I've got Strong AI enabled with "Advanced Rules", just seems too easy?

cheers

Ben

Welcome back here, I hope you will travel with us a long time.
I play rarely against PO I prefer PBEM :D

BUT, the TOAW developper Ralph Trickey, told us he has greatly enhanced the PO behaviour.

What I read here and there from other players, is the PO behave better and harder.

The problem too could be that PO is better in defence than in attack ?

I hope other folks playing TOAW III will give your more info

Regards

Der WanderModerator

[bennyb]

Ooops, sorry. I played the Commonwealth in Crusader '41. So in both scenarios I was the attacker.

[Ben Turner]

Well, Kasserine is grossly unbalanced in favour of the Germans, and Crusader somewhat unbalanced in favour of the commonwealth. See the statistics here;

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/ladders/statistics.php?wanted=362
http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/ladders/statistics.php?wanted=280

I doubt this has anything to do with the PO's capability. That being said, the PO does still have serious weaknesses.

[JAMiAM]

Hi,

Try your hand at the Grey Player, in the Anonymous Heroics (Red PO attacks) scenario, within the Tutorials folder. Get back with me, and let me know what you think. Thanks.

[bennyb]

Thanks for the links to the balance statistics, that's exactly what I'm looking for. I tried my hand at Kursk '42 and ended up with a solid draw. It's an interesting challenge, hard to keep the bulge intact while you assault Kursk itself.

I tried a pincer attack around Kursk but ended up getting bogged down. Getting units out of those entrenchements is very difficult, especially in the town itself. How do you guys go about doing that? Lots of air bombing runs before the assault?

Ben

[Telumar]

I tried a pincer attack around Kursk but ended up getting bogged down. Getting units out of those entrenchements is very difficult, especially in the town itself. How do you guys go about doing that? Lots of air bombing runs before the assault?

Ben

That and lots of artillery. Artillery fire and air bombing is more effective in direct or indirect support of a ground attack than stand-alone. But if you can muster enough a preemptive bombardment can lower the entrenchment status from F to E or D i.e., your infantry will appreciate this very much. Try to get the flanking bonus by attacking from two non-adjacent hexes into the hex.
In the town itself avoid using armour, it might take too many losses. However some StuG can't hurt.. Enemy engineers in the fortified (F) status are an especially hard nut to crack, maybe go around them to achieve the flanking bonus in a later attack.

[Ben Turner]

But if you can muster enough a preemptive bombardment can lower the entrenchment status from F to E or D

I don't think entrenchment level falls off incrementally. It's all or nothing- the unit stays on its current level or else becomes mobile.

[Kraut]

I don't think entrenchment level falls off incrementally. It's all or nothing- the unit stays on its current level or else becomes mobile.

Affirmative, I've never seen anything else than this. The entrenchment value of a hex can be reduced by bombardment, but that has no influence at all on how good the defenders are protected, all that matters is their entrenchment status.

[Telumar]

I don't think entrenchment level falls off incrementally. It's all or nothing- the unit stays on its current level or else becomes mobile.

After a few tests, it seems you are right, but to use the correct nomenclatura, as Kraut posted, you mean entrenchment status, not level, don't you?

Status: F, E, D
Level: entrenchment % of a hex

[JAMiAM]

After a few tests, it seems you are right, but to use the correct nomenclatura, as Kraut posted, you mean entrenchment status, not level, don't you?

Status: F, E, D
Level: entrenchment % of a hex

Just to clarify...

Entrenchment status (i.e., deployment state) of a unit is negatively changed by a loss-induced morale failure. In other words, no losses (or insufficient losses to trigger the first failure) means no degrading of the deployment.

Entrenchment level of the hex is negatively affected by the capture of it, by enemy forces.

[Kraut]

James, while you're here: is it easier to knock the same unit under the same circumstances out of their deployment status, if the the only difference is that in one case the hex has a low entrenchment value? Or does actual fortifications (the barbed wire thingy) make it more difficult to knock a defender into mobile deployment? I know that the entrenchment value helps you to reach a good entrenchment status more easily, but does it go the other way aswell?

To bored to run a test scenario, but you usually have a pretty good insight into these under-the-hood game mechanics :)