View Full Version : max battle rounds
Sorry this has probably been gone over & over but just wanted to get a few of the features cleared up for me.
Think I read a thread about the new feature of the 3 combat round max setting that comes with the T3 release (can't remember where right now-probably here).
1. how to you initlize it when setting up a game (do you or is it already there for the newer scenarios)??
2. If you set it up --does it apply to just that game or is it changed for every game you have going??
3. My understanding of it is that it limits all combats to a max of 3 rounds of continuing attacks in one planned combat round --correct?
Went through holy *ell with ant attcks in barb 41--gonna start a new game of Blau 42 against a fairly good opponent--was thinking of just using the "mrb3?" feature for that game only.
Is that possible? Am I completly off the mark with the feature?? does anyone even know what I'm talking about?:D
1. how to you initlize it when setting up a game (do you or is it already there for the newer scenarios)??
2. If you set it up --does it apply to just that game or is it changed for every game you have going??
It is set up in the scenario.
3. My understanding of it is that it limits all combats to a max of 3 rounds of continuing attacks in one planned combat round --correct
Correct. No combat will last more than the rounds specified in the scenario.
Went through holy *ell with ant attcks in barb 41--gonna start a new game of Blau 42 against a fairly good opponent--was thinking of just using the "mrb3?" feature for that game only.
Is that possible? Am I completly off the mark with the feature?? does anyone even know what I'm talking about?:D
It is a simple enough process to set the MRPB setting to '3' in the scenario. Simply open the scenario, select edit---> deployment, and then edit----> Set MRPB, set it to '3', save and viola.
Be carefull though, donīt think Max Round per battle(MRPB) will save you from early turn endings.
- First you have to take into account when the battle starts. That is if a unit moved using 30% of its movements points and then attacks (and you have a MRPB of 3), the battle may end up with only 30% of your turn left.
-Secondly, you must take into account that if only 20% average of the movement is left of the units that took part in battles, the turn ends. Imagine you only plan a battle with a unit that has 10 movement points. That unit has used 3 movements points, the batlle takes 3 rounds and the enemy retreats, and your unit avances, using 3 more movement points in the advance. The only unit that attacked would have left only 1 movement point (less than 20% of its movement points) your turn will end.
-Secondly, you must take into account that if only 20% average of the movement is left of the units that took part in battles, the turn ends. Imagine you only plan a battle with a unit that has 10 movement points. That unit has used 3 movements points, the batlle takes 3 rounds and the enemy retreats, and your unit avances, using 3 more movement points in the advance. The only unit that attacked would have left only 1 movement point (less than 20% of its movement points) your turn will end.
Oh.0000000
I would only want to possibly use it in another game of something like barb 41---without moving any units, planning attacks at limit losses, & over 60% of units on map not even moved or touched--even without attacking in to moutain,hill, or swamp terrain---Iv'e seen my turns where a few of the higher profiency german units-cont attcks,cont attcks, & keeps going in a few of the planned battles and my turn ends right there and then:argh:
As far as the 20% average movement points left--are you saying that when not using the MRPB--that does not apply--and turn will continue.
Along that regards--do many people use this or no?
As far as the 20% average movement points left--are you saying that when not using the MRPB--that does not apply--and turn will continue.
Along that regards--do many people use this or no?
It applies regardless of whether the MRPB is set or not.
As far as using it, I never have changed the setting of the designer. If the scenario is set with it, I use it.
Tkanks---I imagine keeping the MRPB the way the designer set it helps keep the designed play balance in effect.--but with the high profiency set on some of OKW's forces (along with some other factors) --Barb 41 is frustating for a new player in managing a turn. Oh well, just gonna have to wait for that battalion-2.5 hex scaled barborosa scenario to come out:D
Exactly what barbarossa scenario are you playing?
I am playing a game of "Operation Barbarossa 1941" and I am on turn 7. I am really enjoying the game as German. I am writing an AAR, is in spanish although it has a lot of images. Here is a link.
http://www.panzerzug.es/pzg/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,55/topic,3052.0/
Played the OP Barb41 from the wwII east front folder of T3.
Played against a fairly good opponent. I thought I had I pretty good start but didn't really organize my forces enough. My opponnent was able to set up a heavily fortified continuous line from Parnu in estonia-Pskov-down the east end of the pripet marshes & dneiper river line past Kiev to the Black sea. Had some ant attcks w/ some of the SS & other high profiecient units (plus noob skill level) causing a few of the earlier turns ending fast & abrubtly. Due to the early turn endings & other factors, I arrived disorganized & piecemeall at his line which He was able to fortify pretty strongly by the time I could make a serious effort against it. Using the terrain of the marshes & such he was able to funnel my advances to where he wanted them. From there on out, I bacically smashed myself to bits against his line. Used most of my bomber air assets for combat support to try and break through & never inderdicted his reinforcements or blew bridges in his rear to disrupt his continuos reinforcements of his line. Closest I got at one point was a hex from Smolensk. I was able to break through late in the game at Kiev & formed a tenuous bridgehead salient there and was getting close to breaking through in the far south but the mud set in. With the mud ending & fresh soviet army reinforcements coming (& my forces having bled away) I conceded around turn 20/21.
As I said- I had a pretty frustating experience w/Barb 41. Just Starting "Blau 42" and some of that turn ending frustation is aready setting in by turn 2.
Begin Rant:mad: (apologize)---
I'm still fairly new to toaw- but is it just me or with some of the larger eastern front scenarios -does it not seem that the game is less about your planned tactics & strategies & more about "The Art" of managing the game engine in regards to combat round use. The Ant attcks in these scenarios are bugging the he## out of me.
I could understand if I told my guys (german super soldiers that they are)to go beat their heads against a brick wall & they did so until they killed off or tired of exhaustion (ie-ignore loss attck & the guys kept going in one attck til end of turn). But if I order them to lightly scrape at same wall with a toothpick--I wouldn't expect them them to scrape at the wall with the toothpick until they dropped from exhaustion (ie-probing limited attcks at minimal losses eating up whole turn):argh:. When their at only 80% profenciency,attcking into clear terrain--even if there are fortified units they are against --I would reason at those settings-they wouldn't bonzi attck until turn ends.
(My experianced opponent gave some tips for axis in Blua 42 due to his familarity w/ it from the cow days. Stated it was good idea to try to get a breaktrhough in the south near the end of turn 2--i=In his experience as Stavka-if this doesn't occur -he is usually able to bottle up OKW there for awhile enabling him to make a counter attack in the moscow area with appearing reinforcements instead of sending them south to contain breakout)
Beginning of turn 2-german breakthrough already started in south-hardly any units on the map moved, plan a series of air bombarments, bridge attacks, a few art bombarments at minimal losses, and a few attcks with units set at limit losses. All attcks showing only 1 gold block being used in plan attck window and contol panel showing only 10% of turn to be used. Hit Resolve combats and -----one group---no SS or high profiecient units vs. two soviet units (only one fortified & both with yellow health meters)....shows ...OKW cont attck...OKW cont attck.....nine times---then turn ends:hissyfit:
It really is a great game--probably one of the best turn-based hex operational games. Just think sometimes that it should be renamed "The Operational Art of the combat turn round"
End of Rant--sorry.:paperbag:
As I said- I had a pretty frustating experience w/Barb 41. Just Starting "Blau 42" and some of that turn ending frustation is aready setting in by turn 2.
Begin Rant:mad: (apologize)---
I'm still fairly new to toaw- but is it just me or with some of the larger eastern front scenarios -does it not seem that the game is less about your planned tactics & strategies & more about "The Art" of managing the game engine in regards to combat round use. The Ant attcks in these scenarios are bugging the he## out of me.
I could understand if I told my guys (german super soldiers that they are)to go beat their heads against a brick wall & they did so until they killed off or tired of exhaustion (ie-ignore loss attck & the guys kept going in one attck til end of turn). But if I order them to lightly scrape at same wall with a toothpick--I wouldn't expect them them to scrape at the wall with the toothpick until they dropped from exhaustion (ie-probing limited attcks at minimal losses eating up whole turn):argh:. When their at only 80% profenciency,attcking into clear terrain--even if there are fortified units they are against --I would reason at those settings-they wouldn't bonzi attck until turn ends.
(My experianced opponent gave some tips for axis in Blua 42 due to his familarity w/ it from the cow days. Stated it was good idea to try to get a breaktrhough in the south near the end of turn 2--i=In his experience as Stavka-if this doesn't occur -he is usually able to bottle up OKW there for awhile enabling him to make a counter attack in the moscow area with appearing reinforcements instead of sending them south to contain breakout)
Beginning of turn 2-german breakthrough already started in south-hardly any units on the map moved, plan a series of air bombarments, bridge attacks, a few art bombarments at minimal losses, and a few attcks with units set at limit losses. All attcks showing only 1 gold block being used in plan attck window and contol panel showing only 10% of turn to be used. Hit Resolve combats and -----one group---no SS or high profiecient units vs. two soviet units (only one fortified & both with yellow health meters)....shows ...OKW cont attck...OKW cont attck.....nine times---then turn ends:hissyfit:
It really is a great game--probably one of the best turn-based hex operational games. Just think sometimes that it should be renamed "The Operational Art of the combat turn round"
End of Rant--sorry.:paperbag:
Why didn't you set the MRPB???
I personally found that I was often trying to maximize rounds and minimize fun before the MRPB, but now that I have it, I get 2-4 rounds per turn and I have more fun and less micromanaging.
Why didn't you set the MRPB???
I personally found that I was often trying to maximize rounds and minimize fun before the MRPB, but now that I have it, I get 2-4 rounds per turn and I have more fun and less micromanaging.
Well figured playing it for the first time--wanted to try it as it has been played since the start. Also, didn't want to make my opponent have to play it that way----(Am I correct in assuming if I set it on my end--the opponent has to play it that way also?) I think from now on though-with the larger east front scen's--I'll probably utilize the MRPB.
Mark Stevens
22 Sep 07, 13:34
"I'm still fairly new to toaw- but is it just me or with some of the larger eastern front scenarios -does it not seem that the game is less about your planned tactics & strategies & more about "The Art" of managing the game engine in regards to combat round use. The Ant attcks in these scenarios are bugging the he## out of me."
I've been moaning and groaning about this on these forums for years now: these ant/supply drain attacks are unrealistic b***s and are nothing to do with tactics, strategy, or the operational art of war.
They're just taking advantage of the way the turns are sequenced.
You shouldn't play people who use them, nor should you try to 'learn' them. :freak:
Well figured playing it for the first time--wanted to try it as it has been played since the start. Also, didn't want to make my opponent have to play it that way----(Am I correct in assuming if I set it on my end--the opponent has to play it that way also?) I think from now on though-with the larger east front scen's--I'll probably utilize the MRPB.
It is set in the scenario editor. Thus, if you set it, are player one, and start the scenario, it will be in effect for both players.
It is set in the scenario editor. Thus, if you set it, are player one, and start the scenario, it will be in effect for both players.
Thks for confirming that for me--figured that was the way it worked.
Hi Mark,
It's not really my opponent in this sense (he actually has given me tips in trying to manage the combat as we have gone along)--It's more the scenario situation & the noob player. In these two scenarios it seems to be imperitive to break out early & ant attcks on my end have hampered my efforts.
I actually did some run throughs of turn 1 in Blau 42 vs. elmer. Hardly moved any units, set up attacks (only using realitive small percentage of on map units), and resolved combats to see results. Noticed no ryhmm or reason---example: A same group of attcking units vs. the same hex --in some turn 1 results that group broke through only using one combat round (different times set at ignore loss & limit loss-same results) while a similar attcking group up the line ate up the round. In other turn results that same first example group ate up 9 rounds while set at limit losses while breaking through & also vice versa--ignore loss setting didn't. After a few tries of setting up attacks-I would watch the reults & I'd would seem to have struck a balance watching as the result windows went by--no big turn eat up--until near the end --a different group further down the line (which had been set up exactly the same during all the turn try's & always only took 1 combat round in the turn) gave me the dreaded ...cont attk....cont attk...and ate up the whole turn:nuts:
It's weird, I've had early turn endings in other scenarios due to my mismanagement of movement & combat--& occasional ant attcks---but with these two scenarios--the ant attcks seem to be more of a routine then the exception---actually seen a few units set at limited attck at minimal losses during a first probing attck--eat up the whole turn.
.....I've been moaning and groaning about this on these forums for years now: these ant/supply drain attacks are unrealistic b***s and are nothing to do with tactics, strategy, or the operational art of war....
New to TOAW so missed these discussions. With the MRPB able to be used with TOAW III---are people shifting to it? designing scenarios using it?
Just curious--if not-why? Both players are at the same setting regardless if the scenario is set at MRPB 3 or 99. Is it just that's the way it always has been so that's the way it stays? Were the past scenarios designed with ant attcks in mind for play balance & limiting that would throw the balance off?
Been playing a game vs. elmer of "the russian war 1941-1944" modded by Silvanski & I'm using the MRPB set at three---really enjoying it--the game for me has become more on my strategy of manouver & tactics--where I send my corps, the greater operatianal outlook (including managing my turn as far as movent & combat allowances) without the frustation of the ant attcks. As oppossed to my current Blau 42 game which in turn 3--more of the same (and it had nothing to do with my turn managing skill-hardly any movement--set a few minimal bombardments & a few limited loss attcks to set my up my "push" --all going well to it gets to one attcking group that are not going against a heavily fortified target----& cont attck-turn over before it begins.
As one of my opponnents pointed out to me--the managing multiple combat rounds is the holy grail of TOAW (I agree but also think it is the event engine & Toaw's capability to cover various scales,time periods & battles that makes it stand above). But It's a great concept of managing the turn using rounds based on movement points to limit attacks in local areas so one is not unrealalisticly(sp) attcking all over the map at once --just feel as Mark that ant attcks have nothing to really do with it.
Not trying to :stirthepot:---just want to hear from some people that don't use the MRPB and why.
Secadegas
24 Sep 07, 11:35
double post
Secadegas
24 Sep 07, 11:38
Not trying to :stirthepot:---just want to hear from some people that don't use the MRPB and why.
99% of TOAW scenarios were created before MRPB. I'm sure you know that.
Most of active PBEM players are playing TOAW before MRPB beeing introduced... and enjoyed it.
Intensive supply drain /ant attacks suck. I've said it in this forum many "moons" ago supporting Mark and others against many who thought different.
MRPB is a really (really...) nice tool but used without critiria or among noobs is a lot "worse" than supply drain/ant attacks.
Consider it like Traction Control in Formula 1 these days... :rolleyes:
(for those who knows what Formula 1 means...)
Thks Secadegas for replying to something I guess most of you guys have probably gone over & over in the past.
....MRPB is a really (really...) nice tool but used without critiria or among noobs is a lot "worse" than supply drain/ant attacks...
Curious how that is? Basically I can see the "pros" for it just not sure on the "cons". I guess one of the cons could be someone always attacking at ignore losses w/ high profecient units knowing that he won't go past 3 combat rounds wheras ant attacks/supply drain would limit that tactic??
Secadegas
25 Sep 07, 07:48
I guess one of the cons could be someone always attacking at ignore losses w/ high profecient units knowing that he won't go past 3 combat rounds wheras ant attacks/supply drain would limit that tactic??
MRPB was created more to solve the sudden turn ends (very anoying on big scenarios) than to limit ant/supply drain attacks.
Ant/supply drain attacks are legimate tactics (and newcomers should be able to learn and deal with them) but reducing TOAW to the "quest of the ultimate battle round" is (imo) a good way of killing this game enjoyment.
MRPB was created more to solve the sudden turn ends (very anoying on big scenarios) than to limit ant/supply drain attacks.
Ant/supply drain attacks are legimate tactics (and newcomers should be able to learn and deal with them) but reducing TOAW to the "quest of the ultimate battle round" is (imo) a good way of killing this game enjoyment.
Right ON!
(ToaW) was never meant to be 'easy' (in my estimation), but rather to duplicate all the fun bits of paper wargames on a computer!
Players have always had the opportunity to make 'house rules' that fit playing style! If you can't agree w/an opponent about your ruleset, don't play the dude, eh? That's how it was in the 'old days of rule lawyering', so why should that be changed now?
Especially, why should something like this be 'enforced', when a gentleman's aggreement will do the same? One should NOT need anti-cheat functions enforced, when a 'free market' attitude will do the same thing.
Don't like the way the other guy plays?
Just don't play him, eh? ;)
Silvanski
27 Sep 07, 00:44
Right ON!
(ToaW) was never meant to be 'easy' (in my estimation), but rather to duplicate all the fun bits of paper wargames on a computer!
...without the annoyance of having to manipulate those tiny cardboard counters ;)
... huge stacks flipping over... :hissyfit:
...finding your dog has been chewing up the entire 2nd Shock Army :bite::eek::laugh:
...without the annoyance of having to manipulate those tiny cardboard counters ;)
... huge stacks flipping over... :hissyfit:
...finding your dog has been chewing up the entire 2nd Shock Army :bite::eek::laugh:
OR...
Explaining to your Lady why it is that you've just denied her and the rug-rabbits access to a given part of the house, LOL!
Not to mention the explanation of household funds going to such things as multiple sheets of 1" plywood etc, etc; :halo:
...without the annoyance of having to manipulate those tiny cardboard counters ;)
... huge stacks flipping over... :hissyfit:
...finding your dog has been chewing up the entire 2nd Shock Army :bite::eek::laugh:
My favorite episode from the cardboard days.
A Player considers the east front of third reich while eating a sausage roll. He drops a piece of sausage on the map. Feeling very guilty as he is not the owner the game, he quickly pops the sausage piece into his mouth and starts chewing. SOmetime later the russian players starts yelling and the sausage man realizes that he just ate all the brave defenders of Leningrad.:upset:
My favorite episode from the cardboard days.
A Player considers the east front of third reich while eating a sausage roll. He drops a piece of sausage on the map. Feeling very guilty as he is not the owner the game, he quickly pops the sausage piece into his mouth and starts chewing. SOmetime later the russian players starts yelling and the sausage man realizes that he just ate all the brave defenders of Leningrad.:upset:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
murphstein
29 Sep 07, 16:10
Begin Rant:mad: (apologize)---
I'm still fairly new to toaw- but is it just me or with some of the larger eastern front scenarios -does it not seem that the game is less about your planned tactics & strategies & more about "The Art" of managing the game engine in regards to combat round use. The Ant attcks in these scenarios are bugging the he## out of me.
End of Rant--sorry.:paperbag:
Noob here...
Reading these forums (fora?), I've seen many references to "ants", which I understand to be the term applied to sub-divided bits of the smallest available units, like AT btlns, in an OOB with a much larger average formation sizes, like inf and pzr divs. Now Snafu mentions "ant attacks," which I guess must use these "ants" to exploit some game engine behavior that's reasonable at larger scales, to get some kind of unintended and ahistorical advantage. Attacking a division with a company and causing the division to stop and deploy or some such thing (common and legitimate tactics in ACW games, btw).
So can someone explain specifically (with screen-shots, maybe) what an "ant attack" is, what it exploits, and how one can agree with one's PBEM opponent in advance to forgo such tactics? Have just started PBEM and need to know the typical "rules of the road" players with experience follow, if only to not give accidental offense by violating them.
dpm
Noob here...
Reading these forums (fora?), I've seen many references to "ants", which I understand to be the term applied to sub-divided bits of the smallest available units, like AT btlns, in an OOB with a much larger average formation sizes, like inf and pzr divs. Now Snafu mentions "ant attacks," which I guess must use these "ants" to exploit some game engine behavior that's reasonable at larger scales, to get some kind of unintended and ahistorical advantage. Attacking a division with a company and causing the division to stop and deploy or some such thing (common and legitimate tactics in ACW games, btw).
So can someone explain specifically (with screen-shots, maybe) what an "ant attack" is, what it exploits, and how one can agree with one's PBEM opponent in advance to forgo such tactics? Have just started PBEM and need to know the typical "rules of the road" players with experience follow, if only to not give accidental offense by violating them.
dpm
Same thing as in ACW - small units cause quite larger results period:eek: Most
opponents you'll find this quite disturbing - it's great if you can do it -
but long term just expect the combat results;)
murphstein
29 Sep 07, 17:46
I've gotten the impression using "ant attacks" causes your opponent to burn supplies (same amt consumed to beat off a company as a division?), or get fewer combat rounds out of his turn (due to reduced MPs left for player 2? due to cost of advancing against oppo into the ant's hex? something completely different?).
Is this somehow different from what we're doing in the new player workshop as Germans on the Road to Rimini, when we attack red overstacks of Allied inf btlns with a sub-btln of inf and all the direct arty support that's in range?
I might have been misunderstood in my use of the "ant" attacks in talking about MRPB and early turn ending or interchanged the word where I shouldn't have. Not really my opponent doing anything to that effect--It's more of the results I'm getting on my end while attacking. Same size units (div size) giong against counterpart div units. Case in point last turn of Blau42 I just completed---set up arty bombardments for first round----Had about 8 arty units not moved I repeat not moved at all (& 4 of them a hex behind & not bordering the hex) coduct a limited attck all set at minimal losses against sevestapol----that bombardment cont attck cont attk & ate up whole turn:argh: My opponent didn't use any tactic other than fortifying the units garrisoned there. This has become a regular occurrence for me with this sceanario & earlier with barb 41. Common Tips are to not use units that have moved, set first round bombardments at miniamal losses, etc.
MRPB was created more to solve the sudden turn ends (very anoying on big scenarios) than to limit ant/supply drain attacks.
Ant/supply drain attacks are legimate tactics (and newcomers should be able to learn and deal with them) but reducing TOAW to the "quest of the ultimate battle round" is (imo) a good way of killing this game enjoyment.
I guess I was getting the two mixed up here----Talking more about the MRPB then ant attcks---My misunderstanding was that "ant attacks" referred to the turn ending early due to continuing attacks & not a supply drain attack using smaller "ant" units. Probably still confused on the issue:nuts:
Secadegas
30 Sep 07, 06:00
I guess I was getting the two mixed up here----Talking more about the MRPB then ant attcks---My misunderstanding was that "ant attacks" referred to the turn ending early due to continuing attacks & not a supply drain attack using smaller "ant" units. Probably still confused on the issue:nuts:
Sudden turn ends are conected to battle rounds spent and in some degree to random factors related with force proficiency (the higher the force proficiency better the chance of avoiding sudden end turns).
In big scenarios (with a lot of units & combats) the chance of one combat taking much more than expected and "burning"your turn is very high. That's why MRPB can be important in these cases.
Ant/supply drain attacks aren't related with this.
As the name suggests these are attacks taken by small units (in mimimum losses and supported by lots of artillery) resulting on the target unit(s) beeing wear down on their supply level. Ususally these attacks are very efective but some (many?) players don't like it.
Personally i use supply drain attacks but never perfomed by "ant" units.
Thanks for clearing that up for me Secadegas. Anytime someone mentioned "ant attacks/supply drain" before I thought they were referring to continue attack results in reference to early turn ending. As you said I also have no issue with the supply drain tactics-just the opponent trying to wear you down.
Ref the MRPB & profeciency--Took me a few turns to notice & then was advised later that the SS units in barb 41 were turn burning machines due to their high profeciency---one would think otherwise---that being so higly profecient they would be great for hard hitting break through attacks--but with their profeciency- just telling them to stare hard at the enemy might possibly make them continue the stares untill the turn ends:laugh:
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.