View Full Version : The fine line of Honor Rules
CyberGeneral
06 Aug 04, 20:43
As situations arise, I sometimes come across TOAW honor rules in a game that I feel some never misuse, some are a bit free to abuse & some quick to take advantage of........The ones that come to mind, (and reasons I question) are:
1. Air-drops (parachute units) on top of known enemy location............Page 46 of TOAW Players Guide: ".....You may not deliberately drop your unit (airborne) on an enemy-occupied location............." Do any players know about this honor rule?.....Do any players use the explanation of "the unit was not seen or known to be there"?...Or... do all play by this?
2. No unit is allowed to occupy another players' reinforcement hex?.............I've had some say they do not need to guard a reinforcement hex as it is against an honor rule to take it..............
3. The forgetfulness of some scenario designers to place off-map airfields (and thus airplanes) within reach of enemy artillery (not putting distance on airfields)..................One game (out of a few) that comes to mind is Market Garden where the Axis Artillery with range 15 can strike Allied airfields in NW corner of map.............I can't imagine anyone using this but must ask...............
4. (hating to bring this up) The use of supply drains.............I for one believe in the old adage "He who knows how to do it best gains advantage"....................
5. Using ports to bombard from using ships/fleets.............Using ports by ships/fleets means airforces can not bomb ships (as I hear) as ships are immune from damage by planes (as long as they stay at a port)...............
6. Retreated units.............The simple act of placing retreated units in attack mode and immediately placing in move mode before resolving the attack, brings retreated units out of retreat mode..............All retreated units have movement taken away as the result anyway, so I for one believe that what can be played in a move (without the replaying/cheating) is acceptable..............
These are the ones I have been wanting to hear from others on.........Just to note, these are not to be confused with the obvious cheats in what a player can do in a game..........I believe that what a player can do in one move without the use of saving, redoing, reopening, (need I go on) should be acceptable... though a few of the honor rules noted above is definitely "open for discussion".
My 0.02 €
1. Air-drops (parachute units) on top of known enemy location............Page 46 of TOAW Players Guide: ".....You may not deliberately drop your unit (airborne) on an enemy-occupied location............." Do any players know about this honor rule?.....Do any players use the explanation of "the unit was not seen or known to be there"?...Or... do all play by this? Just made the opposite, didn't remember that one. I cannot see why I would not deliberately drop an airborne unit on an enemy occupied location, particularly in large scale scenarios, with hexes representing up to 50 km.
2. No unit is allowed to occupy another players' reinforcement hex?.............I've had some say they do not need to guard a reinforcement hex as it is against an honor rule to take it.............. If the honour rule is written down and/or previously agreed between players it is allright. If not, everything on the map is for the taking.
3. The forgetfulness of some scenario designers to place off-map airfields (and thus airplanes) within reach of enemy artillery (not putting distance on airfields)..................One game (out of a few) that comes to mind is Market Garden where the Axis Artillery with range 15 can strike Allied airfields in NW corner of map.............I can't imagine anyone using this but must ask............... I just finished a mirrored Market Garden without even realizing this - wouldn't have resorted to this though.
4. (hating to bring this up) The use of supply drains.............I for one believe in the old adage "He who knows how to do it best gains advantage".................... I usually reply in kind though not fond of this tactic and not very good I fear at using it. I have no objection to its use against me if it does not come accross a specific honour rule.
5. Using ports to bombard from using ships/fleets.............Using ports by ships/fleets means airforces can not bomb ships (as I hear) as ships are immune from damage by planes (as long as they stay at a port)............... No idea on this.
6. Retreated units.............The simple act of placing retreated units in attack mode and immediately placing in move mode before resolving the attack, brings retreated units out of retreat mode..............All retreated units have movement taken away as the result anyway, so I for one believe that what can be played in a move (without the replaying/cheating) is acceptable.............. I use this every time - I have enough burdens as second player to have retreated units stay without purpose (not reorganizing or routed) on mobile status, i.e. free lunch for my opponent. I want them to dig in or counter-attack with what's left of their movement allowance.
Cmdr_Vessery
06 Aug 04, 22:28
1. Air-drops (parachute units) on top of known enemy location............Page 46 of TOAW Players Guide: ".....You may not deliberately drop your unit (airborne) on an enemy-occupied location............." Do any players know about this honor rule?.....Do any players use the explanation of "the unit was not seen or known to be there"?...Or... do all play by this?
What's the point of having Airbourne units? Is this "Player's Guide" here on the website?
2. No unit is allowed to occupy another players' reinforcement hex?.............I've had some say they do not need to guard a reinforcement hex as it is against an honor rule to take it..............
If there isn't a specific honor rule in the scenario or agreeded upon by both players, all hexes are "occupiable" in my opinion..
Case in point - Balkans41, to win the scenario you "MUST" occupy Athens, which just happens to be a "supply hex/re-enforcement hex".
3. The forgetfulness of some scenario designers to place off-map airfields (and thus airplanes) within reach of enemy artillery (not putting distance on airfields)..................One game (out of a few) that comes to mind is Market Garden where the Axis Artillery with range 15 can strike Allied airfields in NW corner of map.............I can't imagine anyone using this but must ask...............
Never even thought to exploit this... and if anybody has I think it's pretty lame...
4. (hating to bring this up) The use of supply drains.............I for one believe in the old adage "He who knows how to do it best gains advantage"....................
This I think, is a bi-product of the game engine.. and do not use it...
5. Using ports to bombard from using ships/fleets.............Using ports by ships/fleets means airforces can not bomb ships (as I hear) as ships are immune from damage by planes (as long as they stay at a port)...............
Another lame exploit in the game engine.. ports are meant for offloading and loading of troops...
6. Retreated units.............The simple act of placing retreated units in attack mode and immediately placing in move mode before resolving the attack, brings retreated units out of retreat mode..............All retreated units have movement taken away as the result anyway, so I for one believe that what can be played in a move (without the replaying/cheating) is acceptable..............
Troops that have "retreated" should be able to change directions and fight if needed..
I'm adding one to your list..
7. The use of multiple "HQ" units to airdrop to locations that are unreachable by ground movement to make enemy airdropped units have "disengagement penalty"
My2cents
~Vessery
RhinoBones
06 Aug 04, 23:46
1. Air-drops (parachute units) on top of known enemy location
2. No unit is allowed to occupy another players' reinforcement hex
4. The use of supply drains . . .
5. Using ports to bombard from using ships/fleets
6. Retreated units...
Completely agree with your points 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.
Points 1, 2 4 and 5 are allowed by the nature of the TOAW engine therefore, I feel that designers should design in accordance with the limitations of the game engine. The use of honor/house rules to govern gamesmanship is just an avenue for achieving acrimony.
I certainly do agree that there are times and circumstances where a “special” rule is needed to achieve competitive play, but for the majority of cases, I believe the honor/house rules are detrimental to the enjoyment of the game.
Case in point, the new Great War scenario is a wonderful achievement. However, after reading through the honor/house rules, I feel that abiding by the Federal Tax Code would be easier than abiding by the Great War rules. Does a game need to be so complicated that a “rules violation” thesaurus is required?
The earlier Great War scenario by Mr. P, although having problems of it’s own, in my experience is a superior scenario, if for no other reason than it has minimal extraneous rules. People can play without referencing to a playing card that has 50 (I’m guessing at the number) extra rules. Furthermore, the player does not have to monitor the movements of the opponent to ensure that the opponent has not violated any of the honor/house rules. You can get the flavor of the Great War from Mr. P’s scenario without the hangover.
As for point 6, Retreated Units entrenching . . . This is how I remember an earlier thread: I was in favor of allowing digging-in, however, I was pummeled on this point by those who thought that digging-in after retreat was a form of cheating, or that the logical sequence of IPYP prevented digging-in. I agree with you. Units should always be allowed to dig-in and protect against attack when the game allows such actions.
There is another “cheat” that needs to be addressed. At the end of a turn, a player can “cancel”, return to the game field, and dig-in any units capable of digging-in. With this, the turn ends. This is obviously for units that have remaining movement points after the combat round ends. The downside to this tactic, is that it creates a “ding” during playback.
A “ding” is considered by some TOAW players to signify an “illegal” move. Exactly the same as an “Undo”. Really, is dig-in illegal? If the troops have movement time remaining, would they not dig-in? Troops are trained to dig-in as SOP.
Regards, RhinoBones
Bdr.Mallette
07 Aug 04, 00:29
hey,
I frequently use the retreated unit cheat, if it is a cheat.
using a retreated unit to attack, then cancelling right after does allow that unit to dig in or perform it's regular list of duties. But with the penalty loss of movememnt, it's unlikely that the unit will attack in the first 2-3 turns anyways, or may not even be able to attack, so it's like it is generally missing a turn anyways. If i do have to do that,not too much nowadays...lol, I generally 'Dig In' to let that unit heal or stay in position, in strength. I was taught that while playing, so, if it's okay with some and not others, wutyado?
Other than that, I have restarted a scenario in turn one if I make a movement error, like dig in instead of the next selection, or when the secondary options come up on the left instead of the right and I click sumthin wrong, pisses me off. Only did that twice, in my very early scenarios. Now I am playing with honour, Worf would be proud. lol.
I think cheating would really take the fun and interest out of it.
Cheers. :D
Bdr.Mallette
07 Aug 04, 00:37
Explain.
Using forces to continually pound through lines and costing enemy heavily?
or like, not destroying some units so they will recouperate and then you pound them down again?
The first is good, the 2nd is bad.
which you talking 'bout Willis?
Dicke Bertha
07 Aug 04, 03:59
Supply drain attacks sure could be more closely defined or described. Are they the same as repeated probing assaults to dig out an entrenched enemy?
For instance, in GiO the honour rules state that armour is not allowed to make limited attacks, unless accompanied by an infantry unit one size bigger... So I take it it is ok to use armour alone, on normal attack.
The attacker of course wants to dig out the defending enemy, otherwise, with a lot of defending artillery, the human wave assault will be very costly against the dug-in defenses. There are reasonably only a few ways to dig out a defender; the two more obvious are: pound him hard with artillery direct fire, or use some expendible unit to attack with, backed by massive passive artillery. Is the second variant gamey, but the first kosher?
I think that as long as the attacker really has the wish and the intention of breaking through, repeated probing attacks are logical. Once the enemy is dug out - hit hard with everything you have.
As I said, not sure if this is the same as supply drain attack.... :crosseye:
viridomaros
07 Aug 04, 04:49
imo supply drain attack= launch several assault on an ennemy red stack until they ran out of supply and evaporate, for this purpose you use AA/AT units, this works well against low profeciency forces.
1. Air-drops (parachute units) on top of known enemy location............Page 46 of TOAW Players Guide: ".....You may not deliberately drop your unit (airborne) on an enemy-occupied location............." Do any players know about this honor rule?.....Do any players use the explanation of "the unit was not seen or known to be there"?...Or... do all play by this?
Never heard of this rule and I don't think it's needed, dropping an airborn unit on a garrision often gets the airborn unit evaporated, and losing an elite airborn (even if they reconstitute, they'll never be able to drop again!) to a low proficiency garrision should be punishment enough. The only possible limitation I can think of: a house rule to allow para-drops max. XX hexes away from the neares friendly unit, to prevent unrealistic deep para drops. But this has to be decided for every scenario again, because every D-Day scenario will usually require deep para drops without friendly units nearby :)
2. No unit is allowed to occupy another players' reinforcement hex?.............I've had some say they do not need to guard a reinforcement hex as it is against an honor rule to take it..............
If such a house rule has to exist the scenario designer is to blame, every hex on the map should be occupiable unless there is a good reason not to. Example here would be the 'tunnels' connecting far away regions on some maps.
3. The forgetfulness of some scenario designers to place off-map airfields (and thus airplanes) within reach of enemy artillery (not putting distance on airfields)..................One game (out of a few) that comes to mind is Market Garden where the Axis Artillery with range 15 can strike Allied airfields in NW corner of map.............I can't imagine anyone using this but must ask...............
Off map airfields should not be targeted by arty IMHA but airfield attacks by the air force shold be allowed unless the scenario designer said otherwise.
4. (hating to bring this up) The use of supply drains.............I for one believe in the old adage "He who knows how to do it best gains advantage"....................
Beeing able to supply drain is another sign of bad scenario design IMHO (to densly packed units), as most of the times 'supply drain' attacks are in reality artillery attacks. Why? Well, Artillery in TOAW is almost useless unless they support an ongoing attack, I did enough experiments and sometimes had close to one thousand arties or several thousand bombers and fighter bombers attack a single unit without causeing more than 2-3% losses...ridiculous! The same attack wit just any ground units and arty support finnally resulted in enemy losses up to 50%, often even a retreat of the enemy unit. Having the low strength unit attack the enemy without any arty support rsulted in a badly mauled attacken and a defender without any losses. So, these repeated 'supply drain' attack are mostly artillery strikes, and if a rifle division retreats because it was attacked by a recon unit supported by heavy artillery and fighter planes it's losses come from the fighter planes and the artillery, not from the recon unit.
Of course your opponent in his replay will only see: recon unit attacks my division and my division retreats... how can that be? What he can't see is the artillery and the plaes that participated in that attack. So, usually, repeated attacks on a single unit are OK in my book.
5. Using ports to bombard from using ships/fleets.............Using ports by ships/fleets means airforces can not bomb ships (as I hear) as ships are immune from damage by planes (as long as they stay at a port)...............
Ships are not immune in port, they can be sunk equally easy as if they were on see, the only exception is if a ground unit occupies the port aswell, than the attacking planes will attack the ships and the groud forces and TOAW will spread out the losses across both units, thst why it's now harder to specifivcally target the ships. But as ships are ridiculously easy to sink in open waters I usually dont see a reason why they shouldn't 'hide' in a port.
6. Retreated units.............The simple act of placing retreated units in attack mode and immediately placing in move mode before resolving the attack, brings retreated units out of retreat mode..............All retreated units have movement taken away as the result anyway, so I for one believe that what can be played in a move (without the replaying/cheating) is acceptable..............
In my opinion this is a bug in TOAW, retreated units should always be able to dig in again, if the rout was so bad that they can't even dig in their status will get 'routed', or retreated+reorganizing, in both cases the unit can't dig in no matter what the player tries.
viridomaros
07 Aug 04, 07:13
kraut try the desert storm scenario and surprisingly artyllery and aviation can destroy units without any helps, but i admit in ww2 scenario it's hard to get more than 2 or 3 % of casualities but i think there is a note on this somewhere in the help file by norm koger, iirc it is written somewhere in the appendice under the call: why artillery is uneffective or something like that
As far as I know, in the later part of wwII, soviet artillery become more efficient because they start to have sophisticated firing schedule, that is, firing the first round, stop, then firing the second round to try to catch the german in the open when they get out of bunker to man the first defense line. It is suicidal to put all troops in the open all the time, and it is quite unlikely that the a tiny aa or at unit can cause any significant alarm.
The scenario design drives most of the problems as mentioned above. House rules help, but really it is the communication between the players. If there is a question or a doubt about something then email one another.
1. Air-drops (parachute units) on top of known enemy location............Page 46 of TOAW Players Guide: ".....You may not deliberately drop your unit (airborne) on an enemy-occupied location............." Do any players know about this honor rule?.....Do any players use the explanation of "the unit was not seen or known to be there"?...Or... do all play by this?
Never would do it, doesn't make sense to drop paratroopers on known locations. However, I have played where paratroopers were allowed in a scenario and accidently dropped them on a unknown location and usually they evap or are shattered. Being a paratrooper once, I know from experience it doesn't go well when you land on top of the enemy :)
2. No unit is allowed to occupy another players' reinforcement hex?.............I've had some say they do not need to guard a reinforcement hex as it is against an honor rule to take it..............
Again this is scenario design. If it is stated in the house rules, I agree. But if not, then those hexes are key terrain. Again if there is an issue with this, the players should email one another and discuss what can and cannot be done.
3. The forgetfulness of some scenario designers to place off-map airfields (and thus airplanes) within reach of enemy artillery (not putting distance on airfields)..................One game (out of a few) that comes to mind is Market Garden where the Axis Artillery with range 15 can strike Allied airfields in NW corner of map.............I can't imagine anyone using this but must ask...............
Agree, I do not think anyone should arty bombard any off map airfields.
4. (hating to bring this up) The use of supply drains.............I for one believe in the old adage "He who knows how to do it best gains advantage"....................
I don't use it. As I understand the supply drain tactic goes like this: break down an armored type unit, launch min attacks, all arty supports the attack, and after about 3 plus phases of doing this, the stack evaps. If used then it should be agreed upon prior to the scenario. Afterall, arty was the greatest killer during WWII.
5. Using ports to bombard from using ships/fleets.............Using ports by ships/fleets means airforces can not bomb ships (as I hear) as ships are immune from damage by planes (as long as they stay at a port)...............
Never used it. However, I could see a rare chance where a navy unit was trapped in a port so they had to bombard.
6. Retreated units.............The simple act of placing retreated units in attack mode and immediately placing in move mode before resolving the attack, brings retreated units out of retreat mode..............All retreated units have movement taken away as the result anyway, so I for one believe that what can be played in a move (without the replaying/cheating) is acceptable..............
I would agree that retreated units, if able would dig in for their own defense. But to use a loophole in the mechanics of the game to do it, is another matter.
Again, I think if there are any issues with any scenario being played, the players should discuss them and agree upon a reasonable solution. Afterall, we play for fun.
Bob Cross
07 Aug 04, 13:02
1. Air-drops (parachute units) on top of known enemy location............Page 46 of TOAW Players Guide: ".....You may not deliberately drop your unit (airborne) on an enemy-occupied location............." Do any players know about this honor rule?.....Do any players use the explanation of "the unit was not seen or known to be there"?...Or... do all play by this?
This is NOT an "honor rule". It's a physical fact of the game engine. It prevents directing an airdrop onto a revealed enemy unit. Here is the complete rule:
"You may not deliberately drop your unit on an enemy-occupied location, and Headquarters units may drop only onto friendly-controlled territory. Typically though, the contents of the location will be unknown. If enemy units are discovered to be present at the time of the drop, your air-dropped unit will be destroyed unless the enemy units opt to retreat before combat."
As far as I know, there are no honor rules in the manual. Nor would I expect any. Honor rules are created (badly usually) by the players.
Personally, I would never agree to any honor rule that couldn't be unambiguously defined. I've yet to hear anyone define a "supply drain" attack in a comprehensible fashion without outlawing all sorts of legitimate action. Nor have I been convinced they don't model reality. Just being in the frontlines is stressful. Being fat and happy is a rear-area condition.
'The artillery unit has unlimited shells' is a design flaw in this system. It can be exploited in various fashion.
I wonder what would happen if the attack stength of a artillery unit is determined by its supply level.
I wonder what would happen if the attack stength of a artillery unit is determined by its supply level.
Uh, it is! A fully supplied unit (any unit, not just arty) is almost twice as powerfull as a 1% supply, 33% readiness unit.
'The artillery unit has unlimited shells' is a design flaw in this system. It can be exploited in various fashion.
Yeah, so can the 'unlimited fuel', recon unit blocking the retreat of an encirceled division, player 2 uses lots of broken down units to cut supply for Pl. 1, 'efficiency trap' of air wings, range 1 arty can't bombard, theather recon randomly spread across the map, totally encirceled yet marked as supplied units will save lots of ist equipment into the OnHand pool etc.
There are many minor design falws in TOAW yet a good scenario design will compensate for most of them.
Bdr.Mallette
07 Aug 04, 15:38
4. (hating to bring this up) The use of supply drains.............I for one believe in the old adage "He who knows how to do it best gains advantage"....................
I don't use it. As I understand the supply drain tactic goes like this: break down an armored type unit, launch min attacks, all arty supports the attack, and after about 3 plus phases of doing this, the stack evaps. If used then it should be agreed upon prior to the scenario. Afterall, arty was the greatest killer during WWII.
Let me see if I understand this.
Positioning your Arty around units that are attacking enemy positions, then using limited attacks to dislodge him or destroy him is wrong?
So I should use my arty for direct attacks and always attack with my full stack. Yeah, that makes sense.
Making limited attacks is all I do in most cases. Uses my SUPPORT units such as Arty to it's fullest. I leave a stack dug-in then use units for a limited attack. next combat round, hopefully 80% remaining, I do the same, except with different units now, or the same if they're strong enough. I know which ones to use on the 2nd and 3rd or 4th rounds of combat because the ones that haven't attacked yet are dug in.
If this is wrong then you are ruining this game for me.
I didn't know we had to have rules of how to be a general.
I can switch between a maneuverable scenario and a slow, pound through the lines scenario, depends on the opponents strategy and their skill level.
Please guys, stop *****in'. Other than restarting a scenario or sumthin like that, or resaving or whatever ya do, the game is fine in itself. The tactics are there for each side to use, if that person is inexperienced to know about some of the small ones, then so be it. Learning is part of everything.
FFS!
"Besides, none of these things will ever help a bad general or strategist"
Did ya ever think those arty units do a better job with accuracy when there is a friendly unit engaging and calling down fire with Grid co-ordinates. Rather than just pummeling a 2.5, 5, 10 km hex totally.
FOO = Forward observer officers. their job is to call down fire, all units possess such soldiers, especially Arty units within their firing range........DUH!!!
Bdr.Mallette, for friggin sakes!!!!!
I am not quite sure what is the problem to use recon to block the a division, no quite sure what is the problem to use breakdown unit to encircle enemy unit, or block communication line, it is the player's responsibility to guard his supply line by whatever means possible.
IMO, artillery strength should be :base strength * supply level. so if the supply level is 150%, then its strength should be 150%; if the supply level is 1%, then its strength is 1%, means out of shell, basically worthless.
I am not quite sure what is the problem to use recon to block the a division
Let me put it this way: an entire tank corps in encirceled and one of their escape routs is blocked by a single irregular squad, and instead of forcefully breaking out of the encircelment the unit rather evaporates. See what I mean? Flaw of the system.
, no quite sure what is the problem to use breakdown unit to encircle enemy unit, or block communication line,
Flaw with the WeGo system because only player two can do it, because player one has no chance to react before the bookkeeping phase starts
it is the player's responsibility to guard his supply line by whatever means possible.
Sure, you tell Rommel that he has to guard every kilometer of his 500km frontline with the 20 units at his disposal but shouldn't forget to keep a Schwerpunkt for his attacks :cheeky:
IMO, artillery strength should be :base strength * supply level. so if the supply level is 150%, then its strength should be 150%; if the supply level is 1%, then its strength is 1%, means out of shell, basically worthless.
1% supply doesn't mean out of supply, it means low on supplies. I think I said the same regarding Barbarossa scenarios, if the germans would reste whenever a unit reaches 1% supply they wouldn't be able to reach Moscow by winter even without a single soviet unit blocking their way :D OK, I am exagerrating, but you get the point. TOAWs supply network is an abstraction and could certainly need some improvements, but IMHO it works quite well. Unless there comes a better game I am happy with the system :)
Dicke Bertha
07 Aug 04, 18:03
It seems some of the questions (and there are probably more than mentioned so far) are indeed viewed upon differently by different players, who use their own logic to it rather than just play for maximum effect. Rather than deciding who is right and who is wrong, it should be beneficial for the game if both players agree on the same logic....
Maybe a good thing would be to assemble all the known or major issues into a template, an informal contract, to be available here for use between players who do not know each other so well? Not a "TOAW cheat list", but rather like check boxes on various issues, those checked differently can be sorted out before play? It could be a help to players, not something to make a court case out of!
Also a sticky thread (I like those!) about these aspects of TOAW... the checklist could be available there.
Well, or these discussions will perhaps always be around... ?
Let me put it this way: an entire tank corps in encirceled and one of their escape routs is blocked by a single irregular squad, and instead of forcefully breaking out of the encircelment the unit rather evaporates. See what I mean? Flaw of the system.
So, it is round attack under encirclement condition. let's just say the encircled units were overrun by overwhelming forces, and some of their equipment goes back to replacement pool. Does the general feel a bit sorry that he put his troops in this situation?
Flaw with the WeGo system because only player two can do it, because player one has no chance to react before the bookkeeping phase starts
Does the player one hold the initiative?
Sure, you tell Rommel that he has to guard every kilometer of his 500km frontline with the 20 units at his disposal but shouldn't forget to keep a Schwerpunkt for his attacks :cheeky:
I would rather go tell Brit because they paniced too much.
1% supply doesn't mean out of supply, it means low on supplies. I think I said the same regarding Barbarossa scenarios, if the germans would reste whenever a unit reaches 1% supply they wouldn't be able to reach Moscow by winter even without a single soviet unit blocking their way :D OK, I am exagerrating, but you get the point. TOAWs supply network is an abstraction and could certainly need some improvements, but IMHO it works quite well. Unless there comes a better game I am happy with the system :)
I agree the supply system has numerous faults in it, the whole point to have honor rules is because of this. But on the other hand, it is a matter of taste, or game style.
Well, or these discussions will perhaps always be around... ?Most probable, until Norm Koger releases the patch-to-fix-all-flaws... date undisclosed http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif.
Dicke Bertha
07 Aug 04, 19:49
:) Ah the Divine Creation you mean!
Bdr.Mallette
Let me see if I understand this.
Positioning your Arty around units that are attacking enemy positions, then using limited attacks to dislodge him or destroy him is wrong?
So I should use my arty for direct attacks and always attack with my full stack. Yeah, that makes sense.
I do not think that is what they are talking about as a supply drain. I think anyone who plays wargames, or had real life practical experience knows that arty support is critical in breaking a fortified position and exploiting your attack. BTW look at the photo, I was a foward observer, 82nd Airborne, and I know alot about fire supprt (KING of BATTLE).
What I was stating is there is a mechanism whereby you break down a tank BN into the smallest parts (3x companies) then you launch attacks with this smaller unit hoping for all the arty within range to support this attack. So what happens is this:
100% attack with tank company against an overstack hex, all arty supports attack.
80% attack again with the same unit, all arty supports
60% attack again with the same unit, all arty supports
40% attack again with the same unit, all arty supports, units start to evap.
Is this an exploit? Some people think so.
During the Wintergewitter tourney, the soviet forces are stacked all around Stalingrad. The axis forces surrounded at Stalingrad, all in a red supply status (but lots of arty) could use this very tactic. I have read AAR's where 21 soviet divisions evap on the very first turn, and all the axis did was this very supply drain tactic. The solution is some tweaking with the scenario (reduce the number of soviet units overstacked).
Bdr.Mallette
07 Aug 04, 23:21
Would not the defender's Arty in the area, counter-battery?
I see what you mean now by that tactic. Never used myself, that I know of. But the positioning of my arty to get maximum effect, yes I do that.
I was at the other end of the FOO, sending the rounds there.
On time and On target... he
bdr.Mallette
Would not the defender's Arty in the area, counter-battery?
yes the defender's arty does support the defense, that is why the attacker uses a tank unit (arty is least effective against armored vehicles). Try it sometime in the hotseat with infantry and armored units.
Mark Stevens
08 Aug 04, 08:53
A lot of things to discuss and think about, but on a point of information, if you surround a strong enemy unit with five decent ones and one piece of crap, the latter sometimes evaporates when the enemy is forced to retreat or rout, allowing the encircled unit to 'break out'.
Does happen, I've seen it, although I don't know what the relative strengths have to be for it to happen.
I don't use 'supply drain' attacks, but I thought that the principal objection was that if the attacker uses a small, fast unit to attack a far larger stack, the attacker can micro-manage the turn to get eight preliminary phases in, reducing the defender's readiness by 10% for each phase, then make a genuine attack (as he should have done at the start of the turn in my not-so-humble opinion) leading the defenders at 20% readiness to evaporate or retreat. Such a series of attacks does benefit from artillery and aircraft within range.
If there are flaws - and there are - in TOAW's design, should we as players be exploiting them to achieve results that we know are unrealistic?
A lot of things to discuss and think about, but on a point of information, if you surround a strong enemy unit with five decent ones and one piece of crap, the latter sometimes evaporates when the enemy is forced to retreat or rout, allowing the encircled unit to 'break out'.
That only happens if the attacker has ordered the low strenght unit to attack together with the other units (and than evaporates during the attack), otherwise there is no way the encirceled unit could break out.
I don't use 'supply drain' attacks, but I thought that the principal objection was that if the attacker uses a small, fast unit to attack a far larger stack, the attacker can micro-manage the turn to get eight preliminary phases in, reducing the defender's readiness by 10% for each phase, then make a genuine attack (as he should have done at the start of the turn in my not-so-humble opinion) leading the defenders at 20% readiness to evaporate or retreat. Such a series of attacks does benefit from artillery and aircraft within range.
If there are flaws - and there are - in TOAW's design, should we as players be exploiting them to achieve results that we know are unrealistic?
If the attacker uses 80% to prepare for his attack by constant probing attacks and artillery and fighter bomber bombardment (and in the case of EA that's roughly 6 days!) you can surely expect the defender to be weakened and low on supply because his supply dumps were either destroyed by arty or used up defending against the constant probing attacks. Also, if an attacker waits until the last moment to start his main attack he always runs the risk of having an early turn ending or having his finall attack taking longer than expected, but with only 20% left he only has two tac rounds to defeat the defender or his turn will end.
And a defender evaporating easily is by design, the scenario designer could always tweak some values to make units tougher, such as GiO in V1.7, there units only evaporated after virtually having lost all assigned equipment.
There is no such thing as a free lunch in TOAW :)
That only happens if the attacker has ordered the low strenght unit to attack together with the other units (and than evaporates during the attack), otherwise there is no way the encirceled unit could break out.
Actually I have seen this happen on a number of occasions when playing against the computer.
The unit is "overrun" by the encircled unit, even if it didn't participate in the attack. I haven't seen it when playing PBEM, but part of the answer of that could be, that I now don't use so small units to surround the enemy, because of my earlier experiences of "breakouts".
If I remember correctly it could happen in the Overlord 44 scenario when playing as German. I'm guess the strong allied Air Superiority makes it more common.
It should be obvious now that the supply system in this game needs major improvement. Again, I would like to tie the strength of indirect fire unit directly to its supply level, this will force the player to seriously think about how to use those assets instead of abusing them.
It should be obvious now that the supply system in this game needs major improvement. Again, I would like to tie the strength of indirect fire unit directly to its supply level, this will force the player to seriously think about how to use those assets instead of abusing them.
The strength of artillery is ALREADY tied to its supply level. In more ways than simple counterstrength numbers. A low supply artillery unit has a correspondingly low readiness state which affects whether it will join in, for indirect fire.
A long time ago, I made the conscious decision to abandon any pretense that the supply model in TOAW corresponded to any particular set of conditions. Exactly what is 150% supply? 100%? 50%? 14%? 1%? At all these levels, units can move, and attack. Therefore, I made the decision to view 1% supply as the NORMAL supply state, and through aggressive maneuver and combat, to force my opponents down to that level wherever possible. Then, higher levels of supply will be achieved only in those units that are fresh, or truly rested, and in that aspect - the handling of reserves, and logistics - the true generalship of a player could be determined on the electronic board of battle.
Your mileage may vary, but it works for me, and I worry a lot less about arbitrary honor rules trying to modify the basic system.
Mark Stevens
08 Aug 04, 16:40
[/QUOTE]
If the attacker uses 80% to prepare for his attack by constant probing attacks and artillery and fighter bomber bombardment (and in the case of EA that's roughly 6 days!) you can surely expect the defender to be weakened and low on supply because his supply dumps were either destroyed by arty or used up defending against the constant probing attacks. Also, if an attacker waits until the last moment to start his main attack he always runs the risk of having an early turn ending or having his finall attack taking longer than expected, but with only 20% left he only has two tac rounds to defeat the defender or his turn will end.
And a defender evaporating easily is by design, the scenario designer could always tweak some values to make units tougher, such as GiO in V1.7, there units only evaporated after virtually having lost all assigned equipment.
There is no such thing as a free lunch in TOAW :)[/QUOTE]
Kraut, there's three points here:
(i) using this tactic it is possible to break through a line of forts or entrenched infantry corps - I wasn't going to mention EA - but this means punching through the Maginot Line or pushing the BEF aside after five-six days of "...probing attacks and artillery and fighter-bomber bombardment..." I know that neither was possible, and that nothing like that ever happened because I'm a keen reader of military history: therefore to manage the turn to achieve such a result is simply exploiting the game engine.
(ii) the attacker's "risk" that, in using this tactic, he'll misjudge his timing and run out of phases isn't what an operational wargame is meant to be simulating. The commander's risk should be that he takes heavier casualties than he expected, or that there are reserve or supporting units of which he was unaware, or that he's plain unlucky: not that he's failed to micro-manage the turn to produce an unrealistic effect
(iii)designers shouldn't have to make units artificially tougher in order to prevent players exploiting a loophole in the way the engine calculates turns. They should do their level best to make sure that the opposing forces are a reasonable simulation of what was there, or could have been, at the time. Then to have to think "Aha! I'd better make units these a LOT stronger in case a lone armoured car unit within range of supporting artillery repeatedly drives speedily around them." is going to skew the scenario for players who don't practise the Black Art.
If you're about to launch a ground attack during a turn you should initiate it at the start of that turn. Good generalship is having artillery, ships and aircraft in support, ensuring that your attackers are stronger in numbers or quality than the defenders, that you've cut their lines of retreat or communication, or possibly that the attack is a bluff designed to attract their reserves. Then you press the button and see what happens, and the TOAW engine does a good job - I've been playing for four years - of producing a reasonably historical result. If you're up against a strong stack of entrenched enemy infantry, or a fortress, or whatever, then you probably won't succeed in the first turn, and you may take heavy casualties, use up your supplies and exhaust your men. Absolutely right!
Splitting your fastest reconnaissance unit in three, then launching an attack with one of the thirds on the Minimise Loss setting, hoping that you'll be able to do it several more times and then judge whether you'll still have enough of a turn left to make a genuine attack, is simply playing to the acknowledged weaknesses of the game engine. If you've mistimed it, your speedy little reconnaissance unit will not have suffered too badly, and your supporting ground attack units not at all. The main danger, as I see it, is that your opponent then does exactly the same to you, weakening your stack unrealistically. I don't recall reading anything similar in the annals of military history.
Pauses to wipe the foam from his mouth.
Dicke Bertha
08 Aug 04, 17:36
Some thoughts, no intention of being too clever, just some thoughts:
If a defender fills the frontline with many troops, the target density is increased, and the enemy artillery (whose observers are always awake and observing) starts to drool. Every single shell will be proportionally lethal to some equation based on target density, target entrenchment status, target state of alert/proficiency/supply etc. The only way to avoid excessive losses, all else equal, for the defender, is to decrease the density. I am assuming here that in one hex, having one or four regiments defending, the basic outlay of the defense looks the same, i.e. same trenches etc.
To avoid being run over EVERYWHERE (at some places it seems logical the enemy will gain a foothold if he is serious), the defense must be made in depth. This is not achieved by stacking high in one hex. In TOAW, this reasonably means digging in one hex behind. This is also not necessarily the same thing as having reserves, they are either thrown in to plug holes (in TOAW these are units put on tactical or local reserve), or kept back to be used once the commander has decided what to do (when it is your turn again).
So, as artillery alone, on dedicated attacks, humbly in my meager experience, cannot do the slightest damage to the enemy, it must be employed in support role, where it does damage. This requires some "catalyst". The catalyst is whatever you can expend, even a broken down unit (really just the observer in my eyes). Just something to get the artillery shelling. If it sucks for the defender, well, don't put all eggs in one basket... I don't like the limited assault option though, with some exceptions perhaps.
How far is this reasoning logical? Well, what commander of the attacking side will send his troops onto a fortified defender without first softening him up? Noone. The reverse I have seen too many times, attacking a dug in batallion with several divisions. Losses 100:1 or so. (Actually in GiO after attacking several rounds on a surrounded unsupplied unit I lost 1000:1...) Not very realistic either in that case, or? So, I think that the probing attacks are logical and thus realistic, until a fair share of effect has been delivered onto the defenders. As I understand the drain attacks, they are the extreme of this.
However, there must be some way for the attacker to attack with some other tactics than the Red Army Human Wave of 1941-43. Well, the probing/softening attack is that. Find the soft spot, or create it, and strike.
So Mark, what you said:
If you're about to launch a ground attack during a turn you should initiate it at the start of that turn. Good generalship is having artillery, ships and aircraft in support, ensuring that your attackers are stronger in numbers or quality than the defenders, that you've cut their lines of retreat or communication, or possibly that the attack is a bluff designed to attract their reserves. Then you press the button and see what happens, and the TOAW engine does a good job - I've been playing for four years - of producing a reasonably historical result. If you're up against a strong stack of entrenched enemy infantry, or a fortress, or whatever, then you probably won't succeed in the first turn, and you may take heavy casualties, use up your supplies and exhaust your men. Absolutely right!
I simply don't agree, it is not realistic, I would never do it like that. Seems WW1-ish! ;) Find the soft spot, or create it, then strike!
Of course, the scenario design will probably be extremely critical (hex size, unit density, supply etc)... Still, it is not reasonable in my eyes to sit behind super rivers with massive stacks and refuse the enemy his probes...
Pauses to wipe the sweat off his forehead (30 degrees C!) ;)
Edit: just forgot to say this: what the attacker can do, so can the defender - unless he has put all those eggs in one basket.
The strength of artillery is ALREADY tied to its supply level. In more ways than simple counterstrength numbers. A low supply artillery unit has a correspondingly low readiness state which affects whether it will join in, for indirect fire.
There is a big difference between direct firing unit and indirect firing unit. Direct firing unit fires when he sees the enemy, and he won't use two ammunitions if he can solve his problem by using one. The indirect firing unit, on the other hand, most of time he doesn't see the enemy, so he fires on enemy's position and he continues his firing until he reaches his firing quota. The opening bombardment usually use up to 50% of his supply, it is a very serious decision, because he won't be able to do much if he is low on supply. In TOAW system, the unit will retains 50% of its strength when it is at 33% readiness and 1% supply, and it can stay at this level forever nomatterwhat. This is too good to be true.
Exactly[/I] what is 150% supply? 100%? 50%? 14%? 1%? At all these levels, units can move, and attack. Therefore, I made the decision to view 1% supply as the NORMAL supply state, and through aggressive maneuver and combat, to force my opponents down to that level wherever possible. Then, higher levels of supply will be achieved only in those units that are fresh, or truly rested, and in that aspect - the handling of reserves, and logistics - the true generalship of a player could be determined on the electronic board of battle.
Your mileage may vary, but it works for me, and I worry a lot less about arbitrary honor rules trying to modify the basic system.
Yeah, it is just a game, like all the other games. Having fun is the most important thing here.
(i) using this tactic it is possible to break through a line of forts or entrenched infantry corps - I wasn't going to mention EA - but this means punching through the Maginot Line or pushing the BEF aside after five-six days of "...probing attacks and artillery and fighter-bomber bombardment..." I know that neither was possible, and that nothing like that ever happened because I'm a keen reader of military history: therefore to manage the turn to achieve such a result is simply exploiting the game engine.
Mark, I am afraid to say it, but the weakness of the Maginot Line is because of your scenario design. If I remember correctly some of your forts have 150 amored trains to make them tougher yet they can still be overcome, in GiO playing as the germans the armored train units had two trains and I managed to totally frustrate my opponent with them, because he wasn't able to kill or chase them away. Just ask Menschenfresser and mention GiO and armored trains ;)
Have you ever experimented with the attrition divider ? If not, you definitely should try it, I will come back to this later.
(ii) the attacker's "risk" that, in using this tactic, he'll misjudge his timing and run out of phases isn't what an operational wargame is meant to be simulating. The commander's risk should be that he takes heavier casualties than he expected, or that there are reserve or supporting units of which he was unaware, or that he's plain unlucky: not that he's failed to micro-manage the turn to produce an unrealistic effect
Again, I disagree, this is the operational art of war, not tactical art of war :) I once tried the 'superior tactical attacks' tactic in DNO... and failed miserably, I killed the soviet at a ratio of 1:3 but didn't manage to advance :cheeky:
A turn in EA is 7 days, who said that the heavy attack has always to start on mondays ? Even at the days of WW1 it was a common tactic to first pound the enemy with arty (often for days without pause) and than send in the Infantry. The problem during WW1 was simply that both sides were dug in so deep that the arty efficiency was largely reduced, even tho nevertheles hundrets of thousands died.
Again back to the 1 turn = 7 days argument: There is a reason every turn is divided into 10 tac rounds, that is to allow commanders to use the entire weak and start several attacks and not just one. If he wants to throw his units against well rested, deeply dug in defender, possibly waiting behind a super river.... so be it, but I prefer to start some probing attacks first.
The reduction in supply and readiness the defender suffers from these attack are partly due to the stress of having to defend against several attacks, never knowing whether this is the big one, and the fact that the attacker gets with every probing attack a better picture how the defender is set up will also help the attacker to better strike the weak points during the follow up attacks. So the weakening of the defender is more than justified IMHO.
(iii)designers shouldn't have to make units artificially tougher in order to prevent players exploiting a loophole in the way the engine calculates turns. They should do their level best to make sure that the opposing forces are a reasonable simulation of what was there, or could have been, at the time. Then to have to think "Aha! I'd better make units these a LOT stronger in case a lone armoured car unit within range of supporting artillery repeatedly drives speedily around them." is going to skew the scenario for players who don't practise the Black Art.
Again I disagree ;)
You can't just build the units according to their historical TO&E and than expect TOAW to do the rest without further tweaking, because how should TOAW know whether the RifleSquads in your units are pre-WW1 or WW1 area soldiers, were the common tactic was to send soldiers blindly and with little training into the enemy fire (=high losses), or whether your RS are german reserve soldiers in a WW3 scenario, who might only have a G3 rifle but who have far better training and employ tactics as not to waste soldiers in useless charges.
Well, I tell you, you have to tweak TOAWs hidden settings such as attrition divider, force communication settings etc. So, if you think that the combat is too bloody, tweak the attrition divider until you are satisfied with the result.
And there also has to be a setting to determine how stubborn a unit is, for example NKVD units in DNO are far harder to dislodge than a normal Rifle Division.
Splitting your fastest reconnaissance unit in three, then launching an attack with one of the thirds on the Minimise Loss setting, hoping that you'll be able to do it several more times and then judge whether you'll still have enough of a turn left to make a genuine attack, is simply playing to the acknowledged weaknesses of the game engine. If you've mistimed it, your speedy little reconnaissance unit will not have suffered too badly, and your supporting ground attack units not at all. The main danger, as I see it, is that your opponent then does exactly the same to you, weakening your stack unrealistically. I don't recall reading anything similar in the annals of military history.
Pauses to wipe the foam from his mouth.
Remind me again, what's the purpose of a recon unit? Oh yeah, to scout the enemy positions. So, attacking with a recon with supporting arty is more than justified, the scouts are slowly advancing and whenever they identify an enemy strongpoint they call in the arty on these coordinates, taking few losses themself but disrupting the enemy and inflicting some losses. If you don't have recon units because the scenario is based or corps all you can do to simulate the recon probe with follow up arty is to use your weakest unit for these min losses attacks. If you want to know how important good recon is for efficient arty strikes just read up upon Seelow Heights :)
There is another “cheat” that needs to be addressed. At the end of a turn, a player can “cancel”, return to the game field, and dig-in any units capable of digging-in. With this, the turn ends. This is obviously for units that have remaining movement points after the combat round ends. The downside to this tactic, is that it creates a “ding” during playback.
A “ding” is considered by some TOAW players to signify an “illegal” move. Exactly the same as an “Undo”. Really, is dig-in illegal? If the troops have movement time remaining, would they not dig-in? Troops are trained to dig-in as SOP.
Regards, RhinoBones
IIRC, it actually says 'end of turn' twice, but doesn't give a 'buzz'.
This is NOT an "honor rule". It's a physical fact of the game engine. It prevents directing an airdrop onto a revealed enemy unit. Here is the complete rule:
This is subjective. To me, it doesn't matter whether or not the rule is ambiguous, that's a moot point. An 'honor rule' is a rule that people trust you to honor, end of story. If the game wouldn't let you r-click on a hex you know to be occupied with an embarked para unit, then it wouldn't be an honor rule. Since the engine allows it, Norm says 'Don't do it'; that's an honor rule.
Don't replay your turn to get better results - another good example of an honor rule.
A lot of things to discuss and think about, but on a point of information, if you surround a strong enemy unit with five decent ones and one piece of crap, the latter sometimes evaporates when the enemy is forced to retreat or rout, allowing the encircled unit to 'break out'.
Does happen, I've seen it, although I don't know what the relative strengths have to be for it to happen.
You quickly learn not to have the tiny unit participate in the attack. Problem solved.
So Mark, what you said:
I simply don't agree, it is not realistic, I would never do it like that. Seems WW1-ish! ;) Find the soft spot, or create it, then strike!
Mark isn't supporting a WWI approach, he agrees with what you say. He dispairs because the 'soft spot' can be the entire Maginot line reduced to 33/1% by nothing more than a 3 HQs. (With no support).
(Mantis rides to Mark's defence)
You seem to be overwhelmed in here by the 'it's a game, the rules allow it, so it's legal' style of players, Mark. They're not wrong, and I'm not right, but I much prefer my school of thought to that one.
Supply drain attacks:
2 problems. An attack by a unit, any unit, will take 10% supply off the defenders, regardless of the situation. You can have a recon regiment that is 90% proficiency and is split into 3; and one of the 1/3s has only about 10% of it's equipment left, and then you take that third, and you can slam it into a stack with anything in it. A corps, or 9 corps. No difference. The entire enemy stack will be reduced in supply and readiness, which is a direct modifier on their actual strength. Your high proficiency unit will almost always survive (and most of it's equipment will not be lost even if it does evap), and will likely be able to get in over 5 attacks per round. (I scored 28 rounds in a single turn against Kraut - you don't think those results/capabilities-and-potential are kind of screwed?) And I'm talking about doing this without any support either, which brings me to the second problem:
Unrealistic damage with support.
As mentioned, arty alone does SFA. But throw in the arty support into the example above, and you can start to cause 30% damage (or more!) per round. And you can still get off 5 rounds, no problem.
I have no problem with the tactic of the probing attack. It's part of my playing style. I simply think it's modelled very poorly in this game, to the point at which it detracts from (or overwhelms) my enjoyment.
Also, it did take quite a bit of time to master the combat rounds, etc. But now that I'm quite good at it, I *hate* using this kind of crap. I realized that my EA turns were dreaded things. how did this happen? I *live* for my EA turns!
Ah, it's because I'm in a game where my opponent is utilizing this tactic, and if I don't respond in kind, I'll be decimated. So now my turn is a bloody math problem. That's not why I signed up.
The thing to do is to only play like-minded opponents. Decide what type of game you want, and tell people that. Someone into the same kind of thing will take you up on it.
I also have a checklist that I look over before formally agreeing to play with another person.
"Emabarked units that spend a turn at sea - Can they disembark on an adjacent cost hex, or must they go to a port"
"Supply drain attacks - 1 per hex per turn? Size restrictions? (must be a 1:1?) unlimited?
"Cheesey airdrops over insane distances to bugger up important hexes?"
That kind of thing.
So besides the normal problems a general facing, we have some extra problems in our hands.
By the way, I don't have problem with my opponent replaying his turn to get better results. If he spend the whole week on his turn and show me some spectacular operation(no HQs overrun Maginot line please), I actually feel grateful.
Bdr.Mallette
09 Aug 04, 00:54
Mantis,
28 rounds? of combat?
Now thats good, I thought I was doing well with 7-9 attacks.
I know how to get more, just haven't had the results more than once.
(I am assuming using a unit/units which does not alter the combat box in a negative way, all greyed out when units selected, no gold.)
You do realize, with this thread, lotsa people are reading about tactics they can use now, evening the playfield a bit.
28 ROUNDS,, holy begesus!!!
Dicke Bertha
09 Aug 04, 04:58
Mark isn't supporting a WWI approach, he agrees with what you say. He dispairs because the 'soft spot' can be the entire Maginot line reduced to 33/1% by nothing more than a 3 HQs. (With no support).
Ah, but maybe they were three really skilled HQ units? ;) No I see your point, it does not sound nice at all, but I haven't played EA. I certainly have much sympathy for Mark's principal view, while the :freak: part of me find all player-created limitations to the game to be wrong... (My fundamentalist side: The game is perfect as is :alien: ) Maybe much lies in the different nature of different scenarios as well. Again, I think a principal problem is having single companies being able to operate in the same hex as full divisions. This is scenario design related to the order of battle and available unit slots I suppose, and thus should be possible to address in designing, or at least as some general coarse scenario honour rule (Attacks can only be made by units of at least Edit: at most! one size smaller than identified defender unit strength, or something). Still ( :alien: ), if the companies, or platoons or whatever are available in the scenario, the idea must surely be to use them freely...
As I understand the engine, some balance/responsible approach is better used by the players. Your checklist system in choosing opponents seems very good to me. If two players would agree to play inclusive of drain attacks etc, that would be fine too of course.
Also about the para drops as discussed earlier: what if you actually don't see an enemy in a particular hex, but very strongly suspect for example routed enemy units are there (as a result of earlier combat, for instance if you are in pursuit). Is it then gamey to drop your paras into that hex, to cut off retreat routes etc? What I don't like with that particular "rule" is that it hinders me to use my paras as I see fit (and find realistic). I understand the odds being bad for the paras anyway, dropping into an enemy hex... Suppose I still want to do it, accepting the gamble since it is important...
Bob Cross
09 Aug 04, 11:36
This is subjective. To me, it doesn't matter whether or not the rule is ambiguous, that's a moot point. An 'honor rule' is a rule that people trust you to honor, end of story. If the game wouldn't let you r-click on a hex you know to be occupied with an embarked para unit, then it wouldn't be an honor rule. Since the engine allows it, Norm says 'Don't do it'; that's an honor rule.
Don't replay your turn to get better results - another good example of an honor rule.
I stand corrected on my contention that it was a physical fact of the game engine. The engine does allow one to airdrop on a revealed occupied hex. But that just means that whoever wrote the manual either didn't understand that detail of the engine's function, or it was changed after the manual was written. There is no way it was an honor rule. It's just another screw-up in the manual.
And it doesn't matter if an honor rule is ambiguous? How does one know how to comply with it? The rule just becomes a vehicle for charges and counter-charges of violations.
Hi Friends,
I'll speak about the point one air drop over enemy units
As some of you knows it, I developed modern area scenarios.
"Second battle for France" and "Operation lion de mer 2004/sea lion 2004"
In those two scenarios the drop of airmobile or airborne units on occupied hexes are key action I recommended.
What do you say, am I crazzy!!!, No your honor, here is my defense :D
Since the development of Air cavalry, especialy used in Vietnam by US army, the direct intervention of AIR UNITS directly in and on the battle field is a key action which could mofdifiy the balance in favor of the assaulting air units. If I recall well it was one of the soviet doctrine with the hind saw as "air assaulting transport".
The new development of new air drop technics permit to land airborne units in such a way they are not widespread as were the 82 and 101 in the Cotentin the 6th june. and the dropped units are directly operable against the enemy.
In my 2 scenarios the assaultings units are badly damaged or evaporated, that's true but they have ofently cleaned or softened an bridge, a city, or an harbour hex to let by instance other units to land safely, and those actions are part of the role devoted to the modern air infantry forces (airborne and air mobile).
Clean hold and secure.:rifle:
My 2 Eurocents
Der WanderParachutiste:devil:
Mantis,
28 rounds? of combat?
Now thats good, I thought I was doing well with 7-9 attacks.
I know how to get more, just haven't had the results more than once.
(I am assuming using a unit/units which does not alter the combat box in a negative way, all greyed out when units selected, no gold.)
You do realize, with this thread, lotsa people are reading about tactics they can use now, evening the playfield a bit.
28 ROUNDS,, holy begesus!!!
Yeah, it's kind of nuts. I wasn't trying to do anything like that either, it just happened. (I only started doing the attacks after I'd already used up the first 30% of the turn). But the attacks kept using up 0 rounds of combat, so I kept at it...
I stand corrected on my contention that it was a physical fact of the game engine. The engine does allow one to airdrop on a revealed occupied hex. But that just means that whoever wrote the manual either didn't understand that detail of the engine's function, or it was changed after the manual was written. There is no way it was an honor rule. It's just another screw-up in the manual.
And it doesn't matter if an honor rule is ambiguous? How does one know how to comply with it? The rule just becomes a vehicle for charges and counter-charges of violations.
I didn't mean it like that, of course it matters for the rule itself. I was trying to make the point that we don't even have to deal with that aspect of your statement, because we hadn't agreed on whether or not it was, in fact, an honor rule. Walk before running, kind of thing. First things first, and all that! ;)
CyberGeneral
15 Aug 04, 16:31
As the threads are now at a stop, I wanted to thank all the contributors to this and after reading (and rereading) all the threads, I wanted to add some final thought and notes.......
As for #1 (paradrops landing on top of enemy units): I'm not sure EXACTLY why Norm Koger put that point in ".....You may not deliberately drop your unit (airborne) on an enemy occupied location......" But I do see that misuse can occur........One good way to dig out a fortified unit is to sacrifice a divided paradrop unit (it only takes 1/3 of the unit) and land on the fortified location.
As for #2 (Reinforcement hexes) One would have to write down or memorize the exact location to be sure NOT to take that location should it be implied that this is a sacred honor rule in a game.....Should I forget that the location is forbidden, and mistakenly gain that location., do I lose? or simply redo that turn?....Cause starting that turn over would end up gaining advantage to me due to gained recon knowledge...........My thought would parallel my favorite quote on this put in by Kraut "....If such a house rule has to exist the scenario designer is to blame, every hex on the map should be occupiable unless there is a good reason not to......."
As for #3 (off-map airfields) I was told by an opponent (I'm currently playing against) that he was pummeled by artillery against his off-map airfields.........So it does happen........This I believe is a cause of a lazy or forgetful scenario designer to place distance around his off map airfield locations.
As for #4 (supply drain) I was quite surprised at the amount of threads leaning on just this............Supply drains are a MUST in ALL games!!! ....Case in point: I'm on my second game of Braunschweig (A MUCH better game BTW IMO than DNO)....... Though I divide my units and attack with just 1 part (1/3 of that unit) using limited attacks with minimal losses by units that did not move, expecting (and hoping) to lose only one combat round, I usually find out that I can only achieve 3 or at best 4 combat rounds before turning the game turn over.........The Axis front line units not only need to wear down the Soviet line, but must also have strength left to hold against the inevitable Soviet Counter Attack.........It IS NOT an easy task............And though I saw it written, units don't just "disappear" by the "simple" use of this tactic............A player needs to know the game well in making the most/best use of this tactic...........PLUS A player can just as well (and should) have this tactic played right back at him...........My favorite line (and one I GREATLY agree with) came from Bob Cross "....I've yet to hear anyone define a "supply drain" attack in a comprehensible fashion without outlawing all sorts of legitimate action....." GREAT line!
As for #5 (Ports) Doesn't seam to be a big deal by most..........Myself included.........
As for #6 (Retreated) Doen't seam to be a big deal by most..........Myself included.........
Rhinobones takes the BEST OVERALL LINE AWARD .........IMO:
"......I certainly do agree that there are times and circumstances where a “special” rule is needed to achieve competitive play, but for the majority of cases, I believe the honor/house rules are detrimental to the enjoyment of the game." ......As for myself, I AGREE.
I do not mean for this to now start new threads on these (now tired) discussions, but once again thank those for contributing.......It has been interesting.......
Alexander Seil
17 Aug 04, 04:15
I believe that units that are supposed to show up on map edges will show up there unless you occupy several hexes adjacent to its entry hex as well. In other words, to keep a whole Corps from entering, provided it's not designated to enter in one hex but rather to move into the theater as a cohesive front/line of units, you would need a Corps of your own sitting there doing nothing but preventing reinforcements from coming in.
IF the reinforcement hex is not on the map edge, it would usually be a port of entry or an airfield, and it is just lame to prevent occupation of those. I am a firm believer that if a scenario needs house rules (unless it's something like EA, which is clearly outside of game's intended scale), it's a bad scenario.
A good portion of them are designed to simulate something that can be simulated easily with event editor or by modifying scenario scale and force parameters. Others are designed to take operational decisions out of players' hands...in reality, if the author intended, say, the landings to occur historically, he should have designed the scenario in such a way that it would portray the situation with the attacking force already on the ground, just after airdrops or landings.
Another no no would be using multiple breakdowns and recombinations to enhance the efficiency of digging in units, rail repair and bridge repair (or so Kraut tells me) :D .
Another no no would be using multiple breakdowns and recombinations to enhance the efficiency of digging in units, rail repair and bridge repair (or so Kraut tells me) :D .
While I wouldn't outright call it 'cheating' - I don't do it myself because it is too big of a PITA - I agree that it shouldn't be allowed. It is the exploitation of a bug rather than of a bug/'feature' such as digging in retreated units after having planned and canceled an attack.
Whats a PITA? :oOff the top of my head, a Pain in The A** http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif
I realize I'm new here and so perhaps my opinion does not carry any weight. However, the TOAW series of games is meant to be a representative simulation of warfare. Many of the things I have read in this thread fly directly in the face of that single fact.
The probing attack + artillery barrage is truely irksome. If you think this is correct you need look no farther back than Nam. I can tell you of several firebases set on hilltops undergoing weeks of heavy shelling and probing attacks. The only thing that ever finally pushed them off by force was a direct massive assault. Fending off probes does consume supplies. But unless you are completely cut off from resupply this type of attack will not seriously deplete a force. I would have to agree with one of the previousl posters, this is gaming the system, not playing the game.
But a massive assault on the hilltops, without the probes and shelling would have been ineffective. I don´t mind assaulting, but I want my enemy tenderized a bit before I do.
just my two cents.
RhinoBones
04 Sep 04, 18:52
Whats a PITA?
I thought pita was a type of bread?!!
I thought pita was a type of bread?!!True also. The context makes the whole difference http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Bdr.Mallette
04 Sep 04, 19:05
In most cases, in my experience, the probing forces usually suffer heavy casualties, even with heavy arty support.
out of a stack of 9 units, you could make an attack with 1 'fresh' unit 9 times. If these are probing (limited) attacks, then so be it. The defending force would have put up a good defense but fall eventually and the attacking force would have mid to heavy casualties but their attack was strong enough to push defender away.
This isn't always the case, but happens enough to call the 'norm'?
lol...Bdr. Mallette, please, never ask me to join your army. I would have to run away and hide on some beautiful tropical isle where half nude native women...er, sorry, got carried away.
A probing force is a recon force. If, in any army, sending a recce sized force to assault a fortified position is SOP I would not want to be a part of it. You probe the oppostions lines to acquire information concerning strength, disposition and weak points in that disposition. Artillery can be and is commonly used against the oppositions position to cover the recce force. The recce units are not sent to assault anything but rather try to NOT get shot at or involved in a fire fight if at all possible.
Then there is recon in force. This is also a probing force with the ability to not only do recon but to also temporarily engage the oppostion. Again, they are not there to assault fortified positions. They roll in fast, shoot up the town and the sheriffs office on the fly, then leave. I'm very fond of this type of mission because it keeps the other guys awake and at their postitions wondering if and when you'll be back. Down side is, if they are ready for you. Backing out can get a bit, ah, exciting for lack of a better word.
But then this is only a game. I've decided to play anyone who wants a game and if I don't like the way they stretch the rules I won't play them again. The method of using the games mechanics in probing spoken of in this thread is quite enlightning, I must admit.
MacGregor out
Bdr.Mallette
04 Sep 04, 20:43
lol...Bdr. Mallette, please, never ask me to join your army. I would have to run away and hide on some beautiful tropical isle where half nude native women...er, sorry, got carried away.
A probing force is a recon force. If, in any army, sending a recce sized force to assault a fortified position is SOP I would not want to be a part of it. You probe the oppostions lines to acquire information concerning strength, disposition and weak points in that disposition. Artillery can be and is commonly used against the oppositions position to cover the recce force. The recce units are not sent to assault anything but rather try to NOT get shot at or involved in a fire fight if at all possible.
Then there is recon in force. This is also a probing force with the ability to not only do recon but to also temporarily engage the oppostion. Again, they are not there to assault fortified positions. They roll in fast, shoot up the town and the sheriffs office on the fly, then leave. I'm very fond of this type of mission because it keeps the other guys awake and at their postitions wondering if and when you'll be back. Down side is, if they are ready for you. Backing out can get a bit, ah, exciting for lack of a better word.
But then this is only a game. I've decided to play anyone who wants a game and if I don't like the way they stretch the rules I won't play them again. The method of using the games mechanics in probing spoken of in this thread is quite enlightning, I must admit.
MacGregor out
Hey,
actually, my armies have done quite well as of late.
Fighting a war and winning is a job.
Ya gots to get the job done.
If it means sending some men to die, well, this is the army.
I prescribe to Wu Sun Szu's theories of battle.
If you get a chance, read 'The art of War', if ya haven't already.
I am fully aware of the technical duties of all units as well as SOPs for maneuvers, thank you. but it was a good little refresher.
This is only a game. no animals get hurt in the playing of these scenarios.
A probing force is a recon force. If, in any army, sending a recce sized force to assault a fortified position is SOP I would not want to be a part of it. You probe the oppostions lines to acquire information concerning strength, disposition and weak points in that disposition. Artillery can be and is commonly used against the oppositions position to cover the recce force. The recce units are not sent to assault anything but rather try to NOT get shot at or involved in a fire fight if at all possible.
The problem in TOAW is that artillery on its own is virtually useless. You can have 200 150mm guns shelling 20 enemy divisions... and as a result killing 1 rifle squad and maybe an AA gun... does that sound right? The only way to actually use artillery is when it supports ongoing attacks or supports a defence, thats why it's so important to send a reccon unit to attack supported by arty, because arty on its own won't accomplish anything.
That's just one of TOAWs quirks.
For my $0.02, I would just like to say that I think that the only stipulation to these kind of attacks, in keeping with the spirit of the game, is to be realistic about the approach. Using recon units or small combat units to scout/call down atry/skirmish w/defenders is perfectly realistic. Doing the same thing with a broken down AA unit is not...
Smike Mcloud
07 Sep 04, 08:32
You know guys, you made me scared. I don't want to go into black list, but that is the first time I here about many of these rules, so I used them all: limited attacks, ships in ports, paradrops wherever it fits me and so on, except from replaying, probably, this I learned from chess.
The reason is until recently I played TOAW with my friends, who are not part of the present community.
And, when I get certain rules, I follow them. That's why I like the EA: it is clearly written what I can and what I cannot do. I think it's a good idea to put that kind of text in any scenario.
Smike Mcloud
07 Sep 04, 08:34
And, dear Bdr. Malette, what place in Sun Tzu are you mentioning? Isn't that the one where he says "...there we will show to the enemy that we will not live..."?
Bdr.Mallette
09 Sep 04, 00:19
And, dear Bdr. Malette, what place in Sun Tzu are you mentioning? Isn't that the one where he says "...there we will show to the enemy that we will not live..."?
What you talking bout Willis?
It's a great book. Real eye opener and a good history lesson.
" Do not put a premium on Killing"
"to capture the enemy's army is better than to destroy it"
"To win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the Acme of skill, to subdue the enemy without fighting is the Acme of skill"
"Thus what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy"
Attack plans at their inception.
With the example I gave about the 9 unit stack making 9 different attacks with a fresh unit each time, I was just showing that wearing down an enemy is better than killing it.
"AIM for the Stomach"
it takes roughly 7 men(transport,medics,etc) to tend to a wounded soldier vs 0 for a dead one. I would rather suck supplies out of an enemy force rather than destroy that unit. If a unit still exists, supplies will be given to that unit, using supplies that may have gone elsewhere if it had been destroyed.
It was a bad example but I have done it before when having many a combat round(more than 5). If I have sufficient Arty in the area, each attack should be costly to the enemy, making him use arty support for that defense rather than the one more north that is really key to a manoeuvre, possibly flanking. Keep him pinned down so to speak or force the enemy units into re-org.
"Wu Sun Tzu"
"The Art of War"
ISBN - 0-19-501476-6
When I was in China for 3 years, working, I was going to buy a beautiful Set of books consisting of 13 books describing the teachings of Sun Tzu, alas it was too expensive, also, I only learned how to speak chinese in the first 6 months, never learned how to read it. Way too many characters and pretty foreign for my brain!!! ha.
It is a very good read!! I suggest reading it, just for the sake of saying you read it. But I guarantee you will take a lot from it,not just for military use. Can be used in all instances of life.
Cool?
Cool!
Bdr.Mallette
09 Sep 04, 00:49
lol...Bdr. Mallette, please, never ask me to join your army. I would have to run away and hide on some beautiful tropical isle where half nude native women...er, sorry, got carried away.
A probing force is a recon force. If, in any army, sending a recce sized force to assault a fortified position is SOP I would not want to be a part of it. You probe the oppostions lines to acquire information concerning strength, disposition and weak points in that disposition. Artillery can be and is commonly used against the oppositions position to cover the recce force. The recce units are not sent to assault anything but rather try to NOT get shot at or involved in a fire fight if at all possible.
Then there is recon in force. This is also a probing force with the ability to not only do recon but to also temporarily engage the oppostion. Again, they are not there to assault fortified positions. They roll in fast, shoot up the town and the sheriffs office on the fly, then leave. I'm very fond of this type of mission because it keeps the other guys awake and at their postitions wondering if and when you'll be back. Down side is, if they are ready for you. Backing out can get a bit, ah, exciting for lack of a better word.
But then this is only a game. I've decided to play anyone who wants a game and if I don't like the way they stretch the rules I won't play them again. The method of using the games mechanics in probing spoken of in this thread is quite enlightning, I must admit.
MacGregor out
I don't think I have ever used a recce unit to attack a superior unit. However, i often use a bn or coy to perform a limited, probing attack on a superior force (reg, brigade) just for the opportunity to use my arty, which is usually in strength. Once I have learned what state the defenders are in, I then can choose to stop any further attacks or proceed with a more capable attack force to either dislodge the enemy or cause enough casualties to prevent him from using those forces to attack my units the next round. Keep him on his toes.
If this was real life, i would definitely show more concern for my men. But is this always good? Hesitation kills just as quick as a 7.62 round.
Smike Mcloud
09 Sep 04, 15:27
I know Sun Tzu book very well, that's one of my favorites for many years. And the place I was quoting is the chapter about the type of terrain - this one is called the "death ground". Sorry, I was teasing you.
From practical point of view, I would say, Sun Tzu helped me greatly: I managed to increase my salary by 25% using some of his ideas.
What you say about methods in TOAW is very useful, thanks. I would be happy to use it all in EA I am playing now, but this will not work. How do you imagine tank units coming to Smolensk from near Minks within one turn and attacking - this is exactly one turn, sometimes I get one more.
Once, I was sure I am using no more than 60% - according to all combats, but suddenly it was all over.
Bdr.Mallette
09 Sep 04, 22:06
Terrain is key to almost all battles fought.
A good General will consider terrain before all others.
Since starting to play this game, terrain was not a consideration I had thought of, in the beginning but then with a little experience, I began using terrain to my forces' advantage.
I will give ground gladly to get a better defensive position if needed (overmatched by strength).
Terrain is SO key.
In an African campaign 42, i used terrain to my full advantage and kept my enemy at bay for nearly fifteen turns without him moving an inch. There is only 4 approachable routes to El Alamein from the west by road, the other areas are impassable by cliffs. By digging in and with heavy arty support, I was able to frustrate my opponent, the battle of Hukuma was key to my success in Africa.
I cannot underscore the importance of examining terrain features and possibly devising plans first and formost on the lay of the land.
Wu Sun Tzu, The art of war goes into very deep detail of how to use terrain to your advantage (albeit ancient forces and armament).
I need to read it again, very soon.
I have forgotten many things and need to review because problems at work may require me to invoke some of his teachings.
It is a hard read at times, but well worth the efort.
Dicke Bertha
14 Sep 04, 17:56
So now I also know what an 'artillery whore' is... :nervous:
edit: in reference to the thread title, not to any post, I picked it up from another player who let me in on the nasty secret...
Ok, enough about soak-off attacks. Lets talk about 'recon HQs'.
By this, I mean HQs that have a large amount of transport, because the scenario designer (me...) foolishly placed a lot of trucks in them, to simulate the logistics train. I use my HQs for command and supply, with no engineers, arty or other support arms. Anyway, how can I stop a player from using these HQ units, which now have twice the mobility of the infantry divisions, to perform deep recon (2-300km behind enemy lines)?
The first and obvious one, is to cut back on the transport, and create supply units (so that tpt asset sharing is still at the level wanted). I've done this, but the question still remains. Apart from a sense of right vs wrong, what's to stop a player using HQ/supply/construction engineers or just about any other group, to slip behind enemy lines for a bit of rear area mayhem? I think it's cheating myself, but a good scenario would make this difficult, without house rules. Failing that, what house rules would be acceptable to players, for realism and simplicity?
Any thoughts on this?
For HQs, supply units or any other unit you deem important, you can always set a cost in permanent VPs for their destruction - players will then use them more carefully or risk paying a high price if they drive them behind enemy lines. Of course, this is event-consuming and could be a problem in some cases.
As for combat units, apart from having the designer consolidate certain units to prevent the formation of an 'ant' army, I would let the players play and have everyone guard his flanks and back.
My 0.02€
I agree that players need to guard their backs, but having the 4093rd Truck Company come storming into your rear, destroying bridges and rail lines is completely inaccurate, and a rip off of the game system. How many examples do we know of where the Corps HQ staff put down their chinograph pencils, and advanced 200km in front of their own recon units? It is a pretty rare thing I think.......
Ok, enough about soak-off attacks. Lets talk about 'recon HQs'.
By this, I mean HQs that have a large amount of transport, because the scenario designer (me...) foolishly placed a lot of trucks in them, to simulate the logistics train. I use my HQs for command and supply, with no engineers, arty or other support arms. Anyway, how can I stop a player from using these HQ units, which now have twice the mobility of the infantry divisions, to perform deep recon (2-300km behind enemy lines)?
The first and obvious one, is to cut back on the transport, and create supply units (so that tpt asset sharing is still at the level wanted). I've done this, but the question still remains. Apart from a sense of right vs wrong, what's to stop a player using HQ/supply/construction engineers or just about any other group, to slip behind enemy lines for a bit of rear area mayhem? I think it's cheating myself, but a good scenario would make this difficult, without house rules. Failing that, what house rules would be acceptable to players, for realism and simplicity?
Any thoughts on this?
These are my personal favorite. In the scenario "5 weeks in '44" the allies have HQs for every brigade and man they are tough. They each have a fair # of squads be it rifle or engineer(!) (most of them have engineers so blown bridges even superrivers are not a problem), scout cars and 1/2 tracks to give them that nice 'armored recon' factor, AA guns for some punch, plenty of trucks and no command or support squads to worry about. Between them and the actual recon battalions - <whew>, it was hell on wheels. Even better than Braunsschweig where you get panzer divisional HQs to supplement the two recon elements of each pz division, not to mention all the motorized/armored flak and AT bns.
I always just use the units however I can and make up some plausible explanation for their behavior. The HQ behaviour is easy to justify as just being commanders with very high initiative and access to plenty of equipment. Similarly the rampant AT and AA guys are just a divisional commanders judicial use of resources. Let's face it you need every 'ant' you can get.
I do agree that scenario design could and should minimize the number of such units you can get and use. I think I would design German Panzer divisions for example, with the three main regiments and then integrate all the remainging divisional resources into one regiment sized and one battalion sized support unit. That way you can break the reg. down into 3'scouting' battalions and the bn. down into 3 'support' companies, but you wouldn't be able to get 6 co. of scouts, 3 co. of engineers, and 6 co. of AT and AA like you can in Braun. now.
Good point, I guess it's all up to the scenario designer, and the effect they want. For me, currently working on a WW1 scenario, where there are few supporting arms, I've kept the HQ very light, with only command and support squads. Using this for recon is pretty gamey in my opinion, and contravenes the spirit of the game. My vision is for a static, rear area type unit, sitting at the rear, supporting it's combat units.
But if a designer has put aslt guns, AT, engrs, recon vehs etc into the HQ, then it makes sense to use it as a combat unit.
I think I'll still stick with the command/supply function for the HQ unit, but in WW2 and beyond scenarios, I'll put the support elements into the combat units, or brigade them together into as big a unit as I can.
ON the initial question:
1.
I always drop airborne units on top of enemy units if I want to occupy the hex... I mean in my opinion this is what an airborne unit is made for. As we have to consider maps with hexes of 50 or so kilometers it is also plain unrealistic to use the unit this way, I mean who drops 50 KM from the objective if surprise is the key element...
2.
Just as other just said, victory hexes are often also supply hexes so why don't take them?
The situation is a little different if the supply hex is on one side of the map simulating the advance of units out of areas not simulated in the combat interface...
3.
Well, that should be honoured as it is a mistake and not something that can't be avaoided...
4.Well, dunno...
5.That is also something that is unrealistic and wrong to do in most situations... So I also think the whole idea of making seaborne units invincible to air in harbors is not good. I mean, what about Pearl???
6. I think it is cheating if used, though I believe it should be possible to give minimal orders to retreated units maybe with lower percentage possibilities to successfully dig in or a not allowing them to attack with ignore losses setting...
Well, that are my two (late but there) cents
Bdr.Mallette
16 Sep 04, 15:42
I really like pizza.
I mean it rules man.
All major food groups are represented.
Gotta have losta cheese, not too much though, just enough to be chewy but the whole pizza and toppings still cooked through.
The pepperoni has to be somewhat strong flavoured, don't bring any of that weak chit man.
To top it off, A very cold Coca-Cola. You bring me a pepsi and you die.
There thats all.
:D
Dicke Bertha
16 Sep 04, 16:37
If you and Laszlo ever play, those emails could be worth a separate AAR... :smoke:
Dicke Bertha
16 Sep 04, 16:46
I agree that players need to guard their backs, but having the 4093rd Truck Company come storming into your rear, destroying bridges and rail lines is completely inaccurate, and a rip off of the game system. How many examples do we know of where the Corps HQ staff put down their chinograph pencils, and advanced 200km in front of their own recon units? It is a pretty rare thing I think.......
Well it is a rare thing, but do not underestimate the stamina of those rear echelon heroes... I have seen stable, overweight, near-sighted men in their forties, in staff duty during enemy (maneouvre exercise!) assaults doing Rambo stuff, shouting "ammo-utjämning" (amunition share!) while pursuing elite ski-jäger raiders... They actually caught a few of those, which caused much joy/embarassement...
Perhaps the 4093. Wunderwaffe Truck Coy is what Hitler was devising in '45...
Seriously, I agree, it is somewhat ridiculous.
If you and Laszlo ever play, those emails could be worth a separate AAR... :smoke:
Yeah, but they must specify a little more on the toppings :D
So now I also know what an 'artillery whore' is... :nervous:
edit: in reference to the thread title, not to any post, I picked it up from another player who let me in on the nasty secret...
What is an artillery whore?
I hope I have not done anything wrong in my Braunshweig opening :o .
Dicke Bertha
18 Sep 04, 04:48
No no Rasmus, certainly not- and I am sending you my turn later today. I heard (not experienced) that an artillery whore is someone who lets his artillery pound the enemy after the turn has ended... by cancelling the save or something.
No no Rasmus, certainly not- and I am sending you my turn later today. I heard (not experienced) that an artillery whore is someone who lets his artillery pound the enemy after the turn has ended... by cancelling the save or something.
Good, good. :halo:
No no Rasmus, certainly not- and I am sending you my turn later today. I heard (not experienced) that an artillery whore is someone who lets his artillery pound the enemy after the turn has ended... by cancelling the save or something.
Ah. I call those people something else.
Cheaters.
:mad:
Ah. I call those people something else.
Cheaters.
:mad:
IMHO that is absolutely right...
Bdr.Mallette
21 Sep 04, 15:57
Yes, they are cheaters.
And it is very obvious when they do that which makes it even worse. Damn cheaters.
Does anybody play on-line first person shooters? (i.e. Counter-strike?)
They cheat too and it sucks when you try play as honest and as well as you can.
Maybe I've been lucky to date - the worst I've seen/heard is the
very rare undo sound - maybe once/twice since I've started playing ACOW :D
Dicke Bertha
21 Sep 04, 16:49
Foggy, when playing you I have seen a lot of units evaporate, probably more than against anyone else. You push forward like a madman! Those replays are really really entertaining, the stacks just jump and shrink like mad, and often there will be nothing left! :laugh: :laugh: You're the Demolition Man! :thumup:
Bdr.Mallette
21 Sep 04, 17:08
I've done an undo before.
I will undo if I make a clicking mistake, Dig in rather than tactical. Also when the menu comes up on the left side rather than the right, I have clicked and units have moved by mistake.
I think i have always informed my opponent of any situation of that sort. As long as it's an honest mistake and you don't benefit from it, strategically, I think it's ok. I've heard some and let them go because it had no effect on the battles.
On the undo case: I probably have several more undos in my turn than other players, only because of the simple fact that I use a german keyboard. On a german keyboard the Z and Y keys are switched and our Z (undo) is right next to the U (unit info) which I use pretty often. Well, and from time to time it happens that I press Z without meaning to perform an undo at all.
CyberGeneral
21 Sep 04, 19:22
Undo = Free Recon....... Right???
Even though I do not indulge in undos (what is done is done), there may be more silent ways to perform free recon. After all, if someone wants to perform free recon, the easiest way is to open and open again the turn sent - this doesn't make any sound in the replay. I do think most undos are keyboard/typing/right-clicking mishaps without malevolent intentions (and let's not forget cats, kids and coffee mugs ;)).
I have had very very few undos anyway that I noticed in my opponents' turns, too few and of too little consequence to really care.
I only use undo when I pushed the wrong button.
i.e. Move the whole stack instead of just 1 unit.
Undo = Free Recon....... Right???
I use undo because fairly often (on the big scenarios sometimes 2 or 3 times per game) simply because of frequent misclicking. Usually it doesn't do me any good because I already took some action between what I wanted to undo so it's just a useless annoying thing to make someone wonder if I'm cheating. Once I used undo to undo something my 22 mo. boy did sitting in my lap. I was considering a move and he reached down and right clicked!
The thing is I _never_ use undo if I gained any recon from the move or if I tried to disengage and couldn't etc. I just put up with the mis-clicks in those cases.
Mouse errors happen...
I don't take "undo's" personally, unless they are constant and seem to result in the other player benefitting from the change in decision. The bigger the scenario the more likely it's going to happen.
Actually if a player never ever does an "undo" then either they play their turn carefully and save often (the smart way to play for big scenarios), or they could be using the "save and reload" option (illegal), so that you never see a ripple on the pond... :nervous:
Guess it's never been a big issue to me.
The bottom line is that in TOAW people can cheat. If you feel that you are playing a cheater, than call them on it, resign, or whatever, and vow never to seek them out to play again.
The cheating issue can be an issue in tourneys, since you don't get to choose your opponent, but my experience has been that virtually all the players out there are playing for fun and "honor", and that cheaters really just cheat themselves.
One day Norm will be back working on this wonderful game (somehow), and bring it closer to perfection. :hail:
Now that I think about it, I've gotten more multiplay out of this game than the Civilization series, Doom/Quake, HalfLife/Counterstrike, Close Combat/ Combat Mission, and even Alien Crossfire (some of the most intense one on one ever).
And it's a WarGame!
Pretty amazing, really! :cheeky:
Human make mistakes, so some degree of tolerance is required. After all, this is a GAME, so don't take it toooooo seriously, or you won't have fun playing it.
And, play somebody you feel good to play with.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.