I learned a lot from from reading Bob Cross analysis of the combat in question. I will not presume to question the data or the calculations of the modifiers.
I can think of plenty of examples where small, well led units held against much larger enemy formations for extended periods of time. Thermopylae was one, the finnish winter war another.
My feel (this is a hunch no hard data
) after playing the same scenarios in both COW and TOAW 3, was that high proficiency units became increasingly strong after the migration to TOAWIII.
One difference I can think of, is that the penalty for putting ART and other ranged units in tactical reserve is less in TOAWIII as they no longer advance into the attacked hexes as they did in COW. But this advantage is mainly defensive in nature, and I found that the improved performance was in the offense as well.
I look forward to seeing what the removal of the bug Ralph found, will do for the gameplay.
Do anyone know if the combat algoritm or readiness calculation was changed during the migration from COW to TOAWIII?
I can think of plenty of examples where small, well led units held against much larger enemy formations for extended periods of time. Thermopylae was one, the finnish winter war another.
My feel (this is a hunch no hard data
) after playing the same scenarios in both COW and TOAW 3, was that high proficiency units became increasingly strong after the migration to TOAWIII. One difference I can think of, is that the penalty for putting ART and other ranged units in tactical reserve is less in TOAWIII as they no longer advance into the attacked hexes as they did in COW. But this advantage is mainly defensive in nature, and I found that the improved performance was in the offense as well.
I look forward to seeing what the removal of the bug Ralph found, will do for the gameplay.
Do anyone know if the combat algoritm or readiness calculation was changed during the migration from COW to TOAWIII?
