3.4xBb

[sapper32]

Hi guys im getting my new laptop up to speed and I cant locate the above mentioned patch any helpcheers

Ian

[Hyding]

I asked this back in April there are a couple of links suggested to me in the following thread.

tm.asp?m=3841950


Good Luck and good gaming

[btd64]

If you still need the files, pm me your email and I'll send it to you....GP

[governato]

here is the post/thread with the link to the patch.

fb.asp?m=3451386

[golden delicious]

Is 3.4xBb becoming a standard over here? I've barely used it myself but would be interested to know.

I'm aware of the technical differences- do people feel that it makes that much of a difference in practice? Baring in mind the placebo effect.

[r6kunz]

Is 3.4xBb becoming a standard over here? I've barely used it myself but would be interested to know.

Be advised that any scenario designed with 3.4xBb cannot be run or edited in 3.4! This will probably apply to subsequent updates to 3.4 or 3.5.

This also applies to scenarios in 3.4 that are opened with Editor in 3.4XBb and then saved. Be careful!

cheers

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Is 3.4xBb becoming a standard over here? I've barely used it myself but would be interested to know.

I'm aware of the technical differences- do people feel that it makes that much of a difference in practice? Baring in mind the placebo effect.

No placebo effect whatsoever...

The defense factors' downgrade operated by 3.4xBb returned the "old" TOAW combat resolution balanced feeling.
Defense is still powerful (more than pre 3.4 versions) but now the system allows mobile fluid operations if you are talented enough to manage them.

Without 3.4xBb i'd had quitted TOAW long ago.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Is 3.4xBb becoming a standard over here? I've barely used it myself but would be interested to know.

I'm aware of the technical differences- do people feel that it makes that much of a difference in practice? Baring in mind the placebo effect.

I personally think it does make a difference, especially for modern scenarios where finally the AAA works. Works fine and tweaks even WW1 scenarios much better (watch out for another special from 'Hawkeye').

Klink, Oberst

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

Is 3.4xBb becoming a standard over here? I've barely used it myself but would be interested to know.

Be advised that any scenario designed with 3.4xBb cannot be run or edited in 3.4! This will probably apply to subsequent updates to 3.4 or 3.5.

This also applies to scenarios in 3.4 that are opened with Editor in 3.4XBb and then saved. Be careful!

cheers

Makes sense. 3.4xBb is for individual matches, but designers should stick to 3.4.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

Without 3.4xBb i'd had quitted TOAW long ago.

Wow. The game's different- but most scenarios can be tweaked to still work. In fact, some scenarios I think play better.

I think there's a tendency to dislike anything which holds up the attacker- early turn ending, strong fortifications- which could stand to be questioned.

Not that I think 3.4xBb isn't a worthy project, but 3.4 is hardly worthless itself.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Not that I think 3.4xBb isn't a worthy project, but 3.4 is hardly worthless itself.

I agree with you. 3.4 is much better and solid than any version before.

TOAW always had a "obscure" combat system resolution but it was one of it's "best weapons" allowing the game to be around for so long. The combat resolution always produced sound results.

The question is 3.4 RFC (retreat from combat) overrated adjustments (especially with fortified units / fortified terrain) "destroyed" that feeling.

Without 3.4xBb what happens is fortified units - whatever their strength, health or proficiency resisting against all odds without "logically" retreating. They are evaporating more than reatreating. This happens dramatically often and it's what people had been refering as WWI style warfare.

Quote:
The patch [3.4xBb] followed the simple approach of modifying (tuning down) values of existing T/D factors used inside RFC check procedure. The corresponding Deployment and Terrain factors are lowered by the same, small value. Here are the chances for RFC choosen for this particular patch implementation (in brackets are numbers used in original 3.4 and 3.2 versions):

Fortified deployment: 65 (84,50)
"Fortified line" terrain: 65 (84, -)
Entrenched deployment: 50 (65, 33)
dense urban, badlands terrains: 50 (65, -)
mountainous terrain: 50 (50, -)
Dunes, Urban, Bocage terrains: 33 (50, -)
Defensive deployment: 20 (26, 20)
Forrest, Jungle, Hills, Wadi terrains: 20 (26, -)

This proves that 3.4 RFC adjustments were overrated especially on fortified status / fortified terrain and on a lesser scale with entrechement status.

There is also no problem on using 3.4xBb with any scenario as the vast majority of them were created within TOAW "original" combat resolution system.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

Without 3.4xBb what happens is fortified units - whatever their strength, health or proficiency resisting against all odds without "logically" retreating. They are evaporating more than reatreating. This happens dramatically often and it's what people had been refering as WWI style warfare.

I'm familiar with this. It's really a matter of interpretation- what exactly is meant by "fortified" deployment?

Properly prepared positions are extremely difficult to breach. Certainly good troops in them tend to evaporate in place rather than retreating (bearing in mind that evaporation doesn't mean that every soldier has become a casualty).

The difficulty in TOAW is that in many scenarios, it is too easy for units to reach this extremely high level of preparation. This can be mitigated to some extent by using the entrenchment rate variable.

What's interesting is that 3.4xBb only took back half of the increase in terrain bonuses. This carries with it an implicit acceptance that, prior to 3.4, it was too difficult to hold fortified positions.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

It's really a matter of interpretation

You're right.

I rather prefer using 3.4xBb as in my interpretation it produces combat results in line with TOAW "tradition" and with most of the scenarios available.

3.4xBb is more favourable to defense than pre 3.4 versions (and obviously harder to the attacker) and that can be considered as positive because there was a very old community claim about TOAW being attacker friendly and too tough to defenders.

But most of all - in my interpretation - 3.4xBb eliminates the "irrational" combat results produced by the overated RFC adjustments introduced by 3.4

[Falcon1]

This may be a totally different issue, but I've noticed that the attack predictions given in the attack planner window are almost always very pessimistic compared to the eventual end result. Most times it seems, the defender will be pushed out of the target hex even when the prediction is "poor" or even "very poor". I am using 3.4xBb.

Could it be that this is a result of using 3.4xBb? It seems that this has been happening even when I used 3.4, but I can't remember for sure. Maybe the battle predictions have always been way off.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Falcon1

This may be a totally different issue, but I've noticed that the attack predictions given in the attack planner window are almost always very pessimistic compared to the eventual end result. Most times it seems, the defender will be pushed out of the target hex even when the prediction is "poor" or even "very poor". I am using 3.4xBb.

Could it be that this is a result of using 3.4xBb? It seems that this has been happening even when I used 3.4, but I can't remember for sure. Maybe the battle predictions have always been way off.

No, it isn't caused by 3.4xBb. Battle predictions were always "obscure".

The only features to be observed on attack planner window which really matter are the attack ratio (AR) and time expended indication.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

The difficulty in TOAW is that in many scenarios, it is too easy for units to reach this extremely high level of preparation. This can be mitigated to some extent by using the entrenchment rate variable.

What's interesting is that 3.4xBb only took back half of the increase in terrain bonuses. This carries with it an implicit acceptance that, prior to 3.4, it was too difficult to hold fortified positions.

Btw, the tests of the 3.4XBb patch are here

fb.asp?m=3367128

There were a number of other unofficial patches that 'we' (me, Oberst Klink and kmitahj) discussed. 3XBb was adopted and tested because we felt it was `a step in the right direction, but not too radical' As Bob Cross suggested/quoted at the time `small steps, Sparks'.... I did some other tests and compared losses to data from the WWII Bagration campaign and they seemed alright/better with 3.4xBb. So I use the patch for my games, while I wait for the official v3.5.

The above post is also right, the default entrenchment and standard supply values (say 30-40) used in many scenarios allow units to get to 'Fortified' status quickly compared to how fast the attackers regain readiness. This time ratio (together with the RFC rules of course) really sets the pace of a scenario, favoring or disfavoring the attacker. For the new scenario designers: Edit Forces-> edit -> set Entrenchment rates. A value of say 50 (instead of the default: 100) will make units dig more realistically on week long turns. Of course a lot depends on the scenario scale etc etc etc.

[solops]

The intentional incompatibility of 3.4xBb is keeping me from using it. What use is it if I cannot play scenarios made with other versions?

[governato]

ORIGINAL: solops

The intentional incompatibility of 3.4xBb is keeping me from using it. What use is it if I cannot play scenarios made with other versions?

You can play any scenarios with 3.4xBb. Scenarios get developed with the standard version and then one PLAYS them with 3.4xBb. The only thing to keep in mind is that players need to use the same version of the scenario and TOAW executable (standard or 3.4xBb). But that is pretty standard.

[ogar]

@solops,

Chiming in with governato, it is DESIGNERS who need to worry about keeping 3.4 and 3xBb separate. You can play ANY scenario (including some TOAW I scenarios from the Legacy Project) with either 3.4.0.202 or with 3xBb -- as long as the scenario has been updated to run on 3.4.

As a player, if you are concerned, you can create a separate copy of your TOAW directory, and upgrade that to 3xBb -- thus keeping your options open.

If you are designing scenarios, then you are advised to do editing using only 3.4 (that way, your scenario is available to all players). If you mistakenly use 3xBb, then the TOAW 3.4 engine will politely remind you, "TOAW cannot load this version of the scenario."

[solops]

Thank you. This explanation makes sense and I suspected that I had misunderstood.