What's new for TOAW 3.4 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III



Message


JAMiAM -> What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 4:44:59 AM)

Hi all,

I know it's been forever in coming, but patch 3.4 is right around the bend, and we thought we'd tease you a bit more with the change list. The attached file is a zipped copy of the whatsnew.pdf for the upcoming patch. Enjoy.




Veers -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 6:53:36 AM)

Hallelujah!!




Silvanski -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 8:27:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Hallelujah!!

looks like someone found religion[:D][:D]




Panama -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 2:59:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Hallelujah!!

looks like someone found religion[:D][:D]


It was lost? [X(]




cantona2 -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 3:40:50 PM)

[:D]

PS the changes look great, eagerly anticipating this patch!
Will the new graphics mod come with the patch or will that be a separate DL?




Panama -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 4:27:29 PM)

Ok, here we go with the questions. [;)]

First off, IMO, supply rules look to be about as good as you can get them with the game without rewriting the whole thing. Great job.

I'm a bit confused about the new AR combat rules. Some examples would go a long way towards clearing the fog. Speak to me as if I were a child. [:D]




Telumar -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 5:22:56 PM)

Another question: Can the new supply rules and the new player turn rules be applied to ongoing PBEM games which have been started under 3.2?




Curtis Lemay -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 9:42:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Hi all,

I know it's been forever in coming, but patch 3.4 is right around the bend, and we thought we'd tease you a bit more with the change list. The attached file is a zipped copy of the whatsnew.pdf for the upcoming patch. Enjoy.


Thanks, James!




Curtis Lemay -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 9:44:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

[:D]

PS the changes look great, eagerly anticipating this patch!
Will the new graphics mod come with the patch or will that be a separate DL?


We intend for them to be included in the patch. But, it isn't built yet, so I can't guarantee it.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 9:55:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Ok, here we go with the questions. [;)]

First off, IMO, supply rules look to be about as good as you can get them with the game without rewriting the whole thing. Great job.

I'm a bit confused about the new AR combat rules. Some examples would go a long way towards clearing the fog. Speak to me as if I were a child. [:D]


It depends upon the AR value, which is displayed in the Attack Planner (subject to Fog-of-War).

If the AR is >= 100, attacks will work just like before. (That means the ground component of the attack is at least as strong as the ground component of the defenders).

If the AR is < 100, but >= 10, there is a proportional chance that the attack could lose the artillery benefits previously accrued by artillery that supports an attack (it would have the strength of artillery that just bombards). And the defender's supply costs are divided by 10.

If the AR is < 10, there is a proportional chance that the attack could be reduced to a pure bombardment - ground component canceled and no supply cost to the defender. The attacker's artillery can even be subject to counterbattery.

So, players are motivated to try to keep the AR >= to 100. That means ant-unit tactics won't work anymore (we hope).

That's really all you need to know: Keep the AR at or above 100.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 9:56:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Another question: Can the new supply rules and the new player turn rules be applied to ongoing PBEM games which have been started under 3.2?


Ongoing games can be switched to 3.4. But I don't think you can change the supply or turn rules during the game.

Edit: For PBEM. For hotseat or vs. the PO, you can.




Telumar -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 10:05:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Another question: Can the new supply rules and the new player turn rules be applied to ongoing PBEM games which have been started under 3.2?


Ongoing games can be switched to 3.4. But I don't think you can change the supply or turn rules during the game.

Edit: For PBEM. For hotseat or vs. the PO, you can.


What i thought. Thanks Bob.




Telumar -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 10:32:15 PM)

.. another question about the new combined terrain/deployment defensive strength multiplier. In the What's new document there's a chart about infantry and vehicle defense strength.
But this also applies to defensive AP and AT strengths, doesn't it?




Panama -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/26/2010 11:34:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Ok, here we go with the questions. [;)]

First off, IMO, supply rules look to be about as good as you can get them with the game without rewriting the whole thing. Great job.

I'm a bit confused about the new AR combat rules. Some examples would go a long way towards clearing the fog. Speak to me as if I were a child. [:D]


It depends upon the AR value, which is displayed in the Attack Planner (subject to Fog-of-War).

If the AR is >= 100, attacks will work just like before. (That means the ground component of the attack is at least as strong as the ground component of the defenders).

If the AR is < 100, but >= 10, there is a proportional chance that the attack could lose the artillery benefits previously accrued by artillery that supports an attack (it would have the strength of artillery that just bombards). And the defender's supply costs are divided by 10.

If the AR is < 10, there is a proportional chance that the attack could be reduced to a pure bombardment - ground component canceled and no supply cost to the defender. The attacker's artillery can even be subject to counterbattery.

So, players are motivated to try to keep the AR >= to 100. That means ant-unit tactics won't work anymore (we hope).

That's really all you need to know: Keep the AR at or above 100.


[:D] Is it really that simple? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but, it seems as though I'm being told that I should always attack at 1 to 1 or better with only raw unit strengths being the qualifier. Supply, readiness and proficiency are thrown out. If I don't do this I stand to suffer penalties. Is that an incorrect assumption?

As a side note, much of the fighting in the East in 1941 was pretty much regiments vs divisions. Would that be a problem? [&:]

BTW, the new RBC escape clause? Great. Very badly needed.




JAMiAM -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/27/2010 2:06:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


[:D] Is it really that simple? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but, it seems as though I'm being told that I should always attack at 1 to 1 or better with only raw unit strengths being the qualifier. Supply, readiness and proficiency are thrown out. If I don't do this I stand to suffer penalties. Is that an incorrect assumption?


To answer the bolded portion of your questions. This is incorrect. Supply, readiness and proficiency direct affect the attack and defense strengths of units. So, these still factor into the AR ratios and calculations. What is essentially happening is that a test is being made between the relative *effective* strengths of the active equipment and the outcome of that test is determining multiple effects regarding the bombardment strengths involved in the combat. Poor AR ratios will result in supported bombardments being much less effective than previously, in terms of losses taken, as well as supply usage.

In other words, we're spoiling the spoiling attacks that players became spoiled using...[:D]


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


As a side note, much of the fighting in the East in 1941 was pretty much regiments vs divisions. Would that be a problem? [&:]


Not necessarily. Keep in mind, again, that the effective strengths of units are essentially determined by equipment modified by readiness, proficiency, and supply. The exact combat strength formula is in the manual's appendices. So, in cases where smaller, well supplied, highly proficient, high readiness units are in combat with a larger poorly supplied, low proficiency, low readiness unit, then you're often dealing with fairly equal effective combat strengths.

Hope that helps.




Champagne -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/27/2010 2:16:59 AM)

Please excuse if this is an elementary or repetitive question:

Not all of the existing scenarios have been recently tweaked with a view to be working with TOAW 3.4. This is no problem. I'm please to see that so many have been tweaked.

How will 3.4 affect those existing scenarios that have not been tweaked? Will these scenarios be very different under 3.4 then are now?

Thanks.




JAMiAM -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/27/2010 2:41:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Champagne

How will 3.4 affect those existing scenarios that have not been tweaked? Will these scenarios be very different under 3.4 then are now?



My favorite answer..."it depends"...[;)]

The changes are evolutionary - not revolutionary. The difference will vary depending not only upon the nature of the scenario units TO&E, but also, in no small part, on the play styles of the people playing the game.

If you're the type of person who previously took a great deal of effort in 'gaming the system', then you may find that your ant-bombardment tactics are not very effective anymore, leading to a wastage of your play time, not to mention potentially combat rounds, too.

If you're the type of person who used less labor-intensive, but more generally 'standard' tactics, of putting the right numbers of equipment types against a certain number and type of defenders, took into account terrain, support levels, et cetera, then you will likely see some improvement in your results.




Panama -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/27/2010 4:20:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


[:D] Is it really that simple? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but, it seems as though I'm being told that I should always attack at 1 to 1 or better with only raw unit strengths being the qualifier. Supply, readiness and proficiency are thrown out. If I don't do this I stand to suffer penalties. Is that an incorrect assumption?


To answer the bolded portion of your questions. This is incorrect. Supply, readiness and proficiency direct affect the attack and defense strengths of units. So, these still factor into the AR ratios and calculations. What is essentially happening is that a test is being made between the relative *effective* strengths of the active equipment and the outcome of that test is determining multiple effects regarding the bombardment strengths involved in the combat. Poor AR ratios will result in supported bombardments being much less effective than previously, in terms of losses taken, as well as supply usage.

In other words, we're spoiling the spoiling attacks that players became spoiled using...[:D]


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


As a side note, much of the fighting in the East in 1941 was pretty much regiments vs divisions. Would that be a problem? [&:]


Not necessarily. Keep in mind, again, that the effective strengths of units are essentially determined by equipment modified by readiness, proficiency, and supply. The exact combat strength formula is in the manual's appendices. So, in cases where smaller, well supplied, highly proficient, high readiness units are in combat with a larger poorly supplied, low proficiency, low readiness unit, then you're often dealing with fairly equal effective combat strengths.

Hope that helps.


Yes, big help. Many thanks. [&o]




SMK-at-work -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/27/2010 7:32:13 AM)

I just wanna say [sm=character0272.gif] [:D]

I recognise the turn sequence & I think the supply mods from discussions a couple of years ago.

TY, TY, TYVM [:)]




Curtis Lemay -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/27/2010 2:56:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

.. another question about the new combined terrain/deployment defensive strength multiplier. In the What's new document there's a chart about infantry and vehicle defense strength.
But this also applies to defensive AP and AT strengths, doesn't it?


Hmm. I don't know about AT strengths. Good question.

Edit: I think armored vehicles benefit from the vehicle defense multiplier only. The statement in the manual about anti-armor defense strength multipliers is incorrect, if I remember correctly. But my memory is kind of vague about it.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/27/2010 3:11:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


[:D] Is it really that simple? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but, it seems as though I'm being told that I should always attack at 1 to 1 or better with only raw unit strengths being the qualifier. Supply, readiness and proficiency are thrown out. If I don't do this I stand to suffer penalties. Is that an incorrect assumption?


To answer the bolded portion of your questions. This is incorrect. Supply, readiness and proficiency direct affect the attack and defense strengths of units. So, these still factor into the AR ratios and calculations. What is essentially happening is that a test is being made between the relative *effective* strengths of the active equipment and the outcome of that test is determining multiple effects regarding the bombardment strengths involved in the combat. Poor AR ratios will result in supported bombardments being much less effective than previously, in terms of losses taken, as well as supply usage.

In other words, we're spoiling the spoiling attacks that players became spoiled using...[:D]


Jam is correct. But note that terrain and deployment defense multipliers are thrown out. As are all passive equipment. Finally, the attack strength used is a combination of the attacker's AP and AT strengths in proportion to the fractions of the defense strength attributable to armored and unarmored defense strengths (this is the same process used for RBCs).

But, more important is that this is just to determine the AR and thereby what set of benefits are received. When combat is then actually resolved, all equipment and factors are employed as before.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


As a side note, much of the fighting in the East in 1941 was pretty much regiments vs divisions. Would that be a problem? [&:]


Not necessarily. Keep in mind, again, that the effective strengths of units are essentially determined by equipment modified by readiness, proficiency, and supply. The exact combat strength formula is in the manual's appendices. So, in cases where smaller, well supplied, highly proficient, high readiness units are in combat with a larger poorly supplied, low proficiency, low readiness unit, then you're often dealing with fairly equal effective combat strengths.

Hope that helps.


Exactly. Strengths are what matters.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/27/2010 3:17:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Champagne

Please excuse if this is an elementary or repetitive question:

Not all of the existing scenarios have been recently tweaked with a view to be working with TOAW 3.4. This is no problem. I'm please to see that so many have been tweaked.

How will 3.4 affect those existing scenarios that have not been tweaked? Will these scenarios be very different under 3.4 then are now?

Thanks.


There's no question that terrain will be more effective than before. No scenario, including those included with the update have been "tweaked" for that.

Somewhat countering that, tiny defenses will be easier to overcome.

We'll just have to see how things work out. Regardless, both changes are for the better in the long run.




Telumar -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/27/2010 3:54:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

.. another question about the new combined terrain/deployment defensive strength multiplier. In the What's new document there's a chart about infantry and vehicle defense strength.
But this also applies to defensive AP and AT strengths, doesn't it?


Hmm. I don't know about AT strengths. Good question.

Edit: I think armored vehicles benefit from the vehicle defense multiplier only. The statement in the manual about anti-armor defense strength multipliers is incorrect, if I remember correctly. But my memory is kind of vague about it.


[X(]

Bob, that's a non-trivial matter. So, you say there are no defence multipliers for AT strengths or are those from the manual just incorrect? Defnsive AP strehgths are applied and correctly documented by the manual and subject to the new combined deploym./terrain rules?

Maybe James can answer that question though it seems that he's been (willingly ;) ) missing the question...[:D]




Champagne -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/27/2010 10:32:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: Champagne

How will 3.4 affect those existing scenarios that have not been tweaked? Will these scenarios be very different under 3.4 then are now?



My favorite answer..."it depends"...[;)]

The changes are evolutionary - not revolutionary. The difference will vary depending not only upon the nature of the scenario units TO&E, but also, in no small part, on the play styles of the people playing the game.

If you're the type of person who previously took a great deal of effort in 'gaming the system', then you may find that your ant-bombardment tactics are not very effective anymore, leading to a wastage of your play time, not to mention potentially combat rounds, too.

If you're the type of person who used less labor-intensive, but more generally 'standard' tactics, of putting the right numbers of equipment types against a certain number and type of defenders, took into account terrain, support levels, et cetera, then you will likely see some improvement in your results.



Thank you, James. I'm very, very excited about this new version. I bought the original 1998 version of TOAW when it first came out, but, I never became a regular player. I intend to change that now, especially in light of the fact that the game is still being lovingly developed and refined.




stone10 -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/27/2010 11:06:33 PM)

Is the new patch available for us to download now?




Jeff Norton -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/27/2010 11:58:20 PM)

Stone,

No, not yet. But, soon....




Curtis Lemay -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/28/2010 3:00:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

[X(]

Bob, that's a non-trivial matter. So, you say there are no defence multipliers for AT strengths or are those from the manual just incorrect?


I'm working from memory here, so take that into consideration. But, I think my source was Ralph. I suggested reducing those factors (per the wishlist) and he said he checked the code and there were no such multipliers of AT strengths - that the manual was wrong.

That's not the same as a test, of course. And that gets the final say.

quote:

Defnsive AP strehgths are applied and correctly documented by the manual and subject to the new combined deploym./terrain rules


I think it's just defense strengths that are affected by the new rule. And I can't say one way or the other about the AP strength multipliers rule in the manual.




Menschenfresser -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/28/2010 5:18:08 PM)

On the surface, it sounds like a net gain for defenders between the ant countermeasures and the P1/P2 equalizations (given that most scenarios put the overall defender as P2). Which, if so, should be a plus for most scenarios out there. But only time will tell.

Excellent work to all involved. Tip of the hat.




LOK_32MK -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (7/28/2010 7:42:19 PM)

Than you to everyone involved. No matter how many other games I have tried, TOAW is the one game I always come back to. I have been playing it since TOAW I came out.
Thanks again to Ralph, Curtis, Jamiam and everyone else who made this a reality.





shunwick -> RE: What's new for TOAW 3.4 (8/3/2010 3:16:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Hi all,

I know it's been forever in coming, but patch 3.4 is right around the bend


James,

I used to have a car like that.

Best wishes,
Steve




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.515625E-02