I don't understand ... (Full Version)

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



Message


tcarusil -> I don't understand ... (7/4/2012 1:39:32 PM)

... but then again that is nothing new. I am playing Two Weeks in Normandy as the Allies. On turn 2 I set up my attacks, none of my attacking units have moved this turn, they are attacking with minimize losses and I have all gold stars on the shield. I run the attacks and after it is done the turn ends. I've read about turn burning, but this seems crazy.

I am sure there is something simple and obvious that I am missing, but I don't know what it is. What could cause a result like this? Is there something I can do to avoid this kind of outcome? Am I just one unlucky SOB?[:)]

Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks

TomC




Oberst_Klink -> RE: I don't understand ... (7/4/2012 1:47:19 PM)

Tom,

some scenarios are pre 3.4, and the Maximum Rounds Per Battle, also called MRPB is set to 99 in most of the old scenarios, because this parameter was introduced in 3.4. I recommend to set the MRPB in the editor to 3. The Attrition Divider (AD) seems to be OK for the intensity of a 1day/turn battle in Normandy. It's 12. So, if you don't know how to adjust it in the editor, give me a shout. I already adjusted the MRPB=3.

Klink, Oberst




ogar -> RE: I don't understand ... (7/4/2012 5:08:30 PM)

tcarsil,

Following the Oberst's sound advice, I wonder... did you see a lot of "Allies continue attack" message lines in the sitreps following the battle ? A lot means more than 3 or 4. If so, then I suspect the culprit may be the MRPB.

In any case, from someone wiser than I, when I griped about ETE (early turn ending) in another scenario :
>> As for turn ends it is my understanding that it is not any single
>> formation that is checked, but instead (Norm Koger's words):
>>
>> /"The turn ends if
>> 1) a random number from 1 to the maximum number of remaining rounds
>> equals 1,
>> *and*
>> 2) The current player's *force* proficiency is less than a random number
> >from 1 to 100."/
>> When people talk about ETE it is just a case of
>> failing these checks at times where the odds were for additional rounds.

So, it might not be MRPB alone, nor just rotten luck.

If you're playing vs PO, you may want to re-run that turn with TOAWlog turned on. And then spend a happy 12 hours or so reading through and digesting all the details - that may point to one (or more) sticking points in all your attacks that led to the ETE.

And a reminder, if you are going to work in the editor on scenarios - make clean back-ups of the scenario, and its graphics, and equipment files before you start. You know this, of course - it's just a friendly reminder. (Now why would I bother to mention making back-ups before operating heavy equipment ???? )

FWIW, I found TWIN challenging when playing as Allies, let alone as Axis -- I think I'd still find it a struggle.




tcarusil -> RE: I don't understand ... (7/4/2012 6:30:30 PM)

I appreciate the input. I will try changing the MRPB and see what happens. Maybe I just need a new general in charge.

TomC




tcarusil -> RE: I don't understand ... (7/5/2012 5:28:21 PM)

Changing MRPB has made a world of difference. I understand there may be surprises when you get to a lower number of "stars", but losing the rest of a turn that started with 9 was depressing.

TomC




ogar -> RE: I don't understand ... (7/5/2012 9:08:45 PM)

Update -

I went back to play a few turns of TWIN - I could not remember playing it under 3.4. And I found something that may or may not have impacted the ETE :

Playing as Allies vs PO, on turn 1, I did my usual routine of maneuver with the most powerful units to RBC as much as I can, flank stubborn defenders and launch attacks with those powerful units not yet moved. Good plan. Great fun playing RBC checkers. Too bad turn 1 ended after 1 round, with only 30% used - (dang those airborne for continuing - I said LL) !

I had forgotten that the support units (naval, air) participate to a great extent in the overruns, and in responding to enemy moves in reaction to overruns. So many of my air units were down to 60/60 readiness/supply, and the navy was in worse shape. When the supporting units lose a lot of quality during the turn, it increases the chance of ETE - just like attacking with tired and/or weak ground units.

I tried it again, this time setting half of the air to Rest, and moving half (every other ship) of the navy to just out of range of the coast. Did all my maneuvring again, not as successful. Having fewer battleships makes a difference.
Then I shifted the navy so that those near the coast moved out; those resting, moved in to support. Checked the air, and any active air unit under 90/90, I set to rest. Did my attacks - using LL for consistency. Again the airborne gets enthusiastic, so 30% of the turn is used. But - No ETE. And this with the default MRPB.

So, in my case, I found the MRPB was not the sole source of the problem.

Looks like you have a solution, and that's great - just some more data for the possible use.

Oh yeah, if you're editing this scenario - you may want to add a supply point for the 9th AF -- they did not need one under the old supply rules, but they do need one under 3.4. Of course, you could always play under old supply rules, as an alternative.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.660156E-02