Matrix Games Forums

Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!To End All Wars gets its first major patch! Hell is now available!War in the West Wacht am Rhein AAR
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: answers to some basic questions

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> RE: answers to some basic questions Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 12:29:31 AM   
toawfan

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 11/16/2010
Status: offline
I just found this and now wonder whether this reported bug really was fixed. I wonder if I am doing myself in with this previously reported bug and a defender's ignore losses is not the sole cause for turn burn.

Here's the link to the full article.http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/docs/strategy/Brown-ten-tactical-rounds.php

And here is the key paragraph, the next to last paragraph in the article.

At present, there is a bug affecting ranged artillery specifically allocated to an attack (i.e. it shows up in the "Support" column on the right hand side of the Attack Planning Dialogue and you dedicate to the attack by clicking on it, rather than just leaving it in general support). Such artillery will keep blasting away at a tough enemy for the rest of the turn, even if the adjacent assaulting units have all broken of their attacks. This can be good, because you can pulverize the enemy with this super artillery, or it can be bad because, if the enemy doesn't retreat or evaporate, you're going to burn up all your turn in this one battle. Norm has promised to fix this bug in the .05 patch. (Ed - it's fixed!)

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 31
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 12:32:29 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2601
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

I just found this and now wonder whether this reported bug really was fixed. I wonder if I am doing myself in with this previously reported bug and a defender's ignore losses is not the sole cause for turn burn.

Here's the link to the full article.http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/docs/strategy/Brown-ten-tactical-rounds.php

And here is the key paragraph, the next to last paragraph in the article.

At present, there is a bug affecting ranged artillery specifically allocated to an attack (i.e. it shows up in the "Support" column on the right hand side of the Attack Planning Dialogue and you dedicate to the attack by clicking on it, rather than just leaving it in general support). Such artillery will keep blasting away at a tough enemy for the rest of the turn, even if the adjacent assaulting units have all broken of their attacks. This can be good, because you can pulverize the enemy with this super artillery, or it can be bad because, if the enemy doesn't retreat or evaporate, you're going to burn up all your turn in this one battle. Norm has promised to fix this bug in the .05 patch. (Ed - it's fixed!)


It's been fixed.

I dunno what you're doing, but first, don't assign any unit to an attack if it makes the minimum number of rounds jump beyond what assigning most units will do -- and make sure this is true for all attacks. Like, if most of my attacking units can attack while using 40% of the turn, I don't assign a unit that's going to make that jump to 70% for one attack.

Avoid assigning non-cooperative units to an attack. If you assign a unit and flags turn black, don't do it. In fact, try to avoid making flags turn grey.

Second, when you're attacking try setting everyone to 'minimize losses' -- all the time.

Third, don't mount attacks where the odds don't look so great. Like, one infantry regiment having at a fortified battalion with no artillery supporting the attack probably isn't such a great idea (Don't rely on the numbers or verdict given by the attack planner for this -- those values ignore too many factors).

You'll want to elaborate on this -- but try it. You'll get more rounds.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 12/16/2010 12:39:30 AM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 32
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 12:34:24 AM   
toawfan

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 11/16/2010
Status: offline
quote:


quote:



Are you saying that many scenarios will have three consecutive turns end on your very first round when you thought you had engaged in only minor battles that should have burned 10 percent of your turn so that you could then make the rest of your moves or attacks?

That doesn't strike you as more than an unfortunate vagary of war?


It's an academic question as far as I'm concerned. Nothing like this has ever happened to me.


This is exactly what has happened to me in the past three turns in the Armageddon scenario that Larry and I are testing and posting over on the AAR forum. He also is having unusual numbers of turn burns and he's a veteran player.

I guess that's why I'm not giving up on an explanation. Not academic to me. Actual results that could shift the outcome of the game and in a way that appears undocumented or against any of the so-called game mechanics.

I've played several other scenarios and never had this happen either. Larry thinks it might have something to do with the scenario's Maximum Rounds Per Turn (MRPT) if I've got that right.

I'm not looking to start a flame; honestly trying to understand the rules and asking for what is an accurate statement of fact for my own personal manual of tips and strategies.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 33
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 12:39:52 AM   
toawfan

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 11/16/2010
Status: offline
Here is the general strategy that I was following. And now I wonder if the first step of direct artillery attacks did me in with the previously reported artillery/turn burn bug mentioned above. Even following the general guidelines below, my turn completely ended with just the softening up artillery phase, no other combats or movements because that was to come in round 2. Never got the chance, three consecutive turns in Armageddon:


McBride ten tactical rounds
Commentary on Successful Attacks From Daniel McBride

How many TOAW grognards out there have actually had a ten-round turn? How many opt for the easy route and turn the system into a basic all-unit-move-and-then-attack game? Well you are obviously using your Porsche to drive to the corner store, in first gear all the way.

In this article I propose to demonstrate how all-out 10-phase attack turns might be planned for, and made an integral part of your attack strategy. I find myself adopting 3 distinct modes of attack in TOAW:
1) Breakthrough mode (moving all units to their maximum and attacking--I don't want to risk losing any forward movement and one attack will suffice.
2) 50% movement and attack, which usually assures you of a breakthrough phase and a second attack. One sustained attack upon a tough position can ruin this, which leads to
3) Intensive attacks on tough positions.

These must be anticipated and I will use my scenario to be posted soon, Rundstedt's Plan Martin, as an example as I am play testing it daily at this point. In this Bulge variant the initial German assault is far stronger, as was Rundstedt's intention, and German reserves are fed into the battle quickly and not held back as they were historically. Even so, this is no walk-through for the Germans, and in most cases American airborne units can make it into Bastogne if desired. The town has its own supply point and can thus last indefinitely while surrounded. As the German this presents the obvious dilemma: do I go all out to take it, or sprint for the Meuse? We assume here the former and it serves to demonstrate a tough, multi-hex, position. These are obviously places of strategic import, or of such natural defensive characteristics, that we can assume the enemy will go all-out to hold them. Their units will be on "ignore all losses", and this is what will ruin any plans you have for multiple phases in a turn if you choose to attack one of these. And so the idea is that you refrain from doing so until you decide upon an intensive attack turn.

I am suggesting that you anticipate this turn and set it up according to the following criteria:
1) Move up all the units you want to attack and have them echeloned, the second echelon behind the front on a road leading forward if possible to reduce movement costs to engage.
2) Position your HQ's near your units on roads to feed in replacements before the attack at an increased rate. Your units sitting and waiting for the order to attack will also increase their readiness turn by turn.
3) Have all your artillery in place and begin softening up the target hexes for a turn or two.
4) Plan your attack for an AM turn for maximum impact (for half-day turn scenarios such as mine--your attack strength is enhanced on AM turns)

The rest of your front can move and engage as desired during this build-up period; however, you must anticipate "H-Hour" in the sense that it would be better if you had your units elsewhere close up against the enemy and ready to engage without having to move far as you are not going to allow any unit to move more that 10% of its MF that AM turn. Also, and this is important, no attack is to be launched into a hex whose terrain cost to enter exceeds that of your intensive-attack target (yes, you finally have to sit down and figure out exact terrain costs). If a desired movement path requires more than either, forget it. Your priority for that turn is your intensive attack and these units will benefit by sitting it out and recovering supply and readiness in any case. It is not time lost.

In launching the attack you have a number of options. You can start off with a limited attack to feel out the defense, and then escalate it next turn to a regular attack with limited losses, and finally an ignore losses phase if it looks ready to break. You can also go for an all-out assault and mop-up. Keep an eye on your supplies and readiness and pull out units that dip too low, as their losses will be incommensurate with gains--feed in your 2nd echelon assault troops. If you have a number of target hexes, attack the least desirable first to possibly draw off reserves from your primary target.

It is unlikely you will get a 10-phase turn, although I have had it happen (truly a War-gaming epiphany if there is one); however, even a 2-5 phase turn can reduce a series of defensive positions that would take as many normal turns using the move-and-attack mode (1) discussed above. If we are dealing with extensive defenses--i.e. multi-hex locales--then it is imperative that you have fresh reserves to feed into succeeding phases, or even succeeding turns, as you should resist the temptation to just hammer away with depleted, low-readiness troops, or you will be known as the "Butcher of Bastogne" as I came to be known as playing the German in one game. This strategy allows you to take tough positions quicker than usual AND with the chance for reduced casualties if handled properly. Nonetheless, you should anticipate horrific casualties, and this is the beauty of this system in that nothing is guaranteed. You must decide, in advance, if the strategic goals of your larger plan warrant such sacrifice.

Source: http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/docs/strategy/McBride-ten-tactical-rounds.php

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 34
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 5:30:04 AM   
larryfulkerson

 

Posts: 21150
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ, USA, Earth, Solar System
Status: offline
quote:

McBride ten tactical rounds
Commentary on Successful Attacks From Daniel McBride

He just described what I try to do except I tend to make ALL my attacks at "minimize losses" settings. And I tend to get at least four rounds per turn in FITE. Every blue moon I'll get burned for a turn but that only happens maybe once every 6 or 7 turns or so. And it could have been something I forgot to do etc. But it just seems to me that turn burn happens way way too often in the scenario Armageddon 2015 - Europe & North Africa so I too have to admit that I suspect that this Artillery Support Bug that was aledgedly fixed........well, maybe it isn't.

I'll start looking for some evidence one way or another by scanning all the logs I can produce looking for the words "continuing attack" or some form or fashion of that. Maybe we can prove this one way or another that yes it IS fixed or no it's not. Unless somebody has already tested for it and has already proved it one way or another. An authoritive answer that's all I want.

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 12/16/2010 5:31:06 AM >

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 35
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 5:40:22 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2601
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

McBride ten tactical rounds
Commentary on Successful Attacks From Daniel McBride

He just described what I try to do except I tend to make ALL my attacks at "minimize losses" settings. And I tend to get at least four rounds per turn in FITE. Every blue moon I'll get burned for a turn but that only happens maybe once every 6 or 7 turns or so. And it could have been something I forgot to do etc. But it just seems to me that turn burn happens way way too often in the scenario Armageddon 2015 - Europe & North Africa so I too have to admit that I suspect that this Artillery Support Bug that was aledgedly fixed........well, maybe it isn't.

I'll start looking for some evidence one way or another by scanning all the logs I can produce looking for the words "continuing attack" or some form or fashion of that. Maybe we can prove this one way or another that yes it IS fixed or no it's not. Unless somebody has already tested for it and has already proved it one way or another. An authoritive answer that's all I want.


There aren't units with 90+ percent proficiency, are there? Those'll do it.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 12/16/2010 9:24:14 AM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 36
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 10:31:30 AM   
toawfan

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 11/16/2010
Status: offline
[/quote]

There aren't units with 90+ percent proficiency, are there? Those'll do it.
[/quote]

I just checked my OOB and, in fact, I do have several units with 90+ proficiency. So what does this mean? Did I find a bug that was not really quashed and does it explain my maddening repeated turn burns when I'm following all the rules?

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 37
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 10:37:28 AM   
toawfan

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 11/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

It's been fixed.

I dunno what you're doing, but first, don't assign any unit to an attack if it makes the minimum number of rounds jump beyond what assigning most units will do -- and make sure this is true for all attacks. Like, if most of my attacking units can attack while using 40% of the turn, I don't assign a unit that's going to make that jump to 70% for one attack.

Avoid assigning non-cooperative units to an attack. If you assign a unit and flags turn black, don't do it. In fact, try to avoid making flags turn grey.

Second, when you're attacking try setting everyone to 'minimize losses' -- all the time.

Third, don't mount attacks where the odds don't look so great. Like, one infantry regiment having at a fortified battalion with no artillery supporting the attack probably isn't such a great idea (Don't rely on the numbers or verdict given by the attack planner for this -- those values ignore too many factors).

You'll want to elaborate on this -- but try it. You'll get more rounds.


That's what I am ranting about: I did follow these rules to no avail. I don't mind continuing to dig to try to find out why this is not working as advertised.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 38
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 12:14:15 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
If you're having problems with a scenario then is it a problem with TOAW or is it a problem with the scenario?

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 39
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 2:41:12 PM   
toawfan

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 11/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

If you're having problems with a scenario then is it a problem with TOAW or is it a problem with the scenario?


It now appears to be a documented problem with both. Larry Fulkerson has confirmed and documented the artillery bug in fact has not been fixed as previously reported.

I did another turn in Armageddon, making sure that every single unit on the map was at minimize or limited losses, no attack was done with low proficiency, and every attack in the battle planner showed only 1 icon lit. And still, for the fourth consecutive round, the turn completely burned in one and only move. Larry and I have never had this happen in any other scenario.

So, problem is with both.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 40
RE: MRPB - 12/16/2010 3:44:10 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2798
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
In scenarios as large and complex as Armageddon, its a good idea to set the MRPB at something below the default setting of 99. A setting of 3, 4 or 5 should work well. There is no set formula for the MRPB, playtesting will show what works best for each scenario.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 41
RE: Unit Proficiency - 12/16/2010 3:59:34 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2798
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

I do have several units with 90+ proficiency.


Units gain proficiency thru combat, and often can gain 1 point per turn. Air and artillery units are very susceptible to this feature as they are often engaged in multiple combats each turn. So if a unit starts a scenario at 80%, often within 10 turns it can be up to 90%. Additionally, units that are set to 'untried' status will have a proficiency +/- up to 25 of the original setting assigned at the first instance of combat. Therefore, untried units with at start proficiency as low as 65 could possibly hit 90 at first combat. The MRPB setting can help to overcome turn burn caused by unit proficiencies (and anything else for that matter).




Attachment (1)

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 42
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 4:18:20 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

If you're having problems with a scenario then is it a problem with TOAW or is it a problem with the scenario?


It now appears to be a documented problem with both. Larry Fulkerson has confirmed and documented the artillery bug in fact has not been fixed as previously reported.

I did another turn in Armageddon, making sure that every single unit on the map was at minimize or limited losses, no attack was done with low proficiency, and every attack in the battle planner showed only 1 icon lit. And still, for the fourth consecutive round, the turn completely burned in one and only move. Larry and I have never had this happen in any other scenario.

So, problem is with both.


It's not documented unless it happens in multiple scenarios and, as Bob might say, strenuously tested.


< Message edited by Panama -- 12/16/2010 4:19:41 PM >

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 43
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 4:19:27 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2057
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

If you're having problems with a scenario then is it a problem with TOAW or is it a problem with the scenario?


It now appears to be a documented problem with both. Larry Fulkerson has confirmed and documented the artillery bug in fact has not been fixed as previously reported.

I did another turn in Armageddon, making sure that every single unit on the map was at minimize or limited losses, no attack was done with low proficiency, and every attack in the battle planner showed only 1 icon lit. And still, for the fourth consecutive round, the turn completely burned in one and only move. Larry and I have never had this happen in any other scenario.

So, problem is with both.


I don't know what you're doing and i also tried to recreate the supposed bug. Well, i got seven combat rounds with the Russians on turn 1 (only attacking in Poland), which is nothing special with a positive shock of 125%. I've seen no odd behaviour whatsoever. I doubt the bug still exists.

So, what are you doing exactly? Maybe a .sal before resolving the first combat round?

_____________________________


(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 44
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 4:41:04 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7182
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

I just found this and now wonder whether this reported bug really was fixed. I wonder if I am doing myself in with this previously reported bug and a defender's ignore losses is not the sole cause for turn burn.

Here's the link to the full article.http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/docs/strategy/Brown-ten-tactical-rounds.php

And here is the key paragraph, the next to last paragraph in the article.

At present, there is a bug affecting ranged artillery specifically allocated to an attack (i.e. it shows up in the "Support" column on the right hand side of the Attack Planning Dialogue and you dedicate to the attack by clicking on it, rather than just leaving it in general support). Such artillery will keep blasting away at a tough enemy for the rest of the turn, even if the adjacent assaulting units have all broken of their attacks. This can be good, because you can pulverize the enemy with this super artillery, or it can be bad because, if the enemy doesn't retreat or evaporate, you're going to burn up all your turn in this one battle. Norm has promised to fix this bug in the .05 patch. (Ed - it's fixed!)


This article is so old it's referencing the .05 patch for TOAW I! I'm as certain as I can be that it's been fixed.

While it is still possible for an attack to burn the entire turn if conditions are just right, I think is far more likely that your problem is due to something you're doing. We just need to figure out what it is. Like Telumar suggested, a saved turn with your attacks set up, but not executed, might help.

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 45
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 4:57:45 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7182
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

This first post was when I was in Larry's 101 TOAW War Room Classes. I hope I have graduated to Larry 201 and now add these questions for you, veterans, to help out:

1. Why and when would you ever disband a unit?


When the unit is still shown as supplied and you want the weapons it contains to be issued as replacements to other units. Sometimes, there are replacement units who are intended to be used for this purpose. Sometimes, a unit will be destroyed anyway -- so you might as well extract what you can from it now. Sometimes, units are growing so weak that the calculation is that one would be better off with fewer, more powerful units.

Note that if you disband a unit that is not in supply, the weapons will not enter the pool.


How quickly do disbanded units enter the pool? And by pool, do you mean they come in as replacements scattered around the map or do they actually come in as reinforcements (actual units at some map edge)? Does this happen by the next turn?


Note that "pool" is a shorthand term for the "On Hand Equipment" column in your replacements dialog. Disband a unit and the equipment goes there immediately - in the same way that some of the equipment listed as destroyed goes there after combat (for supplied units). Players can't actually disband an unsupplied unit - I think the designer can, by event, though (not sure where the equipment goes in that case).

The disbanded unit itself is then listed as "Eliminated", and is treated just like any other destroyed unit. If eligible for reconstitution, it will await sufficient replacement equipment to be available in the "On Hand Equipment" pool. The priority for distributing this equipment and just what constitutes "sufficient" are detailed in the previously linked article (I think).

Once reconstituted, it enters the reinforcement tracks delayed a certain amount of time, dependent upon its unit size - max of four weeks. Where it arrives is dependent upon the designers settings.

Edit: Note that units that are disbanded by event can never reconstitute - and actually "disappear" from the OOB list.

One other reason for disbanding is if you've moved a unit into a hex it can't get out of (they do exist in some scenarios).

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 12/16/2010 5:17:05 PM >

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 46
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 5:09:48 PM   
toawfan

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 11/16/2010
Status: offline
Why don't I have the menu for set max rounds per battle when opening a scenario in the editor? I am using the most current beta version.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by toawfan -- 12/16/2010 5:11:19 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 47
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 5:14:37 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2057
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
First select Edit -> Forces. Then the MRPB setting will be available.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 48
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 5:16:00 PM   
toawfan

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 11/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

If you're having problems with a scenario then is it a problem with TOAW or is it a problem with the scenario?


It now appears to be a documented problem with both. Larry Fulkerson has confirmed and documented the artillery bug in fact has not been fixed as previously reported.

I did another turn in Armageddon, making sure that every single unit on the map was at minimize or limited losses, no attack was done with low proficiency, and every attack in the battle planner showed only 1 icon lit. And still, for the fourth consecutive round, the turn completely burned in one and only move. Larry and I have never had this happen in any other scenario.

So, problem is with both.


I don't know what you're doing and i also tried to recreate the supposed bug. Well, i got seven combat rounds with the Russians on turn 1 (only attacking in Poland), which is nothing special with a positive shock of 125%. I've seen no odd behaviour whatsoever. I doubt the bug still exists.

So, what are you doing exactly? Maybe a .sal before resolving the first combat round?


I've tried to post as much detail here and in the AAR of exactly what I'm doing. I'm following the rules of the manual, the turn burn forum tips of Bob Cross and the strategy posted above regarding tips for 10 tactical rounds.

I appreciate those who are trying to help. At first the reaction was that the problem was with me. Then the reaction was to learn to accept uncertainty in war. Now I hope we're getting close to finding the problem.

Larry has never had turn burn like this either and believes I may have discovered an artillery bug. I have no idea if it's any of the above reasons. I just know that it sure would be a sucky game if this always happened and you had no idea why or how you were violating a game mechanic.

It's looking more like it's just this scenario since I haven't had any problems with any other game.

All I could post is any of the past four turn burns in an end of turn sal file. Does that help figure anything out? Or the sit log?

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 49
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 5:21:16 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2057
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
Neither end of turn or sitrep would be of help.. We would need a save file from the "middle of the turn" after you set up all attacks and before you resolved them. If you don't have such a file from the past turns, maybe post such a file from your next turn. Or maybe try to recreate from memory.

Admitted, this unusual amount of turn burn is quite something. I wouldn't deny the possibility of a bug, but most definitely not this old artillery bug you posted.


< Message edited by Telumar -- 12/16/2010 5:22:24 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 50
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 5:21:36 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7182
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

First select Edit -> Forces. Then the MRPB setting will be available.


Or just go to Deployment Mode.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 51
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 6:42:48 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2601
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan



There aren't units with 90+ percent proficiency, are there? Those'll do it.
quote:



I just checked my OOB and, in fact, I do have several units with 90+ proficiency. So what does this mean? Did I find a bug that was not really quashed and does it explain my maddening repeated turn burns when I'm following all the rules?


It means never, never attack with the units with proficiencies above 90%. Such units are useful for defensive purposes only.

They'll tend to refuse to break off attacks -- and so will end your turn. The tester who got seven rounds probably either was lucky enough to not use one of these units or happened to enjoy quick success with all attacks involving them.

It's a design flaw, basically. Designers who just gotta express how totally kickass some unit was have got to discipline themselves to lower everyone else's proficiency to express the difference rather than raising the proficiency of whatever.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 12/16/2010 6:48:11 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 52
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 6:49:41 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2601
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
Try running a turn in which you use only units with proficiencies of 80% or less to attack -- and do the other things advised.

Betcha don't get early turn ending.

_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 53
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 7:23:40 PM   
toawfan

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 11/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan



There aren't units with 90+ percent proficiency, are there? Those'll do it.
quote:



I just checked my OOB and, in fact, I do have several units with 90+ proficiency. So what does this mean? Did I find a bug that was not really quashed and does it explain my maddening repeated turn burns when I'm following all the rules?


It means never, never attack with the units with proficiencies above 90%. Such units are useful for defensive purposes only.

They'll tend to refuse to break off attacks -- and so will end your turn. The tester who got seven rounds probably either was lucky enough to not use one of these units or happened to enjoy quick success with all attacks involving them.

It's a design flaw, basically. Designers who just gotta express how totally kickass some unit was have got to discipline themselves to lower everyone else's proficiency to express the difference rather than raising the proficiency of whatever.


And where is this rule mentioned anywhere in any documentation? Everything that I've read talks about making sure you do not attack with insufficient proficiency. Never heard of not attacking because you're too strong. What?

And why would you leave a bomber parked at the airport on defense because it was too healthy, too well-supplied and too proficient to run a mission.

I'm sorry, but this really seems strange to me. I guess I'll get flamed again as another example of war is hell and you shouldn't expect any predictability.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 54
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 7:57:15 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2601
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan



There aren't units with 90+ percent proficiency, are there? Those'll do it.
quote:



I just checked my OOB and, in fact, I do have several units with 90+ proficiency. So what does this mean? Did I find a bug that was not really quashed and does it explain my maddening repeated turn burns when I'm following all the rules?


It means never, never attack with the units with proficiencies above 90%. Such units are useful for defensive purposes only.

They'll tend to refuse to break off attacks -- and so will end your turn. The tester who got seven rounds probably either was lucky enough to not use one of these units or happened to enjoy quick success with all attacks involving them.

It's a design flaw, basically. Designers who just gotta express how totally kickass some unit was have got to discipline themselves to lower everyone else's proficiency to express the difference rather than raising the proficiency of whatever.


And where is this rule mentioned anywhere in any documentation? Everything that I've read talks about making sure you do not attack with insufficient proficiency. Never heard of not attacking because you're too strong. What?

And why would you leave a bomber parked at the airport on defense because it was too healthy, too well-supplied and too proficient to run a mission.

I'm sorry, but this really seems strange to me. I guess I'll get flamed again as another example of war is hell and you shouldn't expect any predictability.



Indeed it makes no sense, and indeed it's undocumented. However, I'll tell you what happened to me.

So there I was, in the woods, middle of the night, a flat, no spare, and the entire Dallas Cowboys cheerleading squad drunk in the back...

No, actually, I was playing as the Germans in Fall Grau, a recreation of an imaginary Axis invasion of North America.

Now, there were a number of 90% proficiency SS Panzer divisions, plus German infantry that had started as 'untried' with 80% proficiency and jumped up into the 90's.

As long as we were at the maneuver stage, nothing was noticeably wrong, but when we got into slugging it out along a line, I started getting early turn ending. Boom, boom, boom...

I noticed all these units that had made it to 91% proficiency, 94% proficiency, 97% proficiency. I started holding them out of the attacks. The early turn endings stopped.

I've seen it elsewhere as well. In Illka's Decision in the North,, he had a number of 100% proficiency Finnish ski battalions. You'd stage some little piss-ant attack in the tundra with one of them -- and the turn would end across the whole front. Panzer corps schreeching to a halt in Latvia, etc.

Not fun -- and not reasonable. But there. There is a solution.

If you're the designer, make sure no unit can ever get too good. If you're the player, don't attack with one of these units.

Not unless you want your turn to end. Well, I suppose if you're sure the attack will work right away, (or if you anticipate the turn ending anyway), then it would make sense.

But the higher a unit's proficiency is, the more you have to ask: will I mind if this guy starts butting his head against the wall and won't quit?


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 12/16/2010 8:05:09 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 55
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 8:02:06 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2601
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfanEverything that I've read talks about making sure you do not attack with insufficient proficiency...



Either you're confused, or you've read something I haven't read. Why not attack with low proficiency? Good for 'em...

If anything, you attack harder. When I was playing as the Phil-Americans in Luzon 1942, I was confronted with an entire army with 33% proficiency. I just kept them all set to 'ignore losses' so they wouldn't break off right away.

I didn't win (the scenario's not exactly balanced) but I did pretty good.


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 56
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 8:08:00 PM   
larryfulkerson

 

Posts: 21150
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ, USA, Earth, Solar System
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Either you're confused, or you've read something I haven't read. Why not attack with low proficiency? Good for 'em...

I've noticed in my FITE game with Kevin that on those occasions where I've attacked with the Hungarians ( proficiency about 50% ) that my losses are slightly higher than with German units ( prof. over 80% ). And I've had to make more attacks to gain a hex with them than with German units. But yes they will attack without turn burn. But they tend to retreat before more proficient units will as well. Just my experience on this issue. Oh, and thanks for all your answers so far. They are extreeeemly helpful. Even needed.



< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 12/16/2010 8:21:22 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 57
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 8:18:44 PM   
toawfan

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 11/16/2010
Status: offline
I really appreciate the patience of the veterans. After stumbling and bumbling, I now have a thorough answer. It's understandable. I now know what is happening and why -- and I can ignore some of the posts blaming the messenger.

Still seems odd that the worst strategy is to use ready, healthy, well-supplied and proficient forces. And actually, there are several posts about how low proficiency will severely hamper the number of tactical rounds you can squeeze into a turn. But at least that shows up in the battle planner with extra turn icons to warn you.

Thanks again to those who really tried to get to the bottom of this.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 58
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 8:23:03 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2601
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Either you're confused, or you've read something I haven't read. Why not attack with low proficiency? Good for 'em...

I've noticed in my FITE game with Kevin that on those occasions where I've attacked with the Hungarians ( proficiency about 50% ) that my losses are slightly higher than with German units ( prof. over 80% ). And I've had to make more attacks to gain a hex with them than with German units. But yes they will attack without turn burn. But they tend to retreat before more proficient units will as well. Just my experience on this issue. Oh, and thanks for all your answers so far. They are extreeeemly helpful. Even needed.



Oh I'm not denying they're not very good. However, that's no reason not to use 'em.

Parenthetically, I'd say designers tend to cluster proficiencies too closely, and to select values that are too high. I get tired of seeing Italian schmuck infantry set at 60%.

Proficiency is only one of several factors that determine a unit's combat punch, and if you think one xian is worth two yians, you're going to have to spread those proficiencies.

There's nothing that says you can't assign 10% -- or 1% -- proficiency to a unit. Since you don't really want to go over about 85% at the higher end, think 20% for your substandard folks, not 50%.

Really -- what with all the other factors -- a 60% proficiency unit is about the same as an 80% unit, all other things being equal. If that's what you think, use those values. But if you think Hungarians were garbage compared to Germans, go with 20% and 80%.

Or something. Just my take on the situation.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 12/16/2010 8:29:59 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 59
RE: answers to some basic questions - 12/16/2010 8:28:00 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2601
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

And actually, there are several posts about how low proficiency will severely hamper the number of tactical rounds you can squeeze into a turn...


Maybe you read about low force proficiency. That'll certainly increase the chance of early turn ending. Lower formation proficiency will make the individual formation prone to go into re-org.

But not low unit proficiency. That'll make combats tend to end sooner when the unit breaks off sooner, not the reverse.

Otherwise, you exaggerate the incongruity. Just as salt is an essential nutrient but eating a pound a day will lead to unfortunate results, high proficiency is good -- but not over 90% (or somewhere around there).

Too much of a good thing. The guys won't know when to quit.

It's really only a problem if the designer has made it one. He may have set Russian infantry at 60%, and said 'well, the German infantry was better, so I'll make it 80%.' Then he comes to SS Leibstandarte, and what could do justice but 95%?

All he really needs to do is make the Russian infantry 45%, the German infantry 65%, and SS Leibstandarte 80%. About the same effect, and no early turn ending.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 12/16/2010 8:33:41 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to toawfan)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> RE: answers to some basic questions Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.211