Matrix Games Forums

A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Changes. Your Thoughts.

 
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 >> Changes. Your Thoughts. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/28/2012 8:41:39 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
What do people think about the upcoming changes? I like the direction the game is going. Some stuff I would have like to have seen besides what's coming but you can't have everything.

Post #: 1
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/28/2012 10:43:40 PM   
Bibbo

 

Posts: 249
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline
Exactly what are the changes?

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 2
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/28/2012 10:52:38 PM   
Panama


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

ORIGINAL:  Curtis Lemay

Attached is a zip file containing the wishlist document that Jarek Flis and I have been developing for months.  It was developed by collecting the wishes expressed here, there, and everywhere.  We've tried to be comprehensive, but, in spite of the label, that is unattainable.  We'll try to continue to maintain it as more issues are raised.  Hopefully, this will reduce the repetitive posting of the same wishes over and over.

It's very important that everyone understand that this document is totally unofficial.  Be sure to read and understand the disclaimer it contains and repeated here:

Disclaimer:  This document contains only a collection of WISHES made by anyone and everyone, and is not a commitment by Matrix Games or anyone else to implement anything contained herein.

January 1, 2012:  Version 12 posted.

Note: I'm not able to delete the version 10 document attached to post #1 of this thread or the version 11 document posted in post #1378.  Just ignore them till I can get it fixed - if ever.  The version in this post is the latest version.

Note that items in red are new.  Items in blue have been implemented.

Note: Those of you that don't have Word can still download a free Word viewer here:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=95E24C87-8732-48D5-8689-AB826E7B8FDF&displaylang=en



http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1540287&mpage=59
post #1748

Pay special attention to the line about blue being implemented.

< Message edited by Panama -- 1/28/2012 10:56:05 PM >

(in reply to Bibbo)
Post #: 3
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/28/2012 11:08:35 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Am I the only one who bothers to read the wishlist? 

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 4
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/28/2012 11:49:08 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1313
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
The question is WHEN will 3.5 pop up, uh? My wishes, like it is in the nature of the Teutonic people, were modest - change the 'destroy road/parallel to river' thingie, create a hierarchy for proper OOB and flexibility, recon capabilities for planes *operative recon, not theatre recon* AND to cancel the impossible defence benefits when defending with ignore losses. The latter really spoils any PBEM game...

Klink,Oberst

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 5
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/29/2012 1:13:15 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2780
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Am I the only one who bothers to read the wishlist?


Well, it is rather longwinded and tedious (comprehensive). It would be easier if you just listed what you know is coming.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 6
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/29/2012 2:05:34 AM   
Sekadegas

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

AND to cancel the impossible defence benefits when defending with ignore losses. The latter really spoils any PBEM game...

Klink,Oberst


That's very true.

To whom it may concern... can't we have a quick fix even before v.3.5?



(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 7
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/29/2012 3:25:39 AM   
Jeff Norton


Posts: 2043
Joined: 8/8/2000
From: MD, USA (You're not cleared for specifics...)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

The question is WHEN will 3.5 pop up, uh? My wishes, like it is in the nature of the Teutonic people, were modest - change the 'destroy road/parallel to river' thingie, create a hierarchy for proper OOB and flexibility, recon capabilities for planes *operative recon,{\quote]
Agree

quote:

not theatre recon* AND to cancel the impossible defence benefits when defending with ignore losses. The latter really spoils any PBEM game...

Klink,Oberst

Agree - my current EA game is like this - The defender is king in this game - I'm getting attacks at 300 points\%, and still cannot take ground. Grrrrrr....

_____________________________

-Jeff
Veritas Vos Liberabit
"Hate America - love their movies" -Foos Babaganoosh - Anchor - Jihad Tonite

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 8
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/29/2012 3:26:17 AM   
Jeff Norton


Posts: 2043
Joined: 8/8/2000
From: MD, USA (You're not cleared for specifics...)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Am I the only one who bothers to read the wishlist?


Well, it is rather longwinded and tedious (comprehensive). It would be easier if you just listed what you know is coming.

It is a very LARGE wishlist...


_____________________________

-Jeff
Veritas Vos Liberabit
"Hate America - love their movies" -Foos Babaganoosh - Anchor - Jihad Tonite

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 9
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/29/2012 11:23:53 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1313
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

AND to cancel the impossible defence benefits when defending with ignore losses. The latter really spoils any PBEM game...

Klink,Oberst


That's very true.

To whom it may concern... can't we have a quick fix even before v.3.5?





One should apply ye'ole army motto for beta releases or patches as well - keep it simple, keep it easy. What's easy to implement, and the majority agrees upon, should be fixed first; it also gives the scenario designers an edge about what to tweak in the existing and what to consider in the new scenarios!

I am not a coder and I appreciate RT's commitment to keep the baby running... but the 'anti-ant-attack defensive impossible to kick out ignore losses defenders'thingie should be just a few lines or a fix of a combat calculation or formula, uh?

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to Sekadegas)
Post #: 10
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/29/2012 1:09:44 PM   
Sekadegas

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

AND to cancel the impossible defence benefits when defending with ignore losses. The latter really spoils any PBEM game...

Klink,Oberst


That's very true.

To whom it may concern... can't we have a quick fix even before v.3.5?





One should apply ye'ole army motto for beta releases or patches as well - keep it simple, keep it easy. What's easy to implement, and the majority agrees upon, should be fixed first; it also gives the scenario designers an edge about what to tweak in the existing and what to consider in the new scenarios!

I am not a coder and I appreciate RT's commitment to keep the baby running... but the 'anti-ant-attack defensive impossible to kick out ignore losses defenders'thingie should be just a few lines or a fix of a combat calculation or formula, uh?

Klink, Oberst


I think the problem isn't the anti-ant-attack (assault ratio). That's a good and long waited feature.

Most probably is the new effects' combination of defender terrain together with with defender deployment which is killing the playing enjoyment. Any fortified on ignore losses unit (no matter how small it is or the assault ratio between attacker or defender) will prove to be extremely hard to dislodge.
The feeling of simulation is lost.

TOAW combat system was always a enigma but always made sense. Now it doesn't.


(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 11
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/29/2012 1:47:47 PM   
Olorin


Posts: 633
Joined: 4/22/2008
From: Greece
Status: offline
10.000 event slots
700x700 map
10.000 units per force
1000 formations per force

Can someone please remake Drang Nach Osten utilizing the above new features?

Thanks in advance.

_____________________________

"Drang nach Osten"
--A TOAWIII AAR--

(in reply to Sekadegas)
Post #: 12
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/29/2012 2:13:52 PM   
Shazman

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 1/4/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

AND to cancel the impossible defence benefits when defending with ignore losses. The latter really spoils any PBEM game...

Klink,Oberst


That's very true.

To whom it may concern... can't we have a quick fix even before v.3.5?





One should apply ye'ole army motto for beta releases or patches as well - keep it simple, keep it easy. What's easy to implement, and the majority agrees upon, should be fixed first; it also gives the scenario designers an edge about what to tweak in the existing and what to consider in the new scenarios!

I am not a coder and I appreciate RT's commitment to keep the baby running... but the 'anti-ant-attack defensive impossible to kick out ignore losses defenders'thingie should be just a few lines or a fix of a combat calculation or formula, uh?

Klink, Oberst


I think the problem isn't the anti-ant-attack (assault ratio). That's a good and long waited feature.

Most probably is the new effects' combination of defender terrain together with with defender deployment which is killing the playing enjoyment. Any fortified on ignore losses unit (no matter how small it is or the assault ratio between attacker or defender) will prove to be extremely hard to dislodge.
The feeling of simulation is lost.

TOAW combat system was always a enigma but always made sense. Now it doesn't.




There are some problems associated with the fortified and ignore loss settings.

While it should be possible for any unit to be set to ignore losses it should not be possible for any unit to be successful at doing that. There should be a moral check or a proficiency check or both to see if the unit has the wherewithal to actually ignore all losses. The check should be made at the time it is assaulted. If it fails then, depending on proficiency, it should fall to one of the two lower states.

The same should be done for attacking units.

As for fortified status. This should only be achieved with the presence of an engineer battalion or higher and only after an appropriate amount of time depending on the number of days comprising a turn. It should not be a simple thing to do. Think Stalingrad or Moscow. These extensive field works took huge amounts of manpower and materials plus much time.

Please note fortified in the game does not mean concrete bunkers. Those are provided through scenario designer placed graphics and counters.

My two isk worth.

(in reply to Sekadegas)
Post #: 13
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/29/2012 2:26:24 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
1.22, 2.221, 2., 2.30.1, 3.18.1, 4.16, 6.7, 6.7.1, 6.7.2, 6.35, 7.13, 8.1, 8.3.1, 9.1, 9.2, 9.5.1, 9.6.1, 9.15.1.5 & .6, 9.16.1, .2, .3, .4, 9.16.6.1, 9.17, 9.18, 12.1, 12.4.6, 12.5.3, 12.23.3, 12.25.7, 12.27, 13.7.6, 13.51, 13.35, 14.25, 14.26

Only somewhat accurate but that's the price you pay for laziness.

(in reply to Shazman)
Post #: 14
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/29/2012 5:02:44 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1313
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

AND to cancel the impossible defence benefits when defending with ignore losses. The latter really spoils any PBEM game...

Klink,Oberst


That's very true.

To whom it may concern... can't we have a quick fix even before v.3.5?





One should apply ye'ole army motto for beta releases or patches as well - keep it simple, keep it easy. What's easy to implement, and the majority agrees upon, should be fixed first; it also gives the scenario designers an edge about what to tweak in the existing and what to consider in the new scenarios!

I am not a coder and I appreciate RT's commitment to keep the baby running... but the 'anti-ant-attack defensive impossible to kick out ignore losses defenders'thingie should be just a few lines or a fix of a combat calculation or formula, uh?

Klink, Oberst


I think the problem isn't the anti-ant-attack (assault ratio). That's a good and long waited feature.

Most probably is the new effects' combination of defender terrain together with with defender deployment which is killing the playing enjoyment. Any fortified on ignore losses unit (no matter how small it is or the assault ratio between attacker or defender) will prove to be extremely hard to dislodge.
The feeling of simulation is lost.

TOAW combat system was always a enigma but always made sense. Now it doesn't.




There are some problems associated with the fortified and ignore loss settings.

While it should be possible for any unit to be set to ignore losses it should not be possible for any unit to be successful at doing that. There should be a moral check or a proficiency check or both to see if the unit has the wherewithal to actually ignore all losses. The check should be made at the time it is assaulted. If it fails then, depending on proficiency, it should fall to one of the two lower states.

The same should be done for attacking units.

As for fortified status. This should only be achieved with the presence of an engineer battalion or higher and only after an appropriate amount of time depending on the number of days comprising a turn. It should not be a simple thing to do. Think Stalingrad or Moscow. These extensive field works took huge amounts of manpower and materials plus much time.

Please note fortified in the game does not mean concrete bunkers. Those are provided through scenario designer placed graphics and counters.

My two isk worth.

The 'issue' with the various entrenchment levels can be easily tackled; see my 48PzK scenario... One can adjust the entrenchment rate. I made it 'harder' for units to change into E/F because the ground is frigging frozen and in 6hrs per turn a battalion without proper equipment ain't possibly dig-in in reinforced positions... not that I am an engineering expert, but I know how long it takes to dig even a foxhole at -15°C in wooded or open areas *winter 1995/1996 Grafenwoehr training area*...

Klink, Oberst

P.S. I am glad we are finally discussing those issues here at all :)

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to Shazman)
Post #: 15
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/29/2012 5:45:56 PM   
Sekadegas

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


The 'issue' with the various entrenchment levels can be easily tackled; see my 48PzK scenario... One can adjust the entrenchment rate. I made it 'harder' for units to change into E/F because the ground is frigging frozen and in 6hrs per turn a battalion without proper equipment ain't possibly dig-in in reinforced positions... not that I am an engineering expert, but I know how long it takes to dig even a foxhole at -15°C in wooded or open areas *winter 1995/1996 Grafenwoehr training area*...

Klink, Oberst


I already tested the entrenchements levels but unless you set it to 0 the units will eventually fortify - on a faster or slower way. Units fortifying isn't a problem. They always did so. They get much harder to defeat. That's normal and OK.
Ignore losses aren't an issue either.

The problem is when fortified defenders resist - on regular basis - against impossible odds (impossible odds being attackers with +400/600 assault ratio, with strong armoured and arty support against small tired fortified infantry units).
This doesn't happen when defenders are in mobile or even defend status.

The issue is, IMHO, the combination of defender terrain together with with defender deployment which was added to the last version. If possible, this should be fixed quickly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

P.S. I am glad we are finally discussing those issues here at all :)


Ditto




< Message edited by Sekadegas -- 1/29/2012 11:13:32 PM >

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 16
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/29/2012 7:16:04 PM   
USXpat

 

Posts: 352
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline
I'd be very happy to see these changes.   That's a vast wish list.  From personal interest, expanding the game parameters comes in at #1.  Even if it was just the # of events; or just the map size; or just the number of units... but all three together is very, very nice. 

The ability to merge maps would be astounding, if I am interpreting this right - like splicing two maps together... ?  The amount of work that goes into an excellent map is massive; even a so-so map is very time-consuming.  Most of the monster war games tend to run 300 x 300 or so, 90k hexes - so 700 x 700 490k is better than 5 times larger - and would likely require one person a full year of full-time work, possibly even two years, to complete. 

Improvements to the PO are always welcome.  Elmer's gradually gotten better over the years.  My hope with the PO is that there's been some effort to simplify the editing of objectives.  It would be nice if the copy Track 1 to Track 2, etc. was done on a formation by formation basis, vs. globally applied -- (1,000 formations, up to 99 objectives and up to 5 objective tracks).  

Skeptical but definitely welcome anything that improves naval combat, too.  It looks like there's been some work done on that. 

Overall, these are the kinds of changes that would go a long ways toward keeping TOAW viable for another decade in the monster war game niche.  Really, really looking forward to the next patch/version/release!


(in reply to Sekadegas)
Post #: 17
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/29/2012 8:30:54 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2780
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

1.22, 2.221, 2., 2.30.1, 3.18.1, 4.16, 6.7, 6.7.1, 6.7.2, 6.35, 7.13, 8.1, 8.3.1, 9.1, 9.2, 9.5.1, 9.6.1, 9.15.1.5 & .6, 9.16.1, .2, .3, .4, 9.16.6.1, 9.17, 9.18, 12.1, 12.4.6, 12.5.3, 12.23.3, 12.25.7, 12.27, 13.7.6, 13.51, 13.35, 14.25, 14.26


Thanks for the effort, but I'm still too lazy to look thru all of these references.

quote:

10.000 event slots
700x700 map
10.000 units per force
1000 formations per force


Now this is something we can work with. Most scenarios won't come close to reaching these new limits, but there are a few popular scenarios that were restricted to some extent by the current limits. With the release of 3.5 we can look hopefully to the wonderful expansion of some of these scenarios.

10,000 units per force - I think its actually 5,000 per force with a total of 10,000 per scenario.

Many thanks to Ralph and Bob and whoever else is working on the continued progress of TOAW. (I'm dreaming that we can soon put 3.5 behind us and get on to 4.0).

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 18
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/30/2012 4:27:27 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

The problem is when fortified defenders resist - on regular basis - against impossible odds (impossible odds being attackers with +400/600 assault ratio...


Can you clarify this? Do you mean the AR value in the Combat Planner is 400/600? That would only be odds of 4-6. Or do you mean that the actual odds are 400-600? Are the attackers 4-6 x the defenders or 400-600 x the defenders?

quote:

The issue is, IMHO, the combination of defender terrain together with defender deployment which was added to the last version.


That would be 3.4 section IV item 11 of the What's New. I doubt that is the issue. The strength increases are only on the 20-30% range - and only if the terrain effect is about the same as the deployment effect. If there is a problem, it most likely is with 3.4 section IV item 10: Terrain & deployment effects on RFC chances. There, the chance that Fortified Deployment doesn't cancel an RFC was decreased from (I think) 50% to only 16%. That's pretty significant.

Now, in defense of that change, note that prior to 3.4, terrain had no effect on RFC chances. All else being equal, it was as easy to kick a unit out of Fortified Line terrain as it was clear terrain. So, for certain, it was wrong prior to 3.4. Could it have been over corrected, though? Sure. But we will need clear evidence of that - rigor.

And I just checked my test records for that feature and, unfortunately, all the defenders in my test scenario were set to Limit Losses. The benefits were hard to even discern at that setting - but I don't know just yet what Ignore Losses settings will produce. I'll redesign it to have them set to Ignore Losses and retest. I'm still in Kenya, so that may be a while before I can get to it.

However, I want to point out that attacker-favoring features complemented these defender-favoring features. Especially, RBC mechanics were revised to make RBCs easier to obtain. In particular, note 3.4 section IV item 5: Units that suffer 50% losses in a combat can be retested for RBC after that combat. Players need to revise their post-combat procedures accordingly: After a combat that leaves the defenders holding the ground, always use the largest unit available to initiate a subsequent combat against that hex - it will have the best chance of RBCing the remaining defenders, should they become subject to renewed RBC chances.

(in reply to Sekadegas)
Post #: 19
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/30/2012 5:11:52 PM   
Sekadegas

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

The problem is when fortified defenders resist - on regular basis - against impossible odds (impossible odds being attackers with +400/600 assault ratio...


Can you clarify this? Do you mean the AR value in the Combat Planner is 400/600? That would only be odds of 4-6. Or do you mean that the actual odds are 400-600? Are the attackers 4-6 x the defenders or 400-600 x the defenders?


I meant attackers are + 400/600 stronger than defenders - or that is what shows as assault ratio on the attack planner.
I underline that these cases are often.

< Message edited by Sekadegas -- 1/30/2012 6:02:27 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 20
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/30/2012 5:41:33 PM   
Sekadegas

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

quote:

The issue is, IMHO, the combination of defender terrain together with defender deployment which was added to the last version.


If there is a problem, it most likely is with 3.4 section IV item 10: Terrain & deployment effects on RFC chances. There, the chance that Fortified Deployment doesn't cancel an RFC was decreased from (I think) 50% to only 16%. That's pretty significant.



You know the inside system much better than i do. Over the years while reading your posts i tend consider your judgements as sound so no reason to disagree on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Could it have been over corrected, though? Sure. But we will need clear evidence of that - rigor.


I can't offer you rigor. Only TOAW PBEM expertise - on daily basis for more that 8 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I'll redesign it to have them set to Ignore Losses and retest.



That would be just great. It's all i'm asking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

However, I want to point out that attacker-favoring features complemented these defender-favoring features. Especially, RBC mechanics were revised to make RBCs easier to obtain. In particular, note 3.4 section IV item 5: Units that suffer 50% losses in a combat can be retested for RBC after that combat.



Even if it's clear RBC's should be easier to get under 3.4, in reality that's not the case. It's not an important issue but certain scenarios lose a lot of dynamic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Players need to revise their post-combat procedures accordingly: After a combat that leaves the defenders holding the ground, always use the largest unit available to initiate a subsequent combat against that hex - it will have the best chance of RBCing the remaining defenders, should they become subject to renewed RBC chances.


That goes without saying... it's just ABC to any experienced player.




< Message edited by Sekadegas -- 1/30/2012 10:55:39 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 21
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/30/2012 8:54:53 PM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 408
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

The question is WHEN will 3.5 pop up, uh? ...


My question is a lot simpler... so, who is testing these new changes?

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 22
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/30/2012 10:11:38 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1313
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
Not me and out of my reach I am afraid...

Talking about changes, I am glad you popped up! I am in the progress of updating, tweaking your Kharkov '43 scenario; NOW - I need your permission Joao to publish it here at some satge. Naturally I will mention your work etc.

Klink, Oberst

< Message edited by Oberst_Klink -- 1/30/2012 10:13:37 PM >


_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 23
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/31/2012 5:12:11 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

I meant attackers are + 400/600 stronger than defenders - or that is what shows as assault ratio on the attack planner.
I underline that these cases are often.


Ok, so it is the value from the Attack Planner. Then that's only odds of about 4:1 to 6:1, against a defender that is receiving a x8 defensive benefit. Hardly what I'd call "impossible odds".

(in reply to Sekadegas)
Post #: 24
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/31/2012 5:15:29 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

Even if it's clear RBC's should be easier to get under 3.4, in reality that's not the case. It's not an important issue but certain scenarios lose a lot of dynamic.


Can you clarify that? RBC's aren't easier to get?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Players need to revise their post-combat procedures accordingly: After a combat that leaves the defenders holding the ground, always use the largest unit available to initiate a subsequent combat against that hex - it will have the best chance of RBCing the remaining defenders, should they become subject to renewed RBC chances.


That goes without saying... it's just ABC to any experienced player.


Good to hear. But not everyone reading this will be so experienced.

(in reply to Sekadegas)
Post #: 25
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/31/2012 7:09:37 AM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 408
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Not me and out of my reach I am afraid...

Talking about changes, I am glad you popped up! I am in the progress of updating, tweaking your Kharkov '43 scenario; NOW - I need your permission Joao to publish it here at some satge. Naturally I will mention your work etc.

Klink, Oberst


Go for it!

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 26
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/31/2012 12:26:54 PM   
Sekadegas

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

I meant attackers are + 400/600 stronger than defenders - or that is what shows as assault ratio on the attack planner.
I underline that these cases are often.


Ok, so it is the value from the Attack Planner. Then that's only odds of about 4:1 to 6:1, against a defender that is receiving a x8 defensive benefit. Hardly what I'd call "impossible odds".


Military history is full of accounts of small courageous units resisting against far larger opponents. However these situation aren't commum, they're rare and that's why they are so conspicous in history.

A small tired unsuported unit resisting beyond all expectations is OK and interesting in terms of combat system simulation's potential.

This situation happened - seldomly - before and there is no reason not to happen also under the new version.
But when a tired fortified infantry regiment resists 5 or 6 strongly supported fresh divisions on regular basis and all through the game, becoming the rule, then something is wrong; playability is lost and simulation is not longer possible.

When you find 4:1 to 6:1 reasonable odds, you're only refering to assault ratio which don't consider factors like unit's readiness/supply and arty support (most important assets on combat resolution as you know).

As you already guessed there is a problem with the new RFC adjustments and there is no use in hiding behind figures. A lot of players feel it and aren't enjoying the game as it is.

Your support has been very important to TOAW's community and the game improved a lot thanks to the efforts of the team you (unofficially) lead.

All i ask you is to accept the feedback from long time players, test it yourselves and, if possible, fix it quickly.




< Message edited by Sekadegas -- 1/31/2012 12:36:39 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 27
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/31/2012 2:46:48 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

But when a tired fortified infantry regiment resists 5 or 6 strongly supported fresh divisions on regular basis and all through the game, becoming the rule, then something is wrong; playability is lost and simulation is not longer possible.

When you find 4:1 to 6:1 reasonable odds, you're only refering to assault ratio which don't consider factors like unit's readiness/supply and arty support (most important assets on combat resolution as you know).


Please don't get upset by my questions - I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this. Nobody has submitted any concrete evidence so far. So I'm having to piece it together from what you've said up to this point. And, I'm sorry, but it hasn't all been clear. It still isn't:

If, say, a half-strength regiment defends against six full strength infantry divisions I would expect the combat odds to be around 36:1. Not 4:1 or 6:1. The unit's readiness and supply levels are included in the AR as well as the Attack Planner's predictions. Attacker artillery support is not included in the AR - but it is in the Attack Planner's predictions. Defender artillery support is never included in either.

So, if the AR is only 400, then I find it hard to believe that there were six full-strength divisions attacking only a weakened regiment. If the AR is taken at face value, the attack is actually at low odds when the defender's x8 defense factor is taken into account. It would actually be a 1:2 attack. Attacker artillery support will help kill defenders, but I'm not sure if it plays any part in RFCs. Regardless, the defender could have a lot of support too. And there are attacker choices that can affect success (e.g. loss tolerances).

quote:

As you already guessed there is a problem with the new RFC adjustments


Actually, I haven't reached that conclusion yet. That's what I'm trying to determine.

quote:

...and there is no use in hiding behind figures.


?? What else would we use to evaluate it?

quote:

A lot of players feel it and aren't enjoying the game as it is.


Clearly, it's going to require some getting used to if it was trivially easy to kick units out of excellent terrain and deployments before - and now it isn't. The question is: Is it realistic or not. That requires those figures.

quote:

All i ask you is to accept the feedback from long time players, test it yourselves and, if possible, fix it quickly.


I have run PO vs. PO trials using it. They seemed to work fine to me. However, I will test it further by hotseat. I'm right in the middle of a game right now - but, unfortunately, it's "Leipzig 1813" - no digging-in in that one. So it will take time.

And only Ralph can fix anything.

(in reply to Sekadegas)
Post #: 28
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/31/2012 5:44:21 PM   
Sekadegas

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

But when a tired fortified infantry regiment resists 5 or 6 strongly supported fresh divisions on regular basis and all through the game, becoming the rule, then something is wrong; playability is lost and simulation is not longer possible.

When you find 4:1 to 6:1 reasonable odds, you're only refering to assault ratio which don't consider factors like unit's readiness/supply and arty support (most important assets on combat resolution as you know).


Please don't get upset by my questions - I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this. Nobody has submitted any concrete evidence so far. So I'm having to piece it together from what you've said up to this point. And, I'm sorry, but it hasn't all been clear. It still isn't:

If, say, a half-strength regiment defends against six full strength infantry divisions I would expect the combat odds to be around 36:1. Not 4:1 or 6:1. The unit's readiness and supply levels are included in the AR as well as the Attack Planner's predictions. Attacker artillery support is not included in the AR - but it is in the Attack Planner's predictions. Defender artillery support is never included in either.

So, if the AR is only 400, then I find it hard to believe that there were six full-strength divisions attacking only a weakened regiment. If the AR is taken at face value, the attack is actually at low odds when the defender's x8 defense factor is taken into account. It would actually be a 1:2 attack. Attacker artillery support will help kill defenders, but I'm not sure if it plays any part in RFCs. Regardless, the defender could have a lot of support too. And there are attacker choices that can affect success (e.g. loss tolerances).

quote:

As you already guessed there is a problem with the new RFC adjustments


Actually, I haven't reached that conclusion yet. That's what I'm trying to determine.

quote:

...and there is no use in hiding behind figures.


?? What else would we use to evaluate it?

quote:

A lot of players feel it and aren't enjoying the game as it is.


Clearly, it's going to require some getting used to if it was trivially easy to kick units out of excellent terrain and deployments before - and now it isn't. The question is: Is it realistic or not. That requires those figures.

quote:

All i ask you is to accept the feedback from long time players, test it yourselves and, if possible, fix it quickly.


I have run PO vs. PO trials using it. They seemed to work fine to me. However, I will test it further by hotseat. I'm right in the middle of a game right now - but, unfortunately, it's "Leipzig 1813" - no digging-in in that one. So it will take time.

And only Ralph can fix anything.


My earlier posts were my sincere contribution to this project.

Unfortunately i can't be clear than i was. Obvious language barrier doesn't allow. Perhaps others can do it much better. However i believe i was clear enough to whom trully understands the game system. And i know you do.

In the cases i mentioned before combat resolution results aren't at all realistic and, in my oppinion, there aren't no figures that can demonstrate otherwise.



(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 29
RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 1/31/2012 9:40:40 PM   
Carolus Rex

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 8/15/2011
Status: offline
As I already stated in an earlier post (Defence strenght in 3.4 patch) I fully agree that someting "funny" has happend to the attack/ defence ratio in the game. Having since that played several scenarios agains Oberst Klink and all had to be aborted because the attacker just cant beat defending units on Ignore losses. We do have several cases that could be submitted if someone want to have a look, whats wrong "under the hood". Among others where several allied divisions cant beat a isolated It armd car coy (with 1% supply) for several turns.

(in reply to Sekadegas)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Changes. Your Thoughts. Page: [1] 2   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

0.141