Question for Japlance

[shunwick]

JapLance,

Do you still have your collection of TOAW I scenarios that you converted to TOAW III?

Best wishes,
Steve

[JapLance]

I think so, they must be somewhere [:'(].

Give me some time and I'll try to upload them somewhere.

[shunwick]

JapLance,

Have you thought of uploading them to the Gamesquad site? It might be a good home for them.

Best wishes
Steve

[JapLance]

Back then, when I converted most of them, I wanted to send them to Rugged Defense as a pack, but the webmaster didn't like the idea. That's why in the end I just uploaded them to Megaupload and published a link.

Just as MU is now off, I put them again in another server:

http://www.4shared.com/rar/m5aMyFeL/Con ... _III_.html

http://www.4shared.com/rar/3EKYkKNX/Con ... _III_.html

As I said before, I didn't fix any errors that may have happened during conversion. They were only opened with CoW editor and resaved. No other changes were made.

And also, I'm not the author of any of them. I kept any document I found in the original zip files. If anybody wanted to modified them and make them available to the public, he should try to contact the creator first.



If you consider it is OK to upload them to any TOAW website, feel free to do it. No problems on my side.

[Oberst_Klink]

@Steve,

remember to review the AD and MRPB as well as some of the supply settings; otherwise you will be in for an interesting surprise, especially when playing them PBEM. I can review them and adjust them, if you like. Doing a few scenario updates anyway, because the pre-3.4 scenarios didn't take the MRPB and AD effects into account.

Klink, Oberst

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: JapLance

Back then, when I converted most of them, I wanted to send them to Rugged Defense as a pack, but the webmaster didn't like the idea. That's why in the end I just uploaded them to Megaupload and published a link.

Just as MU is now off, I put them again in another server:

http://www.4shared.com/rar/m5aMyFeL/Con ... _III_.html

http://www.4shared.com/rar/3EKYkKNX/Con ... _III_.html

As I said before, I didn't fix any errors that may have happened during conversion. They were only opened with CoW editor and resaved. No other changes were made.

And also, I'm not the author of any of them. I kept any document I found in the original zip files. If anybody wanted to modified them and make them available to the public, he should try to contact the creator first.



If you consider it is OK to upload them to any TOAW website, feel free to do it. No problems on my side.

JapLance,

Thanks for that. This will save me a lot of work. Funnily enough, I was reading through some of threads on Rugged Defense when I came across your posts. The reaction there was a bit lukewarm. I came straight from there and happened to notice that you were on-line here which prompted my question. Serendipity I think or some kind of dippity anyway. [:)]

Thanks again.

Best wishes,
Steve

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

@Steve,

remember to review the AD and MRPB as well as some of the supply settings; otherwise you will be in for an interesting surprise, especially when playing them PBEM. I can review them and adjust them, if you like. Doing a few scenario updates anyway, because the pre-3.4 scenarios didn't take the MRPB and AD effects into account.

Klink, Oberst

Herr Oberst,

Yes, I am aware of the problems. What concerns me most is balance. 3.4 improvements and bug fixes combined to make the defence much stronger. Not a bad thing in itself but upsets the balance of pre-3.4 scenarios (some quite badly).

This is connected to the TOAW III Scenario Catalogue housed over at Gamesquad which itself is part of a legacy project.

I have been working on the scenarios in the Classics folder with the intention of bringing them up to 3.4+ standard and I would like to do something similar with the TOAW 1, TOAW II, and WOTY scenarios as well. How many decades this will take me is something else again. [:)]

First thing is just to get them catalogued and converted to TOAW III so that they are at least available to everyone.

Chasing down errant scenarios as well. Rugged Defense is brilliant but some designers are remarkably shy when it comes to publishing their creations. Fall Grau by Jeremy Mac Donald is an example. As long as you know a friend of a friend whose sister once dated the kid who lived next door to the designer's granny... It can be very difficult to get hold of some scenarios.

Happy to enlist all the help I can get. If you would like to work on some of these please be my guest. Let me know which ones you are doing so I am not duplicating the effort.

Best wishes,
Steve

[will5869]

When I download the files they are in .rar format, how do you save them as .sce?

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: will5869

When I download the files they are in .rar format, how do you save them as .sce?

RAR is a file compression method like ZIP... You can use a free program like winrar or 7Zip to unpack the scenarios

[Oberst_Klink]

Steve,

I am more than happy to sign-on and assist you with the task. As you know, I currently, with the permission of Joao Lima, modifying Kharkov '43 up to date and tested LSiA with adjusted AD and MRPB settings; works like a cahrm. If a defender uses 'ignore losses' all the time, the units literally will fight until death. So, no more single Italian Btl who can stall a 2x Div+ assault for more than 2-3 weeks!

Klink, Oberst

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

(...) tested LSiA with adjusted AD and MRPB settings; works like a cahrm. If a defender uses 'ignore losses' all the time, the units literally will fight until death. So, no more single Italian Btl who can stall a 2x Div+ assault for more than 2-3 weeks!

Klink, Oberst

I'm interested in knowing more. Can you be more detailed?

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

(...) tested LSiA with adjusted AD and MRPB settings; works like a cahrm. If a defender uses 'ignore losses' all the time, the units literally will fight until death. So, no more single Italian Btl who can stall a 2x Div+ assault for more than 2-3 weeks!

Klink, Oberst

I'm interested in knowing more. Can you be more detailed?

Well, the 'ignore losses' effect is simply negated by the fact that you have more battle rounds. I adjusted LSiA to a AD of 9 (as a guideline full-day/turn AD = 14, half-week/turn AD = 4); to refelct the nature of the combat in Tunisia. MRPB set to 3. If you set your defenders to 'ignore losses' they hold out; but when they are constantly attached in one turn, even with minimize-losses attacker settings, they birn supplies, they get disorganized at some stage; so, yeah... the boys will get overrun and removed.

Klink, Oberst

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

(...) tested LSiA with adjusted AD and MRPB settings; works like a cahrm. If a defender uses 'ignore losses' all the time, the units literally will fight until death. So, no more single Italian Btl who can stall a 2x Div+ assault for more than 2-3 weeks!

Klink, Oberst

I'm interested in knowing more. Can you be more detailed?

Well, the 'ignore losses' effect is simply negated by the fact that you have more battle rounds. I adjusted LSiA to a AD of 9 (as a guideline full-day/turn AD = 14, half-week/turn AD = 4); to refelct the nature of the combat in Tunisia. MRPB set to 3. If you set your defenders to 'ignore losses' they hold out; but when they are constantly attached in one turn, even with minimize-losses attacker settings, they birn supplies, they get disorganized at some stage; so, yeah... the boys will get overrun and removed.

Klink, Oberst

Thanks for reply. However still have some doubts...

1) I don't consider the "ignore losses" effect as a problem. The rationale behind this consideration is:
- When you face a "ignore losses" defender on defend status (or even entreched) your attack forces can make it retreat if, of course, your attacking forces and fire support are clearly adequate for the job (in strenght and equipment quality).
- When you face an "ignore losses" defender on fortified status your attack can't make it retreat even if your attacking forces and fire support are clearly adequate for the job (in strenght and equipment quality).

2) MRPB is usefull but not essential. As a general rule i can get 4 or 5 rounds out of a "normal" turn without MRPB. As you know this is possible by optimal attack micro-management (timing and attacker losses settings). The question is: i agree you can cause the tiny fortified defender a lot of losses (even dramatic losses) but in the end of "endless" attacks the defender will remain on the spot and your best chance is to try next turn hoping RBC will work. Most of the times if the "red" and weak defender is still on fortified status RBC will not work...

3) I never tested changing the AD. In theory it makes sense and might turn things a bit more realistic. But AD have effects for both sides. The defender might suffer more (eventually making it retreat) but the attacker will suffer higher losses also.
Am i right?

[Oberst_Klink]

Joao,

the best way to check it is... to test it The AD value, as well as the MRPB effects both sides, but look... now it makes sense to use 'minimum losses' while attacking as well. I am still conducting a few tests and believe me, if you use ignore losses too often or continuously, you might lose *like Rob 'Der Schwede', a full German Pz.Abt. with 80 Panzers; and units ain't reconstitute at LSiA )

We will see how the bloke is going to fare with the adjusted AD and MRPB for the 'Home before the leaves fall' scenario; 80% of the pre-3.4 scenarios need the AD and MRPB revised; it really makes a difference.

Naturally I'd be pleased if they are implementing a malus for using this stance, A/D e.g. NO 'ignore losses' or a penalty for using it when you have no supplies or a certain readiness value.

Klink, Oberst

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

as the MRPB effects both sides

True, but only reflects on avoiding turn burn. So it only directly effects the attacker.

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
now it makes sense to use 'minimum losses' while attacking as well

Not only now but always made sense using "minimum losses" on attack - combined with "ignore losses" at different timings (rounds) of the turn - that's what i called optimal attack micro-management.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

the best way to check it is... to test it

I'll do so. Thanks for the tip

[shunwick]

Guys,

I rarely used Ignore Losses so it has only been the two or three weeks since this issue was first raised that I have started playing the defensive side with the Fortified/Ignore Losses combination. So please keep that in mind.

I have to say that I am not seeing units that will not retreat and not seeing units that will fight to the last man either. Pretty much all my Fortified/Ignore Losses defenders got shifted. They are certainly tougher and the cumulative effect of stronger defence since 3.4 has altered the balance of all pre-3.4 scenarios in favour of the defence. This is more pronounced in some scenarios than others. It leads me to suspect (and I am only speculating here because I have not done any rigorous testing) that the problem is with the scenario rather than 3.4 (that is if you accept the changes to 3.4 as valid).

The only scenario I have come across which exhibits the Fortified/Ignore Losses problem is Attu Island 43.

The problem here is that all my sources say that there were roughly 2,500 Japanese on Attu but if you count the number of SMG and Rifle Squads in the scenario, the Japanese have twice the number of troops that they should have. And that is not counting all the troops manning machine guns, mortars, artillery etc. I suspect the Japanese are close to being three times stronger in the scenario than they were in real life.

And Fortified/Ignore Losses certianly works on Attu for the Japanese. Even on Computer+2, the Japanese are so strong that in the entire scenario the American AI launched just eight assaults with two of them succesfully retreating the defenders. Everything else was bombardment.

I suspect the designer deliberately made the Japanese defenders three times more numerous than they actually were because during playtesting he discovered that using the actual strength of the Japanese meant that the Americans could shift them too easily. 3.4 would seem to correct that.

This, of course, proves nothing. But I am yet to see one weak battalion holding off two or three divisions for weeks on end. I do not doubt for one moment that you guys have.

What is clear is that it was sometimes much too easy to get to Fortified. Variable entrenchment rates are well worth exploring.

I don't know if this post helps or hinders the discussion.

Best wishes,
Steve

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: JapLance

Back then, when I converted most of them, I wanted to send them to Rugged Defense as a pack, but the webmaster didn't like the idea. That's why in the end I just uploaded them to Megaupload and published a link.

Just as MU is now off, I put them again in another server:

http://www.4shared.com/rar/m5aMyFeL/Con ... _III_.html

http://www.4shared.com/rar/3EKYkKNX/Con ... _III_.html

I could host them on my blog if you want. Drop me a mail: cariundel at yahoo de.

[ogar]

Shunwick and JapLance --

Thanks very much for collecting, updating, and "publishing-as is" these scenarios. I know JapLance has been terrific at answering requests to update an old TOAW I scenario to T III, but it's so much easier to have all these in one place.
And much credit to Shunwick for his efforts at gathering these, and at his "libary of congress" project.

I stumbled on these scenarios by happenchance, but if other folks want to check this out -- the scenarios are stored over on Gamesquad in the downloads section. You will have to register.

This link
http://forums.gamesquad.com/downloads.p ... =cat&id=16
takes you there - if you've logged in.

Just click on the Scenarios sub-section to find all the Legacy Project work.