Proficiency check fail

The sequel of the legendary wargame with a complete graphics and interface overhaul, major new gameplay and design features such as full naval combat modelling, improved supply handling, numerous increases to scenario parameters to better support large scenarios, and integrated PBEM++.
Post Reply
User avatar
devoncop
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:06 pm

Proficiency check fail

Post by devoncop »

Hi

Very quick question. In my game with Warspite he had a failed proficiency check (luckily for my hapless Italians). Why would this have happened? I had not attacked him heavily and troop quality would have been generally good.

Please don't refer to his specific problem as I don't want to gain unfair intel on his position....just an idea on why proficiency checks are failed.

Thanks all.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13053
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Proficiency check fail

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: devoncop

Hi

Very quick question. In my game with Warspite he had a failed proficiency check (luckily for my hapless Italians). Why would this have happened? I had not attacked him heavily and troop quality would have been generally good.

Please don't refer to his specific problem as I don't want to gain unfair intel on his position....just an idea on why proficiency checks are failed.

Thanks all.
See 14.2 in the manual.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4809
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Proficiency check fail

Post by Oberst_Klink »

ORIGINAL: devoncop

Hi

Very quick question. In my game with Warspite he had a failed proficiency check (luckily for my hapless Italians). Why would this have happened? I had not attacked him heavily and troop quality would have been generally good.

Please don't refer to his specific problem as I don't want to gain unfair intel on his position....just an idea on why proficiency checks are failed.

Thanks all.
Ian,

can have many reasons; just an example (from a TOAW III strategy guide):

After all combats have been resolved the side must pass a modified force proficiency check (which is the main use of the force proficiency stat). Failure results in the turn ending**. Hence one can generally depend on a high quality side (The Germans in World War II for example) getting more combat rounds then the side with a low force proficiency (The Russian in the early part of World War II for example;


The side with low force proficiency is much more vulnerable to the turn ending and therefore must be more careful in using this tactic as they may never get to the part where they launch the full blown attack. This basically means that the French in a 1940 scenario must often simply go for broke regarding important attacks while the Germans can use lots of small initial attacks and build toward the big later ones. Basically the French have to keep it simple while the Germans can be depended on to carry out complex attack plans.

I take it you're playing the Italians?

Klink, Oberst
[left]My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
User avatar
devoncop
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:06 pm

RE: Proficiency check fail

Post by devoncop »

Thanks Curtis and Oberst.

You are correct Oberst I am playing the Italians and the higher quality Commonwealth forces were the ones that failed the proficiency test which was what confused me. I will RTFM again but that has been helpful.

Thanks again

Ian
"I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"
Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4809
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Proficiency check fail

Post by Oberst_Klink »

ORIGINAL: devoncop

Thanks Curtis and Oberst.

You are correct Oberst I am playing the Italians and the higher quality Commonwealth forces were the ones that failed the proficiency test which was what confused me. I will RTFM again but that has been helpful.

Thanks again

Ian
That can happen if they press too hard or, in case you had the Macs dug-in and on ignore losses stance. That happened e.g in my Tutorial '45 as well... the elite 2nd Guards Tank Corps failed when the VG.Div.106 units followed the 'Until the last bullet' order of the obscure corporal in the bunker...

Image

Image

Klink, Oberst
[left]My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
User avatar
devoncop
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:06 pm

RE: Proficiency check fail

Post by devoncop »

Ah....as usual Oberst you have hit on the solution....a heroic "ignore losses" defence of Bardia was taking place by some poor cut off members of the 10th Army with only fitful support from the Regia Aeronautica.

It seems the surrounding Indian and Australian forces were as surprised by the success of the resistance as I was !!

Thanks
"I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"
Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4809
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Proficiency check fail

Post by Oberst_Klink »

ORIGINAL: devoncop

Ah....as usual Oberst you have hit on the solution....a heroic "ignore losses" defence of Bardia was taking place by some poor cut off members of the 10th Army with only fitful support from the Regia Aeronautica.

It seems the surrounding Indian and Australian forces were as surprised by the success of the resistance as I was !!

Thanks
Perhaps they were... but in my case (well, Polkovnik Klinkovski's case) somebody responsible for the failed Soviet attack got escorted to the rear... by some stern looking NKVD officers mind you...

Klink, Oberst
[left]My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
Post Reply

Return to “The Operational Art of War IV”