Will one of you post a short summary of your game ? I'll be interested to see how this scenario holds up -- new supply, increased defense, other changes...

TIA

<t> Thanks for your work. I think the TOAW engine is better suited for 1950's hypothetical conflicts vs 1980's, so this should be interesting.<br/>
<br/>
Echoing what Lobster wrote, I think getting the OOB and TOE accurate is the first step, then after many, too many tests, and after adjusting ...

<t> As Lobster wrote, I also do not bother with ToolTips. I just look at unit attack/AT/defense; unit health; terrain and weather (I've finally come back to paying attention to weather conditions, especially when attacking).<br/>
<br/>
But following Meyer1's suggestions, I wonder if the AP value ...

<t> Sorry for the late response, but have you tried looking at the text file of the SitRep ? <br/>
<br/>
Of course, you need Sit Rep enabled as an option to do this. I _think_ the complete News Summary is included with the first lines in the Sit Rep. (The News shows in both the text and ...

<r> I have finished revising my scenario Operation Kutuzov 1943, covering the Red Army's offensive toward Orel and Bolkhov post-Citadel. Scenario is dense with units, but a small map - 5 km hex/1 day turns, 24-31 turns. Lots of Theater Options.<br/>
<br/>
This version was designed under TOAW 3.4.0 ...

<t> @Notaberliner,<br/>
<br/>
I hope Steve can help you untangle this. It is likely some small, foolish duplication of name or missing character that is causing the engine to default to the standard .eqp.<br/>
<br/>
FWIW, please keep working at your scenario. Most of us who've designed with a ...

<t> The supply rate is what is shown in the hex, if you toggle the Supply button to show the rate. As you stated, this rate depends upon the length of the supply route to a supply point or "pipeline" (rail, main road leading to suppply point).<br/>
<br/>
Digging in does use supply and readiness ...

<t> CZ,<br/>
<br/>
I do not know for sure about assault ratio and flanking advantage (Curtis probably knows exactly). I _think_ that assault ratio (what shows up in the Attack Planner) does not include the flanking advantage; I know it does not include the possible weight of supporting artillery ...

Parmenio !!

nice to 'see' you again.

And thanks for all the tools, Santa.

<t> @Lobster,<br/>
<br/>
You once did a great post on mapping, and ODD. With a list of how-to's and best practices. I cannot find the *&^% thing here to link. I did try holding my printed out copy to the screen, but that is not working as an attachment to this msg. either.<br/>
<br/>
Do you have ...

<t> I, too, am not familiar with AT, but the APs seem very familiar to me.<br/>
<br/>
In TOAW, Movement Points serve several functions - movement, of course, but they also work akin to APs. If a unit has 20 MP at the start of a turn and moves, using 6 MPs, then it has used up three-tenths (6/20 ...

<t> These may not be the hints you are looking for :<br/>
<br/>
1) Good old Kasserine ! My first win, after dozens of losses, too.<br/>
<br/>
2) Stick with short-medium size scenarios, and play the historical victor.<br/>
<br/>
3) Take a lot at Steve's You-tubes (SpzAbt653) -- they are in the ...

<r> governato asked :<QUOTE><s>[quote]</s> <br/>
<br/>
quote:<br/>
<br/>
ORIGINAL: Chicom Redneck<br/>
<br/>
I can't find my handbook but I was able to find the formula on one website (I am not allowed to post the link because I have less than 10 posts?)<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
19.2 Notes On ...

<t> Dammit ! I'm still busy working through the implications of your last good idea... (double checking the manual's example of AT vs armor, especially infantry-AT vs armor).<br/>
<br/>
As far as swapping eqp, I do not think so. You could do it manually, of course, simply loading the newer .eqp as ...

<r> <QUOTE><s>[quote]</s> quote:<br/>
<br/>
ORIGINAL: smiley69<br/>
<br/>
I'm running the latest, 3.1.4.9...<br/>
<br/>
So it's possibly a bug?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Hope it was just an 'aberration'.
<e>[/quote]</e></QUOTE>
<br/>
My guess is that this is, even with the 3.4.1.9 change ...

<t> On the question of the old scenarios under TOAW IV ...<br/>
<br/>
My two cents is that any scenario shipped with T4 be labelled, and that only scenarios tested under T4 be labelled as such.<br/>
<br/>
Examples: when Bob Cross' new Jutland scenario ships it can labelled<br/>
Designed under ...

<r> <QUOTE><s>[quote]</s> quote:<br/>
<br/>
ORIGINAL: governato<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
quote:<br/>
<br/>
ORIGINAL: Lobster<br/>
<br/>
A vehicle reliability setting is something that people have asked for before. I would wager the Second Coming will happen first.<br/>
<br/>
As for combat losses ...

<r> Thanks, Steve.<br/>
<br/>
That suggestion about F6/F7-ing the events is worth trying. Further research shows the problem occurs on turn 7 (and continues)... my guess is that is an event (or ghost of event) with a trigger going off about T7 - likely another event.<br/>
<br/>
You couldn't find ...

<r> I have some questions about the Expected Reinforcments screen that I found while play-testing Op. Kutuzov under 3.4.1.9. I have not seen this effect before in earlier play-tests, under versions 3.4.0.202 and under 3xBb. (See the screenshot below.)<br/>
<br/>
I'm putting the questions here ...

<t> When I started playing TOAW, I would have been in favor of the linked scenarios -- for example, playing Rob Kunz' Road series is great, but a linkage would make the player much more aware of the effect of losses/replacements/etc. You no longer can freely burn out units to grab a few last VPs ...