Matrix Games Forums

So um.......Hey you guys...I like to set my LCU's to a three-dot stance when I park them for the rest of the turn ( dug in if possible ). Anybody else do that? My theory is that any enemy attacks will tend to take more rounds to conclude and the long range tendency is to burn the enemy's turn faster than it would ordinarily take. He gets maybe three rounds instead of the usual 7+. That's my theory. Anybody concur?

My feeling is that units are more likely to take losses breaking off from combat than from staying in position. This isn't true 100% of the time- but it's true a lot of the time.

If you want to hold the line, ignore losses. If you don't want to hold the line, pull back on your own turn. The last thing you want is the unit retreating in some uncertain direction at a time of your opponent's choosing. Even if you're retreating, it's a good idea to do so in a cohesive formation and not let your opponent pick it apart on his turn. I only put units on minimise losses if they're isolated in some exposed position and I really want them to get out of there as soon as possible. Typically this will be units which are reorganising when everyone else retreats, but aren't out of contact with the rest of the force so could still make it back to my lines. Obviously if something's exposed forward and will just be cut off, again you want ignore losses on the assumption that there'll be nowhere to retreat to.

golden delicious wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 7:32 pm My feeling is that units are more likely to take losses breaking off from combat than from staying in position. This isn't true 100% of the time- but it's true a lot of the time.

If you want to hold the line, ignore losses. If you don't want to hold the line, pull back on your own turn. The last thing you want is the unit retreating in some uncertain direction at a time of your opponent's choosing. Even if you're retreating, it's a good idea to do so in a cohesive formation and not let your opponent pick it apart on his turn. I only put units on minimise losses if they're isolated in some exposed position and I really want them to get out of there as soon as possible. Typically this will be units which are reorganising when everyone else retreats, but aren't out of contact with the rest of the force so could still make it back to my lines. Obviously if something's exposed forward and will just be cut off, again you want ignore losses on the assumption that there'll be nowhere to retreat to.

I concur with all you've said. However, none of that answers my question, although it's excellent analytic thought. I was asking about when you're parking your units after moving them. I always try to allow at least 1 MP left when moving the unit so that I can park it dug in. And then setting it to three dots, in an ordinary front line setting, will hopefully tend to burn the enemy's turn with a chance of every attack taking longer than it ordinarily might with my units at two-dots. Every little bit helps when pushing for the touchdown. Like in the image I posted above, most of my units are parked with a three dot setting so that anywhere and everywhere I'm attacked every target unit is doing it's part in burning the enemy's turn duration. The less combat rounds the enemy has the better for my side. I try to milk all my rounds to get as many as possible. My best efforts frequently produce 9 rounds or so. Unless most of my efforts are just moving the mass of units forward with no chance of a contact.

TIP: reposition your aircraft to produce the best CAP coverage possible BEFORE you move the moving unit. Same goes for ships moving on the water. I learned this the hard way. At any rate, thank you very much for your ideas. I applaud your efforts to help the rest of us and I. The rest of us and me? You know where I'm going with that.

popejohnpaul wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 1:44 am
I concur with all you've said. However, none of that answers my question, although it's excellent analytic thought. I was asking about when you're parking your units after moving them. I always try to allow at least 1 MP left when moving the unit so that I can park it dug in. And then setting it to three dots, in an ordinary front line setting, will hopefully tend to burn the enemy's turn with a chance of every attack taking longer than it ordinarily might with my units at two-dots.

My understanding is that in the defense the defender’s setting only impacts his unit’s loss tolerance. The number of rounds burned during the opponent’s attack is dependent on their loss setting and unit proficiency. This assumes of course that the Max Rounds per Battle has not been set by the scenario designer.

Regards

But a defending unit with ignore losses isn't going to retreat as easily causing the attacker to burn more rounds depending on the attackers settings. Seems to me it's a combination of both players loss tolerance having an effect on how many rounds are used.

popejohnpaul wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 1:44 am I concur with all you've said. However, none of that answers my question, although it's excellent analytic thought. I was asking about when you're parking your units after moving them. I always try to allow at least 1 MP left when moving the unit so that I can park it dug in.

It depends on the situation. Sometimes units are absolutely not going to get attacked, then you can use that last 1 MP. Note, though, that units with 1 MP aren't guaranteed to get a "D".

So um.......Hey you guys...I like to set my LCU's to a three-dot stance when I park them for the rest of the turn ( dug in if possible ). Anybody else do that? My theory is that any enemy attacks will tend to take more rounds to conclude and the long range tendency is to burn the enemy's turn faster than it would ordinarily take. He gets maybe three rounds instead of the usual 7+. That's my theory. Anybody concur?

I have the exact same doubt. It seems like the best thing to do at the end of your turn with units with MP left is using them to dig in and put the 3-dot on them. But I am quite doubtful about the "digging in" thing.

Imagine you have a unit with 3MP left. You dig in. But digging in will consume supplies from that unit, right? So...is it worthing digging in with your unit's remaining MP? What if after that order, your unit doesn't get the "D" fortification level, or if it barely fortificates itself? You are wasting supplies in vain..no? Moreover if on enemy's turn, that unit is not attacked.

The same way if you have a fresh unit with all its MP. If you order digging in to that unit, you will prevent that unit to receive the supplies needed (according to the formula, if a unit doesn't move in its turn, it will receive a bunch more supplies). Again, if that units is not the objective of an enemy attack on the enemy's turn...does it worth it?

How to know?

digging in will consume supplies from that unit

Falsehood! Not true!! lol.

One should always attempt to deploy from 'Movement' to 'Defence', as a 'Moving' unit will suffer 2X losses.

Just one opinion. Those scenarios that alter the ability to 'dig-in' possibly affect combat odds unintentionally.

sPzAbt653 wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 7:08 pm Just one opinion. Those scenarios that alter the ability to 'dig-in' possibly affect combat odds unintentionally.

Are you referring to Deployment > Engineering Build Rate?

Regards

Entrenchment Rates

sPzAbt653 wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 7:08 pm

digging in will consume supplies from that unit

Falsehood! Not true!! lol.

How is that possible?
In the manual, in the section 9.1.7.5 it says: “Defending consumes 10 supply points per combat rounds”

What is “defending” refering to here?
1-To the act of defending against an enemy unit in the enemy turn when the enemy attacks a unit of yours.

2-To the act of “digging in” in order to get the defending status of Defending(D), Entrenched(E), Fortified(F).

Thank you a lot in advance!

How is that possible?

'Defending' is not 'Digging In'

Please clarify;

"Defend" is a Formation General Order
"Dig In" is a Deployment option

If you are NOT using the PO to help you move any units does the General Order still influence how they act in combat in addition to the Losses Order?

If I'm on the strategic defensive I try to "Deploy: Dig In" for anyone near the front - because isn't it worse to be caught as Deploy:Mobile - particularly with an enemy more mobile than yours? Is that what you mean by;

sPzAbt653 wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 7:08 pm One should always attempt to deploy from 'Movement' to 'Defence', as a 'Moving' unit will suffer 2X losses.

And yes - all my infantry gets a D and three-dots. In the scenarios I play I very rarely use two-dots. One-dot is selected by me on things like Soviet Cavalry operating in the line with no friendly units in their ZOC, or, when I do not want a unit to advance into a hex during combat - and even that doesn't always work.

How is that possible?

'Defending' is not 'Digging In'
[/quote]

Thank you a lot for your response!
However...does that have any sense in terms of real war?
Digging-in, fortifications and building defensive positions actually do cost effort and time to units in the real battlefield.

Why then doing it on TOAW IV is free? Why does it not cost supplies or any effort?

voroshilov17 wrote: Mon Apr 10, 2023 5:43 pm

How is that possible?

'Defending' is not 'Digging In'

Thank you a lot for your response!
However...does that have any sense in terms of real war?
Digging-in, fortifications and building defensive positions actually do cost effort and time to units in the real battlefield.

Why then doing it on TOAW IV is free? Why does it not cost supplies or any effort?
[/quote]

Movement points do equal time. That's why you use up your movement points when you try to dig in from any other deployment. And the fewer movement points you have the less likely it is you will be successful going from say mobile to D (dug in). Because you have less time to get it done with the time you have left. It's an effort that spends movement points. You can think of movement points as time points if you want.

Cpl GAC wrote: Mon Apr 10, 2023 5:20 pm
If you are NOT using the PO to help you move any units does the General Order still influence how they act in combat in addition to the Losses Order?

Formation orders are primarily designed for use in fine-tuning the programmed opponent. Except for the Static and Delay orders, they have no effect on a human player. Formation Orders are used to define the behavior of the Formation when it is under computer control.

Digging-in, fortifications and building defensive positions actually do cost effort and time to units in the real battlefield.
Why then doing it on TOAW IV is free? Why does it not cost supplies or any effort?

We all know what 'Digging-in', 'Entrenched' and 'Fortified' mean to us, but theses terms may not be so specific in TOAW. These terms respectfully pertain to individual units as 'being in a non-mobile posture' [perhaps laying prone or taking cover as opposed to standing in the open], being in a foxhole, and being in a reinforced trench. These are my terms, you may have your own that help you keep things clear in your mind. Either way, digging a foxhole with a shovel or cutting some wood with an axe does not cost a unit any beans or bullets.

... isn't it worse to be caught as Deploy:Mobile ?

I would say it is worse to suffer 2X casualties, yes