CFNA

[Michael T]

That just doesn't work.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

(except for the 19th, which arrives later than everything else).

It's hard to imagine any British or ANZAC unit having 30% proficiency- unless the personnel were directed straight to the ships from the recruiting office. 19th Brigade may have been formed later but its constituent battalions were the same vintage as the rest of the division.

Anyway, it may be some consolation to players that unit proficiency will in some circumstances trend towards force proficiency- though usually only if heavy losses are incurred.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

(except for the 19th, which arrives later than everything else).

It's hard to imagine any British or ANZAC unit having 30% proficiency- unless the personnel were directed straight to the ships from the recruiting office.

Well, you can take that up with Richard Berg. As I said, I used the ratings from the SPI game. I don't find it hard to imagine at all that they arrived largely untrained, especially for desert warfare.

19th Brigade may have been formed later but its constituent battalions were the same vintage as the rest of the division.

Right. The entire division arrives at the same, basically untrained, rating. Then trains up to as close to the max rating that they have time for. The 19th arrives late, so, if released at the same time as the others, will have completed the least training. Now, I wish TOAW had a "training" deployment. Then players could train them however long (or short) that they wished. But it doesn't. So I had to make those decisions for them in advance. And I figured they would want that unit at the same time as the rest of the division.

Anyway, it may be some consolation to players that unit proficiency will in some circumstances trend towards force proficiency- though usually only if heavy losses are incurred.

Probably not so much for the 6th Australian. It gets withdrawn shortly after O'Connor's Raid (which is another reason why its release needs to be fast tracked - it isn't around for long). But there are also boosts to proficiency from combat experience that can happen in a hurry.

[Oberst_Klink]

All info about whz and how are in Bob's analysis here -

http://toaw.free.fr/cfna/index.html

Klink, Oberst

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Well, you can take that up with Richard Berg. As I said, I used the ratings from the SPI game.

This is a bit like the Soviet copy of the B-29 that had superfluous holes in the air frame because of flak damage to the example they were working from.

Now, I wish TOAW had a "training" deployment.

One can set arriving units to reduced supply and readiness. The player then has the discretion to send them in now in a bad condition, or let them rest for a while first.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

This is a bit like the Soviet copy of the B-29 that had superfluous holes in the air frame because of flak damage to the example they were working from.

Hmmm. Richard Berg or Ben Turner? That's a tough one. But, for now, if the SPI game says they arrived in need of training, I'm going with it.

Seriously Ben, proficencies are entirely subjective. Nobody can "prove" anything one way or the other.

One can set arriving units to reduced supply and readiness. The player then has the discretion to send them in now in a bad condition, or let them rest for a while first.

That's not equivalent for a couple of reasons. The time required would likely be too short, for one. But worse is that high proficiency with low supply and readiness is not the same as low proficiency with high supply and readiness. Supply and readiness drop almost as soon as a unit is in action and most units in the front lines have low supply and readiness after a bit of fighting. But proficiency doesn't drop in that manner. So such units would artificially retain their strength even if thrown into action without training.

[mmarquo]

FWIW, I greatly admire the effort you put into CFNA; I can only relate to my experience with 30% CW units fighting Italians was way too challenging. If the Italians are too strong and the CW needs unit units prematurely for play balance, perhaps the other approach might been to lower the Italian capability but preserve the CW's. Seriously, from a historical perspective this may be a more effective solution to this balance issue.

Marquo

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

FWIW, I greatly admire the effort you put into CFNA; I can only relate to my experience with 30% CW units fighting Italians was way too challenging. If the Italians are too strong and the CW needs unit units prematurely for play balance, perhaps the other approach might been to lower the Italian capability but preserve the CW's. Seriously, from a historical perspective this may be a more effective solution to this balance issue.

There hadn't been any balance problem up to this point, but the trick your opponent pulled may be a new issue that I'll have to address. It's very hard to overcome the 20:20 hindsight the Axis player brings to this version of the campaign.

You might try the second scenario in the series - the one that starts with O'Connor's Raid. Not only does the 6th Australian Division start with better proficiency, but there is far less opportunity for 20:20 hindsight by the Axis player at that point.