Combined Arms

[LewFisher]

Is there a combined ams effect in TOW lll? A scenario I am playing mentions it, but I can't find it in the rules. [&:]

[Chuck2]

It's basically up to the player to use his infantry, artillery, armor, and aircraft to achieve the "combined arms" effect. Players need to learn the assets and liabilities of the different types of equipment to use them properly.

[LewFisher]

Oh, sure, I understand that, but there is no specific combined arms rule?

[JAMiAM]

No, as there is no "magic formula" in real life, either.

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

No, as there is no "magic formula" in real life, either.

Dang, there goes my magic formula project.[:(]

[LewFisher]

It wasn't a stupid question. Many games gives a bonus if you attack pure armour with armour and infantry.
BTY, I got the idea from 13.6 - the scenario guide for Plan Martin by Daniel Mc Bride. He says "this avoids the "ant factor" for the most part, and gives some scope for "combined arms" benefits for intact regiments or brigades, and for overuns in particular." This statement lead me to believe there was a combined arms rule?[X(]

[larryfulkerson]

As part of my combined arms program I propose that we put artillery on board aircraft.  Oh wait, somebody's already done that.  Here's a 105 howitzer firing from an AC-130:
 

[larryfulkerson]

Imagine how much different WWII would have been if B-17 gunners had had miniguns:
 

[Industrial]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Imagine how much different WWII would have been if B-17 gunners had had miniguns:

By that time the germans would have probably perfected their Wasserfall AntiAir Missile and would just shoot down your minigun equipped B-17's from the safety of their bunkers, while having a beer and eating their Sauerkraut [:D]

[siRkid]

ORIGINAL: LewFisher

It wasn't a stupid question. Many games gives a bonus if you attack pure armour with armour and infantry.
BTY, I got the idea from 13.6 - the scenario guide for Plan Martin by Daniel Mc Bride. He says "this avoids the "ant factor" for the most part, and gives some scope for "combined arms" benefits for intact regiments or brigades, and for overuns in particular." This statement lead me to believe there was a combined arms rule?[X(]

I thought it was a very valid question.

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: Kid

ORIGINAL: LewFisher

It wasn't a stupid question. Many games gives a bonus if you attack pure armour with armour and infantry.
BTY, I got the idea from 13.6 - the scenario guide for Plan Martin by Daniel Mc Bride. He says "this avoids the "ant factor" for the most part, and gives some scope for "combined arms" benefits for intact regiments or brigades, and for overuns in particular." This statement lead me to believe there was a combined arms rule?[X(]

I thought it was a very valid question.

It's a good question. I'm not sure how this is handled except through the infantry having AT weapons. The combat routines are very complex though and there may be some benefit applied there. I do know that attacking with passive equipment against armor is a bad idea unless active equipment is used to support the attack.

[hank]

... very valid ? imho
 
One thing I had to get used to with TOAW was that most units are "combined arms" units with mixes of rifle squads; AT; arty; transport; etc ... of course depending on the scenario ... in fact its very sce specific.  When you play the divisional level sce's like Barbarossa, they have all kinds of combined arms units.  ... and on the other end of the spectrum, battles that are broken into company level units may be more "pure" in their weaponry (i.e., a tank battalion may be all tanks with a few pieces of support equipment.
 
I have to look at a bunch of units for each sce I play to see how "combined arms' the units are. 
 
HQ's are another good example of a "combined unit" since they are support units but also have arty with engineers with rifle squads with etc etc ...  in some sce's. 
 
I'm still trying to figure it all out.  But this question could be discussed much more.  Good ? I thought.
 
Plus I'm not sure I understand yet if there is a combined arms advantage to the attacker.  ??
 
hank

[TOCarroll]

There is not a specific combined arms rule, but by attacking or defending with an appropriate mixture of armour, artiller, infantry, engineers, HQ, ect, you get the bet of an optimal attack (or defense). The units are in command control (supply/HQ), AP attack against armour, HE against soft targets, engineers & rivers, ect. I've beat myself do death enough times in Russia and North Africa to know not to hit AT troops with pure armour, bombard fortifications before attacking, value of air support. I think (A] IT WAS A VERY VALAD QUESTION and B] The game simulates combinmed arms (both internal to the units, and by unit type {actually unit attack/defense factors and special abilities} very well without a special rule.

[JAMiAM]

Nobody ever said that the question wasn't "valid" or called it "stupid". The question was essentially answered by Chuck in the first reply. It is up to the players to achieve the benefits of "combined arms" based on the tactical task at hand, by setting the appropriately equipped units to attack a particular defensive position. Or, to set up their defenses, such that various attacking force compositions are adequately countered. That is combined arms.

My comment was that there is no magic formula in real-life, and likewise, none in the game. So, there are no [If A+I+T, then attack*x] artificial boosts to represent a "combined arms effect".

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Nobody ever said that the question wasn't "valid" or called it "stupid".

Actually your reply did contain distinctly sarcastic flavor which could easily be misinterpreted.

Regards, RhinoBones

[JoeRockhead]

There goes that darn "non-emotional" internet communication style again. Always gets people in trouble. [;)]

[TOCarroll]

I didn't think you were sarcastic, just telling a (fairly) noob that it was a fair question, and paraphrasing some of the other answers. It's really more like a penalty for not using combined arms, as the PO & other humans will.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Actually your reply did contain distinctly sarcastic flavor which could easily be misinterpreted.

Next time I'll use less paprika, so that the flavor isn't so distinct...[;)]

[rhinobones]

Oh no! Keep the paprika . . . can't make a proper dish of goulash without good Hungarian paprika.

Regards, RhinoBones

[MikeC_81]

Does anyone have some information on how shots are calculated and how each piece of equipement decides what it is going to shoot at?
 
For example if there is a fairly pure tank unit in front of me I want to attack.  Can I send in my infantry along with my armor so that the infantry soak up some of the shots from the tanks?  Or do the tanks know to shoot my tanks and the only way I am going to minimize losses is to move more tanks in so that my tanks take out their tanks faster before they can shoot me up as much?
 
The system is much different from Toaw 1.  For example I find WWII tanks nearly impervious to infantry now and I can often send them in backed by lots of artillery and slaughter infantry without AT even if I don't have grunts to back up the tanks.