HQ Support Units

Norm Koger's The Operational Art of War III is the next game in the award-winning Operational Art of War game series. TOAW3 is updated and enhanced version of the TOAW: Century of Warfare game series. TOAW3 is a turn based game covering operational warfare from 1850-2015. Game scale is from 2.5km to 50km and half day to full week turns. TOAW3 scenarios have been designed by over 70 designers and included over 130 scenarios. TOAW3 comes complete with a full game editor.

Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky

Post Reply
User avatar
fbastos
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 11:05 pm

HQ Support Units

Post by fbastos »

Hey, I'm giving a shot in the "Barbarossa Tactical 4.1" scenario, from Piero Falotti, and I noticed that the 13th Panzer Div HQ only has 2 support units, per the screenshot below.

As such, I think that this formation is screwed for TOAW III, right? I mean, the formation has a formation supply proficiency of 100%, but because the HQ has 2 support units (and nothing more), its units will not be supplied, is that correct?

Also, the manual says:

"When you set the formation supply distribution efficiency for the formation (including use of the global change functions in the editor) the editor will automatically recalculate the proper number of support squads for all HQ units affected by the change."

so I reckon that I can go to the Editor and do a global change on all formations to have them at 100% supply proficiency... do you think that would fix that?

Regards!
F.


Image
Attachments
a.gif
a.gif (49.12 KiB) Viewed 178 times
I'm running out of jokes...

Image
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: HQ Support Units

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: fbastos

As such, I think that this formation is screwed for TOAW III, right? I mean, the formation has a formation supply proficiency of 100%, but because the HQ has 2 support units (and nothing more), its units will not be supplied, is that correct?

Well, they will only receive very little supply.

Took a look at the scenario. This problem does occur in several places, and the designer seems to have intended for formation supply levels to be 100% across the board. So your solution would be the best choice in this case.

I just wonder, if a scenario has this kind of major error (several key formations are affected) which has gone undetected, what other problems might be lurking elsewhere? Frankly, if you really must play Barbarossa at 10km/hex, I'd go for McBride's Drang Nach Osten.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
fbastos
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 11:05 pm

RE: HQ Support Units

Post by fbastos »

Yeah, several HQs are that way... perhaps this is on purpose, given that this scenario was designed for ACOW?

I kinda love this scenario, as it has a lot of good research put into it; for example, it is the only scenario that I noticed has the Nachtigall partisans, what is a measure of the level of detail that Falloti put into it. It definitely has some shortcomings, though, like the 2nd Panzer Div should be in the Balkans on Jun-1941 rather than in the soviet front.

But all for all I would love to see this scenario working well on TOAW III.

Appreciate you looking into this, Golden, thank you.

F.
I'm running out of jokes...

Image
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: HQ Support Units

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Yeah, several HQs are that way... perhaps this is on purpose, given that this scenario was designed for ACOW?

This feature works exactly the same way in COW. I doubt the scenario was deliberately designed this way, since the formations concerned are crippled by it.
I kinda love this scenario, as it has a lot of good research put into it; for example, it is the only scenario that I noticed has the Nachtigall partisans, what is a measure of the level of detail that Falloti put into it. It definitely has some shortcomings, though, like the 2nd Panzer Div should be in the Balkans on Jun-1941 rather than in the soviet front.

Take a look at these two cases. Which unit is more significant- and therefore more important to get right? As I said, if you want to play Barbarossa at 10km/hex, Drang Nach Osten is probably your best bet.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:17 pm

RE: HQ Support Units

Post by Pocus »

What is the bigger eastern front scenario playable against the PO? 
AGEOD Team
User avatar
larryfulkerson
Posts: 42573
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:06 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ,usa,sol, milkyway
Contact:

RE: HQ Support Units

Post by larryfulkerson »

ORIGINAL: Pocus
What is the bigger eastern front scenario playable against the PO? 

There is the classic scenario Barbarosa '41. Is that the one you're thinking of?
We've all heard how computers can beat humans at anything computational but I've yet to meet a computer that can beat me at kick boxing.
User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:17 pm

RE: HQ Support Units

Post by Pocus »

Mmmh, no chances to have a scenario which can be played alone during the whole war I suppose?


AGEOD Team
Menschenfresser
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: United States

RE: HQ Support Units

Post by Menschenfresser »

If any one's feeling spunky, they could add objectives to FitE and play as the Soviets. Then you'd have what you want.
 
It probably wouldn't be much of a challenge for anyone but a total noob...and given the size of the scenario, by the time winter fell, you, like your comrads, would no longer be noobs.
Make wargames, not war.
Post Reply

Return to “Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III”