Early turn ends

[hank]

The bottom line is:   Will this bug be put up at the top of priority list for a fix?
 
IMHO its a big bug. 
 
... along with my peeve, the inaccurate prediction at the bottom of the attack planning window and the (recently mentioned) inaccuracy of the turn usage % blocks at the top of the attack planning window.
 
 

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: hank

The bottom line is:   Will this bug be put up at the top of priority list for a fix?

I believe so.

... along with my peeve, the inaccurate prediction at the bottom of the attack planning window and the (recently mentioned) inaccuracy of the turn usage % blocks at the top of the attack planning window.

a) is a shame but really the player needs to get to grips with figuring out combat odds anyway, since very often this information won't be availabe.
b) is not inaccurate. It just gives different information from what you thought it gave.

[hank]

Hmm ... what to say ...
 
... I suppose 1st, if something is displayed in a game that indicates a prediction of results in an attack it should be accurate and/or display a disclaimer saying its not reliable
... Regarding calculating odds; to calc odds in toaw you have to not only add up your attack / defense numbers then make "correction" (not meaning fixing errors but factoring in terrain / entranchment / armor-infy factor / artillery / proficiency / etc etc) ... to the ratio of attack vs defense.  ... am I right here?  for each attack you need a pad of paper and do some fairly simple yet time consuming math to determine if an attack has a good or bad chance of success.  For most new players this is somewhat daunting IMHO.  Plus, isn't there a factor of random chance added in?
 
... Please correct me if I'm wrong in the above statements  (as I was typing this I jumped over to the manual and it doesn't go too deep into how all this works ... mostly a rough overview and a simple example)
... the attack planning window should do that for you yet when I make a comment that if that prediction is not reliable and it needs fixed; I get a reply that I basically need to get a grip on odds of success or failure ... I guess I don't see the reluctance to accept that if this is not a reliable prediction it needs fixed.  ... and you're right I do need to get a better grip on calc'ing odds
 
If I need to spend over two or more hours to make it through one turn the game's not for me (and especially if I play pbem where I don't want to make incremental saves to prevent opponents from thinking I'm cheating).  Even in a more simple game line SSG's BiN or BiI, they've included a combat advisor to help determine the success or failure of an attack to help the player (and its not perfect either).
 
IS there some secret way to help those who are not long time toaw players to get a better handle on calculating success of an attack WITHOUT using the attack planning window?
 
please advise
 
Hank

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: hank

Hmm ... what to say ...

... I suppose 1st, if something is displayed in a game that indicates a prediction of results in an attack it should be accurate and/or display a disclaimer saying its not reliable

It should probably be taken out, yeah.

... Regarding calculating odds; to calc odds in toaw you have to not only add up your attack / defense numbers then make "correction" (not meaning fixing errors but factoring in terrain / entranchment / armor-infy factor / artillery / proficiency / etc etc) ... to the ratio of attack vs defense.  ... am I right here?

No. No arithmetic should be envolved. It's about gut feeling. You've played other wargames? Then you should have an idea of what will work and what won't. This will be refined over time as you play TOAW. As I've said, Rommel didn't have an "attack planning advisor" and nor should you.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

As I've said, Rommel didn't have an "attack planning advisor" and nor should you.

Definitely! IMO, the whole issue should be seen as a feature of the game.

My two cents.

[hank]

OK, is the general rule for odds of winning an assault 3:1 as in most games I've played ?

Then what do I do to factor in terrain?  ... proficiency?  ... anti-armor?  ... shock?  ... quality of attacking/defending units?  ... entrenchment?  ... is there anything else I need to consider? 

(do i have to look at the text in the bottom of the screen and other screens or boxes to get all the info I need to calc (in my head) odds of success or failure?)

This is not a smartass question its a sincere attempt at finding out how to calculate my odds of winning or losing an attack without using the attack planning dialog box.

If I simply add up the attack/defense values on the map counters, Is that good enough?

based on the replies, this game definitely has a huge upward learning curve.  No aids to the newbie obviously that can be trusted.

hank

ps-I'm going to start practicing using nothing to calc success of an attack ... I'll keep you informed as to my progress

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Mantis

ORIGINAL: General Staff

Are you sure about this? I believe Mantis at SZO holds the world record for number of rounds in a turn- certainly over 10- though I'm not sure what that is. I'll see if I can locate him for confirmation.

As I recall his total was 27.

The bug was first reported here;
http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1153165723

It was discussed on WHQ here;
http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forum ... hp?t=42949

Jarek quotes JAMiAM on the second page acknowledging that this is a bug.

It was 28 rounds, and it was in Europe Aflame (what else?) I was under the impression that it was due to shock as well, but James said he was able to replicate it in Arracourt, so I really have no idea. And I still have to wonder if shock plays a part in this caluclation (wherever it is made), as non-round-bruning combats are quite common in EA when you aren't having a monster turn.
[/quote]


..depending how you define rounds, it is possible to have min loss/not moved artillery shoots go on for ever, (at least until you lose your nerve)as a recent turn in Rommel in NA showed me..the 10% expected turn use just didn't happen until i added aircraft..

..a one off so far but it happens

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

If you set up an attack in the Plan Attack with Min Loss and it says 10%, it seems to me that if you set up the exact same attack with Lim Loss it will ALSO say 10%, but maybe in fact it CAN take longer, depending on how much resistance is met? i.e., if additional rounds are needed then they will be burned up, thus burning up more of the turn.

Any loss setting can produce a turn-burning attack and any loss setting can produce an attack which last just one round. There are other factors involved.

..such as any units on combat support, aircraft / ranged artillery, which are not counted in the attack planner in the time-used calc but do extend the combat phase if on a higher setting than the involved ground units

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: hank

OK, is the general rule for odds of winning an assault 3:1 as in most games I've played ?

It varies a great deal. Unentrenched troops in open terrain can be beaten with only marginal superiority.

If I simply add up the attack/defense values on the map counters, Is that good enough?

The numbers on the counters help, but they're not the full answer. A unit showing strength 20 might actually be less effective than one showing strength 18, but it'll almost certainly be more effective than one showing strength 12.

[hank]

I played through 21 moves of Korsun this morning without using Attack Planning dialog (APD) ... none at all was it used.
 
Its getting easier but using a dialog box as an aid in seeing all the available units for an attack helps me.  However, after about 10 or 12 moves without using the APD, putting together attacks started to get easier to handle.  I can see some advantages just winging it with the pop up menus. 
 
The biggest thing you got to watch without the APD is the circle of stars.  Its the only way I know of to gauge how much of the turn your attacks are taking up.
 
Thanks for the help.
 

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: hank

I played through 21 moves of Korsun this morning without using Attack Planning dialog (APD) ... none at all was it used.

This view should be used, for assigning attackers and support and checking the number of rounds used. Only the loss/odds predictor needs to be ignored.

[dogfacedick]

I agree with Hank. I've been playing these games since the Avalon Hill days--pre-computers--and while I think there is great elegance to TOAW, the algorithms seem to have run amuck in the electronic versions. The response re Rommel was cavalier--HE certainly wasn't playing a game! But WE are.

Just seems to me that the real imbalance comes in playing against the PO...which, it seems to me, "cheats," with continuous running battles...the stars on the panel running down then miraculously jumping back up...doesn't seem fair, somehow...and really takes the fun out of the game.

mav