A few more questions...

[Kipper]

Still thinking about buying this, a couple of questions for the beta team -

1) Can you "turn off" production to enable smaller scenarios have a more operational focus?
2) Can you "set the level" so that your divisions are not attacking AI battalions?

Tx!

Kipper

[tweber]

You can set any production level you want.  However, turning off production also means you have no supply produced so you would have to take that into account (e.g., you can set up a stockpile or grant supply through events).  You can also selectively turn off production (e.g., cannot build tanks)
 
Any unit can attack any other unit that is in range, in the right theater (e.g., land or sea), has enough action points, and is at war.  So, you could not prevent big units from attacking smaller units.

[Awac835]

Divisions have a max size. If you ever played PT i think it would be 30.000 units of weight.
With a heavy tank being bigger then a infantry man etc.

Its ofc abstracted, and im not sure sure if you can set the tonnage of a division in the editor for the scenario put it would be logical if you could. But you can set it for the individual units etc.

But i cant see why you wouldnt want a big 30k division attack a smaller 3000 unit battalion.
If you think its a waste then you should split up your division into more units. Bonus is also added for multiple attack directions.

[Vic]

Actually in AT the weight limit has been dropped. If you overstack a hex the units in it just become very vulnerable due to crowding.

[Awac835]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Actually in AT the weight limit has been dropped. If you overstack a hex the units in it just become very vulnerable due to crowding.

awesome. But isnt there a max limit on how much you can have in a hex then? or do they simply get so crowded that air and arty attacks would wreck massive dmg.

edit:

what i mean is there no limit at all.

[Vic]

imagine what happens when a artillery barrage strikes a filled up football stadium

[leastonh1]

ORIGINAL: Awac835
But i cant see why you wouldnt want a big 30k division attack a smaller 3000 unit battalion.
If you think its a waste then you should split up your division into more units. Bonus is also added for multiple attack directions.

That was going to be my question to Kipper. Why wouldn't you want a division sized force to attack a battalion? I'm interested in knowing what purpose you'd have for wanting to restrict this. Is it simply to prevent overkill and wasting tempo or something else?

Yes, there is a huge bonus for attacks from multiple directions, so maybe that was what you meant?

Regards,
Jim

[Kipper]

Jim, mostly cosmetic point from PT. If you are playing strategic level WW1 scenario, say, and you imagine your units to be corps, the games will refer to the comparable unit on the other side as battallions... for example it would have been nice in PT to set all (human AND AI) inf/mech units to a corps label for WWI strategic scens, division-level for WW2 operational scens etc. A cosmetic point as opposed to a wargaming mechanics point, you might say. Have I explained this clearly?

Setting production levels opens the levels up a lot and makes for huge flexibility... building huge armies in an operational setting just tips the immersiaon factor... very interested in this now. I don't remember being able to do that in PT.

I have been researching Iran-Iraq war for years, did a paper-based wargame for playing with a couple of friends and was always hoping to design a PC-based scenario but found TOAW a little weak in the strategic level - I find you need a bit of abstraction there that TOAW doesn't offer - but I think AT might be what I was waiting for.

[Erik Rutins]

AT doesn't have everything called battalions, at least as far as I've seen. I've played scenarios with Corps, Divisions, Regiments, etc.

[Awac835]

I still dont think i understood you [&:]
 
So what you want is for units to have naming based on there weight. Like
<3k = battalion
<10k = regiment
<30k = division
<300k = corps
<1000k = army
&nbsp;

[tweber]

You can set a generic name for a unit (e.g., all units in this strategic level scenario are called corps). You can also manually rename any unit. The game does not automatically re-name units based on the weight (e.g., started with 50 rilfe as a corps, got shattered in a battle and in now down to 10 rifle, so it now a regiment). You would have to do the renaming by hand if interested.

In the games I have played, I rarely worry about naming except for HQ units as they are important to keep track of (but mostly for making production allocations easier). I do try to use historic names in the scenarios I have made (e.g., OKW, Stavka) for flair.

[leastonh1]

If I'm right Kipper, you're talking about naming conventions based on the scale you're aiming for as the scenario designer? So, Tom's point about using generic names would be correct?
&nbsp;
Regards,
Jim

[Kipper]

ORIGINAL: tweber
You can set a generic name for a unit (e.g., all units in this strategic level scenario are called corps). You can also manually rename any unit. The game does not automatically re-name units based on the weight (e.g., started with 50 rilfe as a corps, got shattered in a battle and in now down to 10 rifle, so it now a regiment). You would have to do the renaming by hand if interested.

Thanks Tweber & Jim, that answers my question. The more I hear about this game, the more I like.

[leastonh1]

Hi Kipper,
&nbsp;
If you want a good illustration of the scales you can use, have a read through Vic's AAR's on this forum. The screenshots alone may help I think as they do show what the engine is capable of. Brill [:)]
&nbsp;
Regards,
Jim