New and overwhelmed

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
My apologies if I miss quoted you....

Naw, you got it correct. I DID say bows and arrows and I suspect that most of the time the VC carried a sharp stick and that's it but I can't say for sure because I don't know for sure.

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
...and was wondering if it caused major problems in the campaign and if the new patch addressed such issues.

It pissed me off mightily is all the effect it had on my Campaign for South Vietnam games. At most I would lose 1 or 2 B-52's from a squadron of, what is it?, 12 planes or so. And then only once in a while. So it was a nusence and jarred me only because I'm a perfectionist I guess.

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
I absolutely can not wait to dive into this here in the next day or two once I finish my notes/reading.

TOAW is my FAVORITE game and it's just about all I do all day any more. And I'm retired so I'm talking about 16 hours a day. It's a blast.

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
If you do not mind me asking what unit were you with?

The USAF didn't have a unit that you were assigned to and you stayed in it during your entire hitch. Rather they treated you as a number and you got assigned to the next spot that came open where ever it was in the world. I guess. I came out of "boot camp" in December of 1968 and went to advanced training in Colorado where I learned how to load missles, bombs, bullets, flares, rockets, CBU's, etc. on a multitude of TAC aircraft ( F-100, F-4, F-111, etc. ) and after I graduated from that school I got assigned to Luke AFB, in Arizona where I *almost* got a job loading F-100's with training munitions. We were training a bunch of foriegn pilots how to fly F-100's at the time and most of them spoke english very well. But you couldn't convince the Arabs that electrons could flow uphill. I DID get a job loading munitions on the A-7D that the air force was buying from the navy. It was a test to see could usaf pilots fly the A-7D like the navy did. A total waste of time and government money but somebody higher up decided the air force needed to test the concept and test it they did. Over a year I was there. Then I volunteered to go to Vietnam in late 1969 and finally got assigned in November of 1970. I went to the 8th TASS at Bien Hoa, South Vietnam where I worked on planes they used to use in Korea. A-1H's ( Spad ) and the 0-1 Birddog and the newer ones as well: the O-2 ( push me pull you twin engine ), and the 0-10...........what did they call the O-10? I don't remember......it's been 40 years ago now.
And I loaded bombs on A-37 TweetyBirds and in an emergency they would drive us out to the end of the runway so we could disarm an F-105 with holes all over it and it's leaking fuel big time etc. That was the first year. Going from Bien Hoa to Ft. Walton Beach, Florida wasn't so bad the climate was approx. the same. I was assigned to Hurlburt field which was a very badly kept secret at the time. That's where they trained the AC-130 crews including the gunners which I was almost elibible for. I say almost because enlisted men HAD to volunteer before you would be considered for the job. So after a while I talked myself into it, thinking I'd make a career out of the air force and Air Metals look good on a resume, etc. I volunteered and two weeks later I was in training. They gave me a couple of flight suits and that was a really good change from those green utilities we had to wear. A second year I spent in SouthEast Asia was at Ubon, Thailand. It was decided early in the war that those "top secret" missions the US was flying into Cambodia and Laos were so secret that we couldn't base them in Vietnam itself. We needed a base that was friendly and could keep a secret. So to Thailand we went. Korat, NKP, Udorn, Ubon, etc. were all bases that we leased from the Thai's for 99 years or something. By the time I got there they had built up the base so that it looked really nice. Swimming pool and everything. I flew every other night up and down the Ho Chi Minh trail shooting at trucks, bicycles, elephants, anything that could carry cargo. Technically, the night was off limits to the good guys so that ANYTHING moving after dark is considered hostle and you can engage without question. Other stuff like on the Vietnam half of the Mekong River you gotta get permission to fire back from the TACO or tactical action commander or something like that. Most of the time we "forgot" to do that. Nobody ever got in trouble because of it either. Somebody thanked me for my war-time service, finally, in 2008. I was too kind to tell him where to stick his thank you.

[LRRP67]

Wow thanks for sharing the information Larry. I am always interested in listening to first hand experiences. I have spoken with some other interesting chaps in the past from units like the 1/9th Marines "walking dead" and listen to some first hand accounts from operations in the spring of 67 as well as a few others with various units pre and post Tet68. I had a pair of grandfathers in WWII as well with some amazing stories.

I myself will have a fair amount of spare time on my hands in the next couple of months and I fully intend on dedicating some serious time to TOAW. Once I have the basics down I intend on giving Boonierats missions ago but I was also wondering if you had any recommendations for a grand campaign? I am looking for something that is balanced and offers a challenge. Once I get my fill of the Vietnam scenarios/campaigns I will be sure to head on back a few years to WWII in the coming months or perhaps do some juggling....good times ahead! I see above you mention the campaign for South Vietnam...would you recommend this? Also, are the Vietnam scenarios used much for PBEM competition? If so do they provide enough multiplayer balance?

Thanks again in advance!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

It would seem that all bombers are lumped in with dual role aircraft like the A-20 or B-25. They can be used as ground attack or high level bombers. I don't think the game has any way to tell how you are using the aircraft since the air side of the game is rather abstract.

I think this was the rationale. Just because the plane can bomb from high altitude doesn't mean it always does. That's even true for B-52s. Especially if the objective is tactical instead of strategic (which is what TOAW is primarily concerned with).

What is needed is an additional air mission, high altitude bombardment not opposable by low level AAA.

Agreed, and it's on the Wishlist.

What's really strange is that there is a tick box in the equipment db for high altitude aircraft. If low level AAA can fire at them why bother with that tick box?

Only a portion of Low Altitude AAA is applied to High Altitude Bombers. All of it is applied to Low Altitude ones.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
Wow thanks for sharing the information Larry.

What I didn't tell you was that when we came home from Vietnam the hippies etc. at the airport would throw red paint on us and spit on us and it just set the stage for the way Vietnam vets were treated for enrollment in college, or competing for a job, etc. It got to where you didn't mention your service at all to anybody almost. The atmosphere has changed thank goodness but in the late 70's you didn't want people to know about that period of your life because of the way people looked at you, the way they treated you. And the crux of the ill manners was that some of the victums were drafted and didn't have a choice about going over there or not ( except for maybe hide in Canada ).

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
...I was also wondering if you had any recommendations for a grand campaign? I see above you mention the Campaign for South Vietnam...would you recommend this?

Yes, yes. That's it. That's the one. The only problem I have with that scenario is that you can't reach North Vietnam from the air bases in Thailand with your F-105's and that's a major part of the air war. Or at least *I* thought so. Other than that it's okie dokie. Curt Chambers let me playtest it with him and I got in on the inside information sometimes.

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
Also, are the Vietnam scenarios used much for PBEM competition? If so do they provide enough multiplayer balance?

I don't remember one except for Curt's game with me. There's been a hand-full of the Vietnam Campaign Series AAR's but I don't remember a Vietnam PBEM. But hey you could start one with somebody.

[Boonierat]

LRRP, I'm taking care of the Vietnam forum on the Armchair General website, you might be interested in joining us, plenty of good discussions with vets and enthusiasts over there [8D]

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=113

[LRRP67]

Larry - Thank you again for the feedback and info. I will be sure to test the waters several times against the PO before diving into any PBEM games. I have been down that road before with WiR and it was not pretty. Since you had the opportunity to play test the Campaign for South Vietnam I am going to go ahead and assume you have a fairly good grasp on how the scenario plays out. Once I start my first game of that scenario would mind if I troubled you with a question or two should one arise? Thanks again in advance.


Boonierat - Thank you very much for that link. I have not explored it yet but at first glance it looks very interesting. I will be sure to investigate in the coming days. Also, regarding your scenarios Boonie, are you ok with a few questions from an FNG once I get going here?

[Boonierat]

Sure, either post your questions here or contact me back channel. You might also wanna have a look at Aces8's VCO AARs to get a feeling of how they work, they are slightly different than most TOAW scens: tt.asp?forumid=291

[LRRP67]

Boonierat,

Great! Thanks for the link to the AAR. I will be sure to sift through that before I trouble you with any questions that may have been addressed there. At the moment I am just working on some cheat sheets to help with the terrain modifiers, unit bonuses and about a trillion other things. I am not going to lie it is very overwhelming at first glance and I can see this may take me a few/several games before I am able to effectively use all of this information in a scenario but I love the detail.

Thanks again for the support.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
...I will be sure to test the waters several times against the PO before diving into any PBEM games.

That's almost what I do with a new scenario. What I do is set up the scenario so that the computer is playing both sides. Elmer will do stupid things sometimes so DON'T try to learn any tactical secrets from Elmer. You have been warned. What you can find out is approx. how far units can move, what a typical combat result is like ( bloody or just a nick ), how the terrain effects movement / combat etc. THEN after I've watched about 3 or 4 minutes of the computer beating the computer I'll move some units around and get a better idea how much relative combat power the various units have on each other with actual combat(s). THEN I post something about needing an opponent and I'm in PBEM business. But to be truthful I haven't played a "brand new" scenario ( new to me ) in about a week now. I'm mostly a FITE fanatic. That's Fire In The East and it's about the finest monster scenario I'm aware of. There's 400+ turns but I've never gotten past '43 with an opponent. Either I lose or the opponent quits. So far.

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
Once I start my first game of that scenario [ Campaign for South Vietnam ] would you mind if I troubled you with a question or two should one arise? Thanks again in advance.

Not at all. Like BoonieRat said just post something here ( hey, we could start our own thread about CSV ) or you can reach me at larryfulkerson2002(at)yahoo(dot)com. Anytime day or night. I'm already tutoring two other dudes but they learn fast and there's always room for one more. Ask away. I can answer ANY question. Sometimes I have to say "I donno" but hey that's an answer.

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
At the moment I am just working on some cheat sheets to help with the terrain modifiers, unit bonuses and about a trillion other things. I am not going to lie it is very overwhelming at first glance and I can see this may take me a few/several games before I am able to effectively use all of this information in a scenario but I love the detail.

Would you mind too terribly sharing your cheat sheets with us? I could really use a good terrain modification(s) chart, etc. I don't have the values memorized or anything I've just been playing it by ear and sometimes I guess wrong. I've been playing TOAW for about a decade now ( various versions of TOAW ) and, yes, there is a learning curve at first but....and here's the catcher......IT'S THE DETAIL that makes it more real for me. I only learned recently that Stuka aircraft are deadly against ships ( Anti-Ship value of 120 !! ) and only because someone else asked me a question and I didn't know the answer ( at first ) and looked it up for him. And *I* learned something. So let's all learn together.

[LRRP67]

Hi Larry,

Thanks. I greatly appreciate all the help I can get. I already have a couple questions if you do not mind? But first, I must mention the sheets I am attempting to come up with have just started out as point form notes which i would like to put into a cheat sheet or a reference sheet that I can refer to without having to flop back to the manual. In fact one of my questions for you was going to be if you veterans had any usual tools such as this that I could get from you ha!

I just finished the tutorial labeled "tutorial" and the other "RED PO" tutorial. Being a complete amateur, I am struggling to figure out the whole 10 tactical rounds thing and how to maximize turns/movement with engagements/battles. For example on i think pg 14/16 on the RED PO tutorial it mentions not to involve the 1st/4th tank regiment or something because it will delay combat until the 6th round and after going back to the manual a couple of times i was still at a loss as to how they arrive at the number. I looked at its remaining move allowance etc but still couldn't wrap my head around it. I did figure out flanking attacks though ha! I did read the sticked "ten tactical rounds" articles but for some reason this is a little bit of a speed bump for me. I guess it is the first hex based game i have come across with this mechanic and it seems that it is rather important in order to max out efficiency. Any advice or a quick run through for a new recruit?

Thanks again for any help in advance!

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
...one of my questions for you was going to be if you veterans had any usual tools such as this that I could get from you ha!

I remember that somebody DID produce a spreadsheet form of cheat sheet for the terrain modifiers but after I downloaded it and looked at it for about a full minute I stored it in a safe place on my hard drive and now I can't find where I put it. But it's in a safe place. I guess I COULD drop everything and produce such a chart myself. And share it with everybody.

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
Being a complete amateur, I am struggling to figure out the whole 10 tactical rounds thing and how to maximize turns/movement with engagements/battles.

Um......pretend that each turn is divided into 10% slices of time. When you move a unit say 8 of it's 16 movement points that unit will have used up 1/2 of it's allowable travel and therefore will "arrive" at the spot you moved it to only after 1/2 of the turn is gone. You have to imagine this in your head. So if you involve that moved unit in a combat AT LEAST 1/2 of the turn will be "burned" and you'll only have, at most, 50% of the turn remaining. If you involve in combat a unit that has only l movement point left then you run the risk of burning your entire turn in that one combat round. This effect is most pronounced when you have a very high recon value unit in combat with an enemy unit that also has a high recon value. You might see the messages "Axis continues attack" or something like that on your combat results screen. That means that the combat took more than 10% of the turn. Something like 30% is more likely. The scenario designer can designate how many rounds the combats can burn this way to something like a single round or two or more rounds and it does make a difference how the scenario plays. What you want to do is employ in combat those units that haven't moved more than how much turn is left. So if you have 40% of the turn left you don't want to use units that have already moved 70% or 80% of their movement allowance because using them would disallow those rounds that are "already used up" in the movement phase. You'll get the hang of it. Also, you can use the Combat planner to see how many rounds the combat will take and sometimes units that you don't think can be included in combat CAN be included. Like, sometimes I'll include a unit in combat at the 50% mark in my turn that has already moved 11 of it's 20 movement points. But the combat planner counts that unit as if only 50% of the turn is gone for him. Etc.

[Oberst_Klink]

terrain modifiers

Always here to help... Telumar once posted a word doc with the terrain/combat modifiers -> tm.asp?m=1603132

Hope that helps Larry.

Klink, Oberst
STALAG 13

[LRRP67]

Oberst - Thanks for sharing that document.

Larry - Thanks for the simplified breakdown. Perhaps staring at the computer screen for 11hrs yesterday contributed to my lack of comprehension. Please do not drop everything you are doing on my account for the sheets. I was just wondering if you had reference charts etc. kicking around since you have been playing for 10yrs.

Another question I had for you was based on a comment made in the RED PO tutorial. It mentions that in the "Plan an Attack" screen the estimated losses and chances for success are not to be completely trusted. Is there a general guide line I should follow or a simple rule of thumb that you guys use when Planning an attack? I am sure it is very situational but thought I would ask just in case.

Thanks again in advance

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
Oberst - Thanks for sharing that document.

Yes, thanks Oberst. You're the man.

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
Another question I had for you was based on a comment made in the RED PO tutorial. It mentions that in the "Plan an Attack" screen the estimated losses and chances for success are not to be completely trusted. Is there a general guide line I should follow or a simple rule of thumb that you guys use when Planning an attack? I am sure it is very situational but thought I would ask just in case.

I use the attack planner only to make sure that none of my attacks is going to run past the % I have selected for this round to take. For instance, if my turn has 40% remaining I usually try to plan attacks that don't take more than say, 60% of the turn for my next attacks. That way I can usually count on more than one combat round. In turn 30 I got only one combat round and the turn ended early. That happens sometimes and I'm pretty sure I attacked with some unit somewhere that used all it's movment points before I attacked with it and I didn't notice that it ran past my time setpoint. Or something. There's a status line on the attack planner that says something about the Attack Ratio. It says something like A/R 156 which would mean that the ratio of attacking strength to defensive strength is something like 1.56 and that means you have only a slight lead and the attack might not give you the hex. It's usually a ratio of 200 or so ( 2.0 ) that sometimes gives you the hex you're attacking. I'll have to post a picture of what I'm talking about so you can understand better. Hang on while I produce such a picture. Here you go.

[LRRP67]

Hi Larry,

Thanks a bunch. I really appreciate you taking the time on the questions. Now that I have finished the tutorials and I have read a little more I have decided to jump into CSV head first this evening. I am just finishing up the reading provided by Mr. Chambers. I smell a repeat of history...or worse.

Thanks again.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
...I have decided to jump into CSV head first this evening.

Good for you. Let us know how it goes will you? I've found that I actually have to surround the VC and NVA units to prevent them from just dissappearing back into the jungle ( actually they just disband on the spot ). Fire bases spread thoughout the back country provide much needed firepower but need to be protected from enemy over-runs. Oh, and the NVA / VC love to target airbases to destroy the aircraft there.
They will sneak up into firing range volly off round after round for about a full minute and then disband. It's frustrating when that happens. The solution is to put protecting squads out far enough that they can't sneak into firing range. Arc light strikes by the B-52s can be devistating but expect to lose one or two to bows and arrows. Interdiction missions are good to help spot enemy units trying to traverse hexes that you can't see into yet. This game is a blast when played with no-borders on. You don't have a clue to where the bad guys are by descerning where the border is creeping closer to you. It's more realistic that way. Westmoreland had his hands full.

[LRRP67]

Thanks again for the tips.

I probably will not do a full on AAR or anything just yet but I will be sure to keep you posted on my progress and mishaps for sure. Perhaps even a question or two if that is ok with you. I must say I do enjoy the 50 pages of additional rules etc. Mr. Chambers added (as if the original manual was not enough for me)I really love the detail here and the optional/recommended rule to turn hex control visibility off is a MUST for me with this one. Half the fun is going to be finding the NLF running around. This is going to be a blast I think. I will take it really really slow though to make sure I do not handicap myself any further. This looks amazing. I love that there is diplomacy and a ton of other features here. I should not have any problems getting my moneys worth on this one.

I am still finishing up the reading but It sounds like I will probably use spec ops/recon to locate, airmobile to flank and cut off and hopefully hammer them with the others....sounds good on paper right? It did in the 60's anyway....wish some of the LRRPS were not static though but thats getting to greedy.

Coffee time.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
...wish some of the LRRPS were not static though but thats getting to greedy.

The good news is that you can edit the scenario in the editor to include LRRPS. Use the guerrilla counter since it has the ability to ignore zones of control and if you use them like they did originally I suppose you could run ops in Cambodia and Laos. Oh, and some of them were run in the southern part of North Vietnam. That means you'd have to change the events to allow "invasions" of enemy territory. And you could simulate heli-borne insertions by having them "appear" on the map in enemy territory somewhere and you could simulate the "pick-up" by disbanding them in place.

And while you're at it see if you can change it so that F-105's can reach North Vietnam targets. Maybe Curt Chambers ( the original scenario designer ) will make these changes for us if we sweet talk him.

[LRRP67]

haha! I think I will leave editing to you guys for now. By what you are saying it sounds like the options in the editor are endless. Some of the "what if" options would be very interesting for sure. Especially sneaky peep across the 17th parallel. I made it to the tail end of my notes and reading last night. Hopefully I can sneak a turn or two in today. Tomorrow should be a full on day in the bush for me. This looks great.

So the "thuds" can not make it to "thud ridge" in the game?


Sorry Larry, Another quick couple questions. After reading Mr. Chambers strategy section. Do you find you have more success as the Allies by using the passive approach strategy or the aggressive approach? I certainly would like to apply my own but due to game mechanics, I was wondering if one of them was more favorable in your opinion or is it completely situational.

Regarding the picture you attached above Larry - I do not see the AR or Ratio when I open a CSV plan an attack menu? Did I not turn on an option or something?

New Flanking Rules - are these the ones in the manual? My version of TOAW3 came fully patched with the latest on the Matrix website
Avoiding Coop penalties: (just to make sure I get this)
Say I have a target hex and I have 2 different formations (call them Form1 and Form2) and they are not Free coop.
Even if I plan an attack with Form1 and then plan a separate attack with Form 2 BUT on the same turn and both Form1 and Form2 are attacking the same target hex they still suffer from penalties even though I planned two separate attacks right?

Thanks again in advance

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
Do you find you have more success as the Allies by using the passive approach strategy or the aggressive approach?

I'm not sure I know what a "passive" approach is. All I know is that you gotta get out there in the bush and search and destroy. The way the VC dudes can appear anywhere on the map at any time, even in terrain you've already swept, means that there's a continual need to sweep and clean almost every hex at some time during the game. There are news messages that tell you which province they ( the enemy ) are operating in but it's up to you and your troops to find them. Some of the time you'll only know where they are when they attack one of your installations or drop one of your key bridges.

There's a need in the game for helicopters I think. With helicopters you can do your recon while flying from A to B. And helicopters don't need an airbase at all. You can fly / park them just about anywhere. The game would play a lot differently with helicopters.

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
I do not see the AR or Ratio when I open a CSV plan an attack menu? Did I not turn on an option or something?

The A/R ratio is in the 3.4 version not 3.2 It's something new. Are you running the 3.4 and you STILL can't see it? Odd.

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
New Flanking Rules - are these the ones in the manual? My version of TOAW3 came fully patched with the latest on the Matrix website Avoiding Coop penalties: (just to make sure I get this)

I'm not sure the new flanking rules made it into the manual. I DO know that the new flanking rules are in the "what's new" document that came with the patch.

ORIGINAL: LRRP67
Say I have a target hex and I have 2 different formations (call them Form1 and Form2) and they are not Free coop. Even if I plan an attack with Form1 and then plan a separate attack with Form 2 BUT on the same turn and both Form1 and Form2 are attacking the same target hex they still suffer from penalties even though I planned two separate attacks right?

That would be correct. Even though you assign the attacks separately TOAW sees them as the same attack since the target hex is the same for both formations. So cooperation penalties would apply still. What you COULD do is attack with each of them, one at a time. LOL.