answers to some basic questions

[sPzAbt653]

In scenarios as large and complex as Armageddon, its a good idea to set the MRPB at something below the default setting of 99. A setting of 3, 4 or 5 should work well. There is no set formula for the MRPB, playtesting will show what works best for each scenario.

[sPzAbt653]

I do have several units with 90+ proficiency.

Units gain proficiency thru combat, and often can gain 1 point per turn. Air and artillery units are very susceptible to this feature as they are often engaged in multiple combats each turn. So if a unit starts a scenario at 80%, often within 10 turns it can be up to 90%. Additionally, units that are set to 'untried' status will have a proficiency +/- up to 25 of the original setting assigned at the first instance of combat. Therefore, untried units with at start proficiency as low as 65 could possibly hit 90 at first combat. The MRPB setting can help to overcome turn burn caused by unit proficiencies (and anything else for that matter).

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: toawfan

ORIGINAL: Panama

If you're having problems with a scenario then is it a problem with TOAW or is it a problem with the scenario?

It now appears to be a documented problem with both. Larry Fulkerson has confirmed and documented the artillery bug in fact has not been fixed as previously reported.

I did another turn in Armageddon, making sure that every single unit on the map was at minimize or limited losses, no attack was done with low proficiency, and every attack in the battle planner showed only 1 icon lit. And still, for the fourth consecutive round, the turn completely burned in one and only move. Larry and I have never had this happen in any other scenario.

So, problem is with both.

It's not documented unless it happens in multiple scenarios and, as Bob might say, strenuously tested.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: toawfan

ORIGINAL: Panama

If you're having problems with a scenario then is it a problem with TOAW or is it a problem with the scenario?

It now appears to be a documented problem with both. Larry Fulkerson has confirmed and documented the artillery bug in fact has not been fixed as previously reported.

I did another turn in Armageddon, making sure that every single unit on the map was at minimize or limited losses, no attack was done with low proficiency, and every attack in the battle planner showed only 1 icon lit. And still, for the fourth consecutive round, the turn completely burned in one and only move. Larry and I have never had this happen in any other scenario.

So, problem is with both.

I don't know what you're doing and i also tried to recreate the supposed bug. Well, i got seven combat rounds with the Russians on turn 1 (only attacking in Poland), which is nothing special with a positive shock of 125%. I've seen no odd behaviour whatsoever. I doubt the bug still exists.

So, what are you doing exactly? Maybe a .sal before resolving the first combat round?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: toawfan

I just found this and now wonder whether this reported bug really was fixed. I wonder if I am doing myself in with this previously reported bug and a defender's ignore losses is not the sole cause for turn burn.

Here's the link to the full article.http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/docs/s ... rounds.php

And here is the key paragraph, the next to last paragraph in the article.

At present, there is a bug affecting ranged artillery specifically allocated to an attack (i.e. it shows up in the "Support" column on the right hand side of the Attack Planning Dialogue and you dedicate to the attack by clicking on it, rather than just leaving it in general support). Such artillery will keep blasting away at a tough enemy for the rest of the turn, even if the adjacent assaulting units have all broken of their attacks. This can be good, because you can pulverize the enemy with this super artillery, or it can be bad because, if the enemy doesn't retreat or evaporate, you're going to burn up all your turn in this one battle. Norm has promised to fix this bug in the .05 patch. (Ed - it's fixed!)

This article is so old it's referencing the .05 patch for TOAW I! I'm as certain as I can be that it's been fixed.

While it is still possible for an attack to burn the entire turn if conditions are just right, I think is far more likely that your problem is due to something you're doing. We just need to figure out what it is. Like Telumar suggested, a saved turn with your attacks set up, but not executed, might help.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: toawfan

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan

This first post was when I was in Larry's 101 TOAW War Room Classes. I hope I have graduated to Larry 201 and now add these questions for you, veterans, to help out:

1. Why and when would you ever disband a unit?


When the unit is still shown as supplied and you want the weapons it contains to be issued as replacements to other units. Sometimes, there are replacement units who are intended to be used for this purpose. Sometimes, a unit will be destroyed anyway -- so you might as well extract what you can from it now. Sometimes, units are growing so weak that the calculation is that one would be better off with fewer, more powerful units.

Note that if you disband a unit that is not in supply, the weapons will not enter the pool.

How quickly do disbanded units enter the pool? And by pool, do you mean they come in as replacements scattered around the map or do they actually come in as reinforcements (actual units at some map edge)? Does this happen by the next turn?

Note that "pool" is a shorthand term for the "On Hand Equipment" column in your replacements dialog. Disband a unit and the equipment goes there immediately - in the same way that some of the equipment listed as destroyed goes there after combat (for supplied units). Players can't actually disband an unsupplied unit - I think the designer can, by event, though (not sure where the equipment goes in that case).

The disbanded unit itself is then listed as "Eliminated", and is treated just like any other destroyed unit. If eligible for reconstitution, it will await sufficient replacement equipment to be available in the "On Hand Equipment" pool. The priority for distributing this equipment and just what constitutes "sufficient" are detailed in the previously linked article (I think).

Once reconstituted, it enters the reinforcement tracks delayed a certain amount of time, dependent upon its unit size - max of four weeks. Where it arrives is dependent upon the designers settings.

Edit: Note that units that are disbanded by event can never reconstitute - and actually "disappear" from the OOB list.

One other reason for disbanding is if you've moved a unit into a hex it can't get out of (they do exist in some scenarios).

[toawfan]

Why don't I have the menu for set max rounds per battle when opening a scenario in the editor? I am using the most current beta version.

[Telumar]

First select Edit -> Forces. Then the MRPB setting will be available.

[toawfan]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: toawfan

ORIGINAL: Panama

If you're having problems with a scenario then is it a problem with TOAW or is it a problem with the scenario?

It now appears to be a documented problem with both. Larry Fulkerson has confirmed and documented the artillery bug in fact has not been fixed as previously reported.

I did another turn in Armageddon, making sure that every single unit on the map was at minimize or limited losses, no attack was done with low proficiency, and every attack in the battle planner showed only 1 icon lit. And still, for the fourth consecutive round, the turn completely burned in one and only move. Larry and I have never had this happen in any other scenario.

So, problem is with both.

I don't know what you're doing and i also tried to recreate the supposed bug. Well, i got seven combat rounds with the Russians on turn 1 (only attacking in Poland), which is nothing special with a positive shock of 125%. I've seen no odd behaviour whatsoever. I doubt the bug still exists.

So, what are you doing exactly? Maybe a .sal before resolving the first combat round?

I've tried to post as much detail here and in the AAR of exactly what I'm doing. I'm following the rules of the manual, the turn burn forum tips of Bob Cross and the strategy posted above regarding tips for 10 tactical rounds.

I appreciate those who are trying to help. At first the reaction was that the problem was with me. Then the reaction was to learn to accept uncertainty in war. Now I hope we're getting close to finding the problem.

Larry has never had turn burn like this either and believes I may have discovered an artillery bug. I have no idea if it's any of the above reasons. I just know that it sure would be a sucky game if this always happened and you had no idea why or how you were violating a game mechanic.

It's looking more like it's just this scenario since I haven't had any problems with any other game.

All I could post is any of the past four turn burns in an end of turn sal file. Does that help figure anything out? Or the sit log?

[Telumar]

Neither end of turn or sitrep would be of help.. We would need a save file from the "middle of the turn" after you set up all attacks and before you resolved them. If you don't have such a file from the past turns, maybe post such a file from your next turn. Or maybe try to recreate from memory.

Admitted, this unusual amount of turn burn is quite something. I wouldn't deny the possibility of a bug, but most definitely not this old artillery bug you posted.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

First select Edit -> Forces. Then the MRPB setting will be available.

Or just go to Deployment Mode.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: toawfan

There aren't units with 90+ percent proficiency, are there? Those'll do it.

I just checked my OOB and, in fact, I do have several units with 90+ proficiency. So what does this mean? Did I find a bug that was not really quashed and does it explain my maddening repeated turn burns when I'm following all the rules?

It means never, never attack with the units with proficiencies above 90%. Such units are useful for defensive purposes only.

They'll tend to refuse to break off attacks -- and so will end your turn. The tester who got seven rounds probably either was lucky enough to not use one of these units or happened to enjoy quick success with all attacks involving them.

It's a design flaw, basically. Designers who just gotta express how totally kickass some unit was have got to discipline themselves to lower everyone else's proficiency to express the difference rather than raising the proficiency of whatever.

[ColinWright]

Try running a turn in which you use only units with proficiencies of 80% or less to attack -- and do the other things advised.

Betcha don't get early turn ending.

[toawfan]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: toawfan

There aren't units with 90+ percent proficiency, are there? Those'll do it.

I just checked my OOB and, in fact, I do have several units with 90+ proficiency. So what does this mean? Did I find a bug that was not really quashed and does it explain my maddening repeated turn burns when I'm following all the rules?

It means never, never attack with the units with proficiencies above 90%. Such units are useful for defensive purposes only.

They'll tend to refuse to break off attacks -- and so will end your turn. The tester who got seven rounds probably either was lucky enough to not use one of these units or happened to enjoy quick success with all attacks involving them.

It's a design flaw, basically. Designers who just gotta express how totally kickass some unit was have got to discipline themselves to lower everyone else's proficiency to express the difference rather than raising the proficiency of whatever.

And where is this rule mentioned anywhere in any documentation? Everything that I've read talks about making sure you do not attack with insufficient proficiency. Never heard of not attacking because you're too strong. What?

And why would you leave a bomber parked at the airport on defense because it was too healthy, too well-supplied and too proficient to run a mission.

I'm sorry, but this really seems strange to me. I guess I'll get flamed again as another example of war is hell and you shouldn't expect any predictability.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: toawfan

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: toawfan

There aren't units with 90+ percent proficiency, are there? Those'll do it.

I just checked my OOB and, in fact, I do have several units with 90+ proficiency. So what does this mean? Did I find a bug that was not really quashed and does it explain my maddening repeated turn burns when I'm following all the rules?

It means never, never attack with the units with proficiencies above 90%. Such units are useful for defensive purposes only.

They'll tend to refuse to break off attacks -- and so will end your turn. The tester who got seven rounds probably either was lucky enough to not use one of these units or happened to enjoy quick success with all attacks involving them.

It's a design flaw, basically. Designers who just gotta express how totally kickass some unit was have got to discipline themselves to lower everyone else's proficiency to express the difference rather than raising the proficiency of whatever.

And where is this rule mentioned anywhere in any documentation? Everything that I've read talks about making sure you do not attack with insufficient proficiency. Never heard of not attacking because you're too strong. What?

And why would you leave a bomber parked at the airport on defense because it was too healthy, too well-supplied and too proficient to run a mission.

I'm sorry, but this really seems strange to me. I guess I'll get flamed again as another example of war is hell and you shouldn't expect any predictability.

Indeed it makes no sense, and indeed it's undocumented. However, I'll tell you what happened to me.

So there I was, in the woods, middle of the night, a flat, no spare, and the entire Dallas Cowboys cheerleading squad drunk in the back...

No, actually, I was playing as the Germans in Fall Grau, a recreation of an imaginary Axis invasion of North America.

Now, there were a number of 90% proficiency SS Panzer divisions, plus German infantry that had started as 'untried' with 80% proficiency and jumped up into the 90's.

As long as we were at the maneuver stage, nothing was noticeably wrong, but when we got into slugging it out along a line, I started getting early turn ending. Boom, boom, boom...

I noticed all these units that had made it to 91% proficiency, 94% proficiency, 97% proficiency. I started holding them out of the attacks. The early turn endings stopped.

I've seen it elsewhere as well. In Illka's Decision in the North,, he had a number of 100% proficiency Finnish ski battalions. You'd stage some little piss-ant attack in the tundra with one of them -- and the turn would end across the whole front. Panzer corps schreeching to a halt in Latvia, etc.

Not fun -- and not reasonable. But there. There is a solution.

If you're the designer, make sure no unit can ever get too good. If you're the player, don't attack with one of these units.

Not unless you want your turn to end. Well, I suppose if you're sure the attack will work right away, (or if you anticipate the turn ending anyway), then it would make sense.

But the higher a unit's proficiency is, the more you have to ask: will I mind if this guy starts butting his head against the wall and won't quit?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: toawfanEverything that I've read talks about making sure you do not attack with insufficient proficiency...

Either you're confused, or you've read something I haven't read. Why not attack with low proficiency? Good for 'em...

If anything, you attack harder. When I was playing as the Phil-Americans in Luzon 1942, I was confronted with an entire army with 33% proficiency. I just kept them all set to 'ignore losses' so they wouldn't break off right away.

I didn't win (the scenario's not exactly balanced) but I did pretty good.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Either you're confused, or you've read something I haven't read. Why not attack with low proficiency? Good for 'em...

I've noticed in my FITE game with Kevin that on those occasions where I've attacked with the Hungarians ( proficiency about 50% ) that my losses are slightly higher than with German units ( prof. over 80% ). And I've had to make more attacks to gain a hex with them than with German units. But yes they will attack without turn burn. But they tend to retreat before more proficient units will as well. Just my experience on this issue. Oh, and thanks for all your answers so far. They are extreeeemly helpful. Even needed.

[toawfan]

I really appreciate the patience of the veterans. After stumbling and bumbling, I now have a thorough answer. It's understandable. I now know what is happening and why -- and I can ignore some of the posts blaming the messenger.

Still seems odd that the worst strategy is to use ready, healthy, well-supplied and proficient forces. And actually, there are several posts about how low proficiency will severely hamper the number of tactical rounds you can squeeze into a turn. But at least that shows up in the battle planner with extra turn icons to warn you.

Thanks again to those who really tried to get to the bottom of this.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Either you're confused, or you've read something I haven't read. Why not attack with low proficiency? Good for 'em...

I've noticed in my FITE game with Kevin that on those occasions where I've attacked with the Hungarians ( proficiency about 50% ) that my losses are slightly higher than with German units ( prof. over 80% ). And I've had to make more attacks to gain a hex with them than with German units. But yes they will attack without turn burn. But they tend to retreat before more proficient units will as well. Just my experience on this issue. Oh, and thanks for all your answers so far. They are extreeeemly helpful. Even needed.

Oh I'm not denying they're not very good. However, that's no reason not to use 'em.

Parenthetically, I'd say designers tend to cluster proficiencies too closely, and to select values that are too high. I get tired of seeing Italian schmuck infantry set at 60%.

Proficiency is only one of several factors that determine a unit's combat punch, and if you think one xian is worth two yians, you're going to have to spread those proficiencies.

There's nothing that says you can't assign 10% -- or 1% -- proficiency to a unit. Since you don't really want to go over about 85% at the higher end, think 20% for your substandard folks, not 50%.

Really -- what with all the other factors -- a 60% proficiency unit is about the same as an 80% unit, all other things being equal. If that's what you think, use those values. But if you think Hungarians were garbage compared to Germans, go with 20% and 80%.

Or something. Just my take on the situation.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: toawfan

And actually, there are several posts about how low proficiency will severely hamper the number of tactical rounds you can squeeze into a turn...

Maybe you read about low force proficiency. That'll certainly increase the chance of early turn ending. Lower formation proficiency will make the individual formation prone to go into re-org.

But not low unit proficiency. That'll make combats tend to end sooner when the unit breaks off sooner, not the reverse.

Otherwise, you exaggerate the incongruity. Just as salt is an essential nutrient but eating a pound a day will lead to unfortunate results, high proficiency is good -- but not over 90% (or somewhere around there).

Too much of a good thing. The guys won't know when to quit.

It's really only a problem if the designer has made it one. He may have set Russian infantry at 60%, and said 'well, the German infantry was better, so I'll make it 80%.' Then he comes to SS Leibstandarte, and what could do justice but 95%?

All he really needs to do is make the Russian infantry 45%, the German infantry 65%, and SS Leibstandarte 80%. About the same effect, and no early turn ending.