Can we get a scenario list?

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Is it better for Elmo to use large formations with many units or smaller formations with only a few?

Generally, it is better to have more smaller formations, than fewer large formations

I'd disagree a little bit here. Elmer's formations don't cooperate as well as they should. If you split them too much, they're going to lose cohesion. If they're too big, they may concentrate too much and not be able to cover the front.

I was wondering if generally big formations might do better on the defensive given the problems with flanking. This way each formation can guard a larger area, leaving the attacker less inter-formation gray areas to exploit. Attackers conversly would do better generally with smaller formations as they can strike along multi-axis.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

However, if you have more smaller formations, you have more flexibility in assigning different objective tracks, and mixing order emphases, and biases. I think that you'll find three ten unit formations moving in parallel objective tracks with 2-3 hexes intervening hexes between the axes of advance, performing a lot better than a single 30 unit formation moving along a single objective track.
[/quote]
On the other hand, I wouldn't reccomend the other extreme, of 10 groups of three.

Definitely use different stances, I'm not sure what they are on the interface, but Lunge Forward ignores all threats, while Advance does a good job of mopping up. Play with them, and watch the results using the polog command line option.

You should also be a bit careful on weaving and cornering with TOAW 3, it now uderstands flanking, and considers the flank by looking at a line perpindicular to the line between the last friendly objective, and the center of the formation. If you're not careful, it may believe that it's flank is exposed.

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
However, if you have more smaller formations, you have more flexibility in assigning different objective tracks, and mixing order emphases, and biases. I think that you'll find three ten unit formations moving in parallel objective tracks with 2-3 hexes intervening hexes between the axes of advance, performing a lot better than a single 30 unit formation moving along a single objective track.

On the other hand, I wouldn't reccomend the other extreme, of 10 groups of three.

Definitely use different stances, I'm not sure what they are on the interface, but Lunge Forward ignores all threats, while Advance does a good job of mopping up. Play with them, and watch the results using the polog command line option.

I thought the "Advance" order for a formation was Lunge Forward.

Advance. This order has no effect on a human player. The PO effect is similar to the attack order, except that the formation will ignore threats to its rear areas. The formation will only react to rear area threats if all formation objectives become enemy controlled.

Does Lunge Forward refer to "Berserk" under strategic bias?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

On the other hand, I wouldn't reccomend the other extreme, of 10 groups of three.

This has quite a major implication- that with units at battalion scale, formations should be divisions, not regiments, etc.