Matrix Games Forums

There is a finnish stop line in this scenario, bt it says nothing in the scenario post. Is it really intended for the finns to stop there?

ORIGINAL: el cid

There is a finnish stop line in this scenario, bt it says nothing in the scenario post. Is it really intended for the finns to stop there?

Well, 'stop line' does imply that you should stop. But if you are like me, you will ignore it. [:D]

Thanks for the clarification.

I will see how well I can do in this scenario. I am playing PBEM as the Germans.

I was wondering why there is no incentive in this scenario to push towards Stalingrad. If I ever get to Rostov I will stop there.

Historically the Finns stopped the offensive when they reached the former Soviet-Finnish border... If you wanna keep the game historic you stop'em there...

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I like it! It makes perfect sense. But I have to bite on a worm you dangled earlier. 'German tanks in early war scenarios should really be given the recon flag '. Only the early ones, I guess because of tactics changes on the Allied side?

More because of tactical change on the German side. When the heavier tanks came in, there seems to have been this expectation that they would win battles in a confrontational role. Maybe I'm exaggerating this.

And what would you think the cutoff date would be?

Depends on where you're looking. At Kasserine pass you would probably want recon tanks, but would you want them for the tanks used in the grinding battles at Stalingrad the previous Autumn?

ORIGINAL: B/snafu

Thanks for that-----makes me look a little different at it now. At first, figured due to their abilities they would be excellent in making that initial first hard hit ---wasted a lot of position opportunities due to turn burn in the first few rounds due to these guys.

In the real world, you'd be right.

A lesson for designers: unit proficiencies should not go above about 80 or maybe 85% except in unusual situations (for example I sometimes use 100% proficiency for static units which are destroyed when they retreat).

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
In the real world, you'd be right.
A lesson for designers: unit proficiencies should not go above about 80 or maybe 85% except in unusual situations (for example I sometimes use 100% proficiency for static units which are destroyed when they retreat).

I would reckon a long, detailed explination why (or a place to look for it) would benefit myself and others.

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
In the real world, you'd be right.
A lesson for designers: unit proficiencies should not go above about 80 or maybe 85% except in unusual situations (for example I sometimes use 100% proficiency for static units which are destroyed when they retreat).

I would reckon a long, detailed explination why (or a place to look for it) would benefit myself and others.

Ditto that - it's been very calm during the last weeks over at tdg in regards to toaw and scenario design (except the idiotic iraq thread...). maybe time to do something about it if you prefer that place, Ben. Though i think here at Matrix would be a better place to reach the bigger part of the toaw community.

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
In the real world, you'd be right.
A lesson for designers: unit proficiencies should not go above about 80 or maybe 85% except in unusual situations (for example I sometimes use 100% proficiency for static units which are destroyed when they retreat).

I would reckon a long, detailed explination why (or a place to look for it) would benefit myself and others.

Ditto that - it's been very calm during the last weeks over at tdg in regards to toaw and scenario design (except the idiotic iraq thread...). maybe time to do something about it if you prefer that place, Ben. Though i think here at Matrix would be a better place to reach the bigger part of the toaw community.

Yes, to someone who is not the most frequent visitor to TDG, it would seem a site dedicated to useless arguments, rather than the design of quality scenarios. Though I, fortunately, have been around long enough to know that they have, at least, produced some quaility scenarios in addition to that...debate.

ORIGINAL: Veers
Yes, to someone who is not the most frequent visitor to TDG, it would seem a site dedicated to useless arguments, rather than the design of quality scenarios. Though I, fortunately, have been around long enough to know that they have, at least, produced some quaility scenarios in addition to that...debate.

Well, although it's interminable and rambling, the debate over there is civilised and usually pretty interesting to participate in. In any case, discussion is resuming on Colin's Seelowe, and you can expect its release some time in the next forty years.

That we haven't produced many scenarios recently is a consequence of most of us having much less free time. A number of members have started families since joining the group, and I myself have been in full time work for almost a year, whilst my TOAW time is largely dedicated to my Grand Strategy project.

Anyway, on the subject of ultra-high proficiency units; I'm not sure of the exact formulae involved, but the bottom line is that at some point, a test is made against proficiency to determine whether attacking or defending units break off from combat. This has three ramifications;
a) if you are not concerned about turn burn, very high proficiency units can be counted on to see the attack out for most of the turn. This can be useful in some circumstances.
b) if for whatever reason a very high proficiency unit is in an attack where the defender is unlikely to retreat (this can occur if supporting units with lower proficiency have already dropped out of the attack) then this attack will likely continue indefinitely.
c) very high proficiency units are unlikely to retreat when on the defence.

This needs to be borne in mind in conjunction with the other two factor controlling whether units break off from combat;
1) proportionate losses. Thus a very high proficiency unit which is not particularly lethal (i.e. an infantry regiment as opposed to an assault gun battalion) will stay in combat itself whilst not causing sufficient losses to the defender to cause them to break off. By the same token, a defender which is unable to inflict serious losses on the attacker will keep them engaged for longer than one which can maul it in a single combat round. Finally, bear in mind whether it is AT strength or AP strength which is important, and that it is often difficult to knock out defending tanks in TOAW.
2) loss settings. These are fairly well understood. Note though that a minimise losses setting often will not stop a very high proficiency unit from banging away for eight rounds.

So here's your worst case scenario for turn burn: the defender is very resilient to losses for whatever reason and has high proficiency, but is not very lethal. The attacking unit has very high proficiency, is not very lethal, and either has no support or is supported by units which will quickly break off from combat.

An example of the above would be a rifle regiment attacking a fortified tank battalion.

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

Historically the Finns stopped the offensive when they reached the former Soviet-Finnish border... If you wanna keep the game historic you stop'em there...

In my current pbem game we have a house rule to stop the finns and whatever german units I have north of the line to stop there--suits me fine. But I think next time I play this I'll ask for a house rule to have the soviet player keep whatever historical forces that were in the area stay there as a screening force with a possible local truce at the line.

In turn 8 right now--have evapped the mannerheim line and have reached the line all along it and am stopping. The soviet side of the line is completley devoid of any units. seems a little ahistorical to have my units in the finnish territory stopped two hexes away from a completly empty leningrad. My opponent has a strong line running from north & south in front of smolensk that Im smashing to bits against and is a little weird imho to see leningrad garrison units in the dneiper line. That along with the horrendus turn burn I'm experiencing has completly changed my goals with the pending strong soviet reinforcments coming later. No real gripes but I'll be happy to just capture smolensk and some outlying objectives in this game. Going to probably make some pushes in ahistorical areas.