Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Panama


[:D] Is it really that simple? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but, it seems as though I'm being told that I should always attack at 1 to 1 or better with only raw unit strengths being the qualifier. Supply, readiness and proficiency are thrown out. If I don't do this I stand to suffer penalties. Is that an incorrect assumption?

To answer the bolded portion of your questions. This is incorrect. Supply, readiness and proficiency direct affect the attack and defense strengths of units. So, these still factor into the AR ratios and calculations. What is essentially happening is that a test is being made between the relative *effective* strengths of the active equipment and the outcome of that test is determining multiple effects regarding the bombardment strengths involved in the combat. Poor AR ratios will result in supported bombardments being much less effective than previously, in terms of losses taken, as well as supply usage.

In other words, we're spoiling the spoiling attacks that players became spoiled using...[:D]

ORIGINAL: Panama


As a side note, much of the fighting in the East in 1941 was pretty much regiments vs divisions. Would that be a problem? [&:]

Not necessarily. Keep in mind, again, that the effective strengths of units are essentially determined by equipment modified by readiness, proficiency, and supply. The exact combat strength formula is in the manual's appendices. So, in cases where smaller, well supplied, highly proficient, high readiness units are in combat with a larger poorly supplied, low proficiency, low readiness unit, then you're often dealing with fairly equal effective combat strengths.

Hope that helps.

ORIGINAL: Champagne

Please excuse if this is an elementary or repetitive question:

Not all of the existing scenarios have been recently tweaked with a view to be working with TOAW 3.4. This is no problem. I'm please to see that so many have been tweaked.

How will 3.4 affect those existing scenarios that have not been tweaked? Will these scenarios be very different under 3.4 then are now?

Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar

.. another question about the new combined terrain/deployment defensive strength multiplier. In the What's new document there's a chart about infantry and vehicle defense strength.
But this also applies to defensive AP and AT strengths, doesn't it?

Hmm. I don't know about AT strengths. Good question.

Edit: I think armored vehicles benefit from the vehicle defense multiplier only. The statement in the manual about anti-armor defense strength multipliers is incorrect, if I remember correctly. But my memory is kind of vague about it.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Champagne

How will 3.4 affect those existing scenarios that have not been tweaked? Will these scenarios be very different under 3.4 then are now?

My favorite answer..."it depends"...[;)]

The changes are evolutionary - not revolutionary. The difference will vary depending not only upon the nature of the scenario units TO&E, but also, in no small part, on the play styles of the people playing the game.

If you're the type of person who previously took a great deal of effort in 'gaming the system', then you may find that your ant-bombardment tactics are not very effective anymore, leading to a wastage of your play time, not to mention potentially combat rounds, too.

If you're the type of person who used less labor-intensive, but more generally 'standard' tactics, of putting the right numbers of equipment types against a certain number and type of defenders, took into account terrain, support levels, et cetera, then you will likely see some improvement in your results.

ORIGINAL: Telumar

[X(]

Bob, that's a non-trivial matter. So, you say there are no defence multipliers for AT strengths or are those from the manual just incorrect?

Defnsive AP strehgths are applied and correctly documented by the manual and subject to the new combined deploym./terrain rules

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Hi all,

I know it's been forever in coming, but patch 3.4 is right around the bend

ORIGINAL: Maddoc06

Fantastic.

Obviously some very clever people have worked very hard on behalf of us all.

How long is around the bend?

ORIGINAL: Maddoc06

Fantastic.

Obviously some very clever people have worked very hard on behalf of us all.

How long is around the bend?

ORIGINAL: mbar

I want to hear Bagdad Bob's opinion.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I wanted to highlight one 3.4 feature that can easily be overlooked, since it may seem innocuous: Variable Supply Points.

Note that they will allow different sections of the map to more or less have different Force Supply Levels. And those levels can be varied independently by event.

So, for an ETO scenario the Allies can have separate FSLs in England, France, Italy, Norway, USSR, Africa, etc. The Axis can have ones for Europe, Norway, and Africa, etc. Each can be adjusted independently.

Also, it's a powerful building block for further supply enhancements - see my physical supply suggestion on the Wishlist thread. Concentrations of physical supply would act as variable supply points.


Some other seemingly minor items will have major impact as well:

Adjacent ranged units will now bombard when assigned to an attack. Note that this will improve naval combat.

Engineer effects are now scaled by the fraction of movement allowance the unit has left.

The designer is now armed with an expanded suite of game parameters that he can adjust.