Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: toawfan

One of the very few supreme aggravations with this game and your ability to true carry out a strategy and plan is turn burn caused by hidden or unknown settings by your opponent.

No matter how meticulously you check the battle planner to make sure you are not burning a turn, you still can have a PBEM session end abruptly. It appears to be because the defender has "ignore losses" as a setting that prolongs battle rounds.

This is not fair; should be fixed to prevent an entire round from burning; or should be reflected in the battle planner.

'No plan survives contact with the enemy.'

There are problems with the turn ending paradigm in OPART -- but in my view they've been 'fixed' to the point where things have become too predictable already.

In real life, of course, while you're doing things, so is your enemy. OPART introduces the artificiality of each side taking its turn -- but unpredictable turn ending helps to ameliorate that shortcoming. There you were, half-way to executing your brilliant encirclement, and your turn unexpectedly ended, and he withdrew before you could complete it. Or it ended and he counterattacked while you were still unready for an attack. Or...

Moltke warned you this would happen. The idea is to simulate actual warfare -- not allow everyone to predictably complete his turn.

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

You might try posting what you tried to do in the war room, possibly in a SAL file to get some advice there.

If it showed 60%, that is where the last combat STARTS, so I'm not too surprised that the turn ended on you. One artillery or air combat on ignore losses starting on round 6 would push the ending to round 9 at the EARLIEST, and either the proficiency check kicked in, or a combat that started on round 6 ran long to end the turn for you.

I generally try for only 10-20% used in the first round although it does depend on the circumstances. I will be a bit conservative and delay some of the attacks until after the first round of attacks are finished. Sometimes it bites me, but it's generally better.

Ralph

I inveterately use 'minimize losses' when attacking -- unless the units have really low proficiency or I can accept the turn ending on that round. Generally, if the attack has got plenty of power, it'll work anyway, and if it doesn't I can always try again -- and I'll probably get to try again since I haven't burnt the entire turn with Infanterie 305 desperately trying to obey the Fuhrer's orders.

I'm also extremely reluctant to launch any attack that is going to use more of the turn than the rest of the attacks -- again, that is, unless I am prepared to see the turn end that round.

I'm not to familiar with the editor but is "Max Rounds Per Combat" in the editor named "Max Rounds per Battle" or is this something different?
What should I think of a "Max Rounds per Battle" of 99?

It's the same.

A MRPB setting of 99 is the default. Behaviour as in ACOW.

ORIGINAL: toawfan

It just keeps happening to me and it's very, very frustrating. Really does drain the fun or strategy out of this game for me.

Here's what just happened. I was on my first turn; planned a critical amphibious assault; went on the offensive on several fronts; battle planner showed no burns beyond six icons; the stars showed I would have 40 percent left.

And that was your first combat phase? Then you were burning 60% of the turn with late units. Some attack you had set up was not going to start until 60% of the turn was over. Ideally, the combats that you set up in the first phase should not show any stars burned.

Second, let's make sure you understand about bombardments: The loss settings for bombarding units determines how many rounds they bombard. Set them to minimize losses to bombard only one round. If you set them to ignore losses, they will always bombard three rounds. (Note that this doesn't apply to support - just bombarding alone). Something like that, coupled with the late attacks could guarantee the turn ends after one round.

I have an article on how to conduct the critical first turn in my "France 1944 D-Day" scenario:

tm.asp?m=1546619

It's a good primer example of how to get multiple combat phases, since it's very detailed about how I set up the combats.

Thanks, Curtis. I've read your primer multiple times and it just doesn't seem like the attack planner is following the stated rules. (By the way, all of your posts and info are very helpful).

I avoid ignore losses, understanding how that burns turns. There are some rare exceptions, but it's when I know that's how the round will end.

I remain puzzled. But I'm going to change to a much more cautious (and probably unsuccessful) strategy where I assume that I only get one battle round per turn. That will make for a very slow, overly cautious offense and probably one where the counter-attacks by the enemy will make this unworkable. But I've got to try something different.

Larry understands this game as well as anyone and the only concession is that he's getting unfairly surprised and harmed by turn burn as well in this Armageddon scenario.

ORIGINAL: Telumar

It's the same.

A MRPB setting of 99 is the default. Behaviour as in ACOW.

Default OK but what is usually recommended? I see some with 99 and others like the latest Weserübung with 4 what looks very different and I wonder why the differ so much.
Should the scales(unit, turn, hex, etc.) have an impact on what should be set in MRPB?
I hope this 99 setting could be the source of the turn burn I see in the "Poland 39" scenario.

ORIGINAL: Telumar

It's the same.

A MRPB setting of 99 is the default. Behaviour as in ACOW.

Actually, and for whatever reason, behavior is not the same as in ACOW.

As I complained about with reference to Seelowe, even with rounds set to '99,' early turn ending became much less common. This made quite a difference, as now the British were able to really pound the (poorly supplied) Germans into red-light land with continuous attacks.

Not necessarily bad, and not necessarily unrealistic, but indubitably a change.

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

ORIGINAL: Telumar

It's the same.

A MRPB setting of 99 is the default. Behaviour as in ACOW.

Default OK but what is usually recommended?

That would depend entirely on what the designer wants to have happen in the scenario.

I see some with 99 and others like the latest Weserübung with 4 what looks very different and I wonder why the differ so much.
Should the scales(unit, turn, hex, etc.) have an impact on what should be set in MRPB?
I hope this 99 setting could be the source of the turn burn I see in the "Poland 39" scenario.

As I understand it, if you want to guarantee there will be more than one opportunity to attack in a turn, the value should be set to less than ten (or eight, or something). The setting determines an upper limit for how many rounds any battle can take.

If this is Ben Turner's Poland 39 you're playing, you shouldn't be having a severe problem with early turn ending.

Max Rounds Per Battle
It is possible to set Max Rounds Per Battle (MRPB) value for a Scenario
by using the Edit > Set Max Rounds Per Battle item in the
Force and Deployment Editor menus.
This value sets the maximum number of rounds that the attacking
forces will execute, for all battles, in each series of combats.
The default value is 99. The minimum value is 1 and the maximum
is 99.
This value can have a wide variety of different effects, particularly
when coupled with Shock events. Low MRPB values can minimize
“Turn burn,” but at the cost of attacks not having enough
tactical rounds to retreat defenders. Low MRPB values can also
yield better results from using Tactical and Local Reserve Deployments.
You can more safely use progressively higher Loss
Tolerance settings for Attacks, with low MRPB values, since the
number of tactical rounds that stubborn units continue attacks
and defenses will be attenuated.
While some Scenarios will benefit from very low MRPB values,
it is generally not recommended to set it lower than 3, as this
also attenuates the number of rounds that Artillery, Naval, and
Air units will bombard for, at their higher Loss Tolerance settings,
and may also adversely affect the net bonuses that positive
shock values have in reducing the number of tactical rounds
expended during combat. It is recommended that Scenario de-
signers using Shock events generally set this value to be no less
than the following:
(Highest Value Shock – 70) / 10
Your mileage may vary; playtest for overall effect throughout the
campaign.
Another effect to keep in mind when setting this value is that
the chance for ending the Turn by a “Proficiency Check” is not
affected. Thus, while players may realize more sets of Attacks
throughout their Turn, with low MRPB values, they will conversely
be more likely to have the Turn ended (eventually) by a failed
Proficiency Check, since one is made at the end of each series of
Attacks. See Turn Over (14.1) for details.
Scenario designers who change this from the default should indicate
the value used in their Scenario Briefing.


Six boxes in the attack planner is not a good thing. Throw in an amphibious assault and you are sure to get one combat round.

Keep the number of boxes in the attack planner at a minimum. In following rounds try not to add more than one or two new boxes if possible. Try and plan moves so that your units start a combat round adjacent to the hexes you plan to attack the next turn. However, like I said earlier, there are no guarentees, just as in the real world.

Open the scenario you are having problems with to see what the MRPB value is.

Never mind, looked myself. It's 99. So, according to the manual it should be no less than 8. Maximum shock ((150) - 70)/10 = 8.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
If this is Ben Turner's Poland 39 you're playing, you shouldn't be having a severe problem with early turn ending.

Why? His setting is 99 MRPB and in some test runs I didn't even have a second round in the first turn, several attempts were needed to get 3-4 rounds out and this with careful planning and 110% shock.

I checked some things but can't see where else the problem can be(no not my planning), except for my theory that the color schema he uses on some units could be the problem but attack planner said nothing negative(gold flag aka full support) so I doubt that this is the problem, another thing could be some very low proficiency(33%) units that should have a higher proficiency as even the border regiments have 55% maybe they burn the turn.
I correct those units and pull the MRPB down(10) and see if it runs better.

Another thing that needs to be considered is what the scenario designer intended. Perhaps it's operating as they want it to. Or, if it's made under a different build, it could be broken or needs to be opened in the editor and saved before playing.

ORIGINAL: Panama

Another thing that needs to be considered is what the scenario designer intended. Perhaps it's operating as they want it to. Or, if it's made under a different build, it could be broken or needs to be opened in the editor and saved before playing.

I understand what you're saying, but it should still be accurately reflected in the battle planner or the combat used stars. If it cannot be modeled in-game, then the manual and forum explanations about how to avoid "turn burn" are moot if everything is arbitrarily overridden but your opponents' hidden "ignore losses" settings.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Second, let's make sure you understand about bombardments: The loss settings for bombarding units determines how many rounds they bombard. Set them to minimize losses to bombard only one round. If you set them to ignore losses, they will always bombard three rounds. (Note that this doesn't apply to support - just bombarding alone). Something like that, coupled with the late attacks could guarantee the turn ends after one round.

Does the loss setting for supporting units like air units also effect how long they will fight?

No. Support Units (Naval, Air, Art) that are ordered to support one battle (directly assigned) only will support as long as the ground battle goes no matter their loss settings.

However, with 3.4, this is not always the case. When an attack is categorized as pure bombardment due to a too low AR, the battle will last according to the supporting units' loss settings if there are directly-assigned support units. This is also mentioned in the What's New briefing.