Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I artificially adds some tension, I agree.
Where is the logic behind you not being on initiative (operationally) and suddenly the enemy gets an upper hand. I mean it is not related to anything but completely random.
In FITE2 twice in July'41 when Soviets were being ripped appart this happened. And only by this events I was prevented from crossing Dvina river or capturing Zhytomir as the Soviets got double movement.
The rules are either the same for both sides with factors being changed (like initiative or organizational penalties) and not random.
In the FITE2 it really allowed for some absurdalities.

It is not completely random. It takes into account movement allowances of units not in reserve status. Yet, I completely agree with Gliz2 and MikeJ19 that it should be optional. In some scenarios it can really be decisive. In a game where average performance is key (one should deal with uncertainty, obviously, like when a formation changes to reorganizing status, but you have other formations, after all), a single roll of the dice, even if influenced by known parameters, can have such a devastating effect in some scenarios that I think that we should really be able to turn it off. It can be worse than the turn burning effect the new time stamps with median rule came to prevent.

I would like this feature a more if it was tied to C&C, quality and quantity of HQs, etc. (which of course is rather difficult in TOAW). To me these double-turns represent one side getting within the "decision loop" of the other side, which is wholly realistic for a side with a better/more responsive command structure.

76mm,

I agree with you. I have enjoyed this feature in my games. I feel it gives me an uncertainty that I need to plan for - and sometimes a cool advantage.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I would like this feature a more if it was tied to C&C, quality and quantity of HQs, etc. (which of course is rather difficult in TOAW). To me these double-turns represent one side getting within the "decision loop" of the other side, which is wholly realistic for a side with a better/more responsive command structure.

I don't think it to be completely flawed. It works well for some scenarios and conditioning it to C&C, like you say, should make it more interesting in fact. Formation proficiency, number of HQ, proximity of formation units to HQ, etc. Yet, for some scenarios, mainly the small ones, as Larry stated, a single inversion in the order of turns can be devastating. Some small scenarios with 10-15 turns depend a lot on pace and initiative and time schedule usually is very narrow.

I don't design scenario, but perhaps adding some units with huge movement capacity on a distant location for the side that plays first may have some effect preventing the turn inversion. Well, I don't know if it would work, but this would be a hack, not really a nice solution. And I don't know if these units put on a distant location would still have an effect in assets sharing for supply, which would defeat the purpose.

In any event, this is certainly something which needs to be patched to conform to what the manual says. I've heard nothing about an upcoming patch...

I've heard nothing about an upcoming patch...

I believe there IS to be one but none of us has a really good grasp on when.

perhaps adding some units with huge movement capacity on a distant location

Several scenarios use this solution, and it can be triggered by event, which is a step above the current behavior [when it is not broken].

FITE2 example
What on Earth is with two consequtive SOVIET turns in July'41? Sorry guys is a monster game not a small and this have immerse impact on the pace of Germam advance (which by the way cannot come close to the historical rates even with no enemy resistance).
Suddenly the Soviets qain double-movement (as they can move for the whole week) thus they can effectively block any advance or breajthrough possibilities. Again what this should simulate? The Soviet good organization and logistics? [8|]

I can only see a value in the very granular scenarios where the turn represents like half an hour. This would be triggered by some bold action or achievement that would change the momentum a bit.

But generally in this system and engine it's an abberation for which (so farl I have not found any logical explanation. In the end it gives one side an unfair and unrealist advantage.

But generally in this system and engine it's an abberation for which (so farl I have not found any logical explanation. In the end it gives one side an unfair and unrealist advantage.

I like your explaination and reasoning. I agree with you. And the developers agree with you. There's quite possibly
a fix for this in the next patch. Cross your fingers.