Page 2 of 2
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:37 pm
by Zovs
My guess is that the idea is taken from The Europa Series, it was by GDW (and then GR/D), but it allowed certain (and only a few) divisions to be broken down for movement and combat (not as a result of combat).
I don't mind it, it's been like this for 20+ years and like how I think Jack pointed out, it allows part of a division to escape while other parts get destroyed.
Its' more realistic then in the old board war games where you took a 10-8 panzer division and then flipped it due to combat to a 2-8 and then the next flip it was gone.
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:44 pm
by sPzAbt653
Thanks Don, that adds to what I said about some people being ok with it, so it will be staying around so we must be prepared to deal with it.
More snow in TGW:
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:47 pm
by sPzAbt653
... and the snow lasted thru the winter [:)] I did see that there were some weather adjustments in v1.11, no idea if that addressed snow, but maybe the complainant was using an earlier version.
I did have a newer version from May that hadn't been posted yet, so that is now available here:
tm.asp?m=4382985&mpage=1&key=�
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:24 am
by StuccoFresco
ORIGINAL: rhinobones
The reason for dividing a unit into thirds is because the long standing practice of dividing a division into thirds.
What long standing practice are you referring too?
Agree that groups of three units has been used as an organizational structure, but lets not get hung up on the WWII division. Without getting into artillery and support units, we do know that historically nations had a wide variance in how maneuver units were organized:
- Late war German WWII divisions were reorganized with two regiments and those regiments sometimes had two battalions.
- US tank battalions in 1944 had four tank companies.
- 1914 German and Allied divisions had two brigades, each with two regiments. Each regiment had three battalions composed of four companies. These “square” divisions were reorganized as triangular divisions as the war went on.
- Union American Civil War regiments were composed of as many as 10 individual companies. Battalions were usually formed in the field as needed.
- Modern US divisions are composed of brigade combat teams, each having four or more maneuver battalions.
- A Roman legion was composed of 10 cohorts.
TOAW doesn’t do any of these structures justice. However, as suggested in a prior post, the scenario designer could be given the ability to define how units are subdivided by the player before, or the computer after combat. Also the probability that a unit will go into reorganization. I think it all depends on the era being modeled and the feel the author is trying to portray.
Regards
TOAW doesn’t do any of these structures justice. However, as suggested in a prior post, the scenario designer could be given the ability to define how units are subdivided by the player before, or the computer after combat. Also the probability that a unit will go into reorganization. I think it all depends on the era being modeled and the feel the author is trying to portray.
I agree completely.
Units splitting once is ok. Getting from divisions to companies or battalions is just a chore. Combined with RBC it makes for annoying games of whack-a-mole that multiplies the number of units on the map, cluttering it tremendously and making the turns longer.
Yeah, you can make encirclements, but not always every time.
Fragmenting units should be dependent on starting unit's size and allow for only one or two at best subdivisions. Just as RBC should be limited to a couple times; I chased small units for like 5 hexes multiple times before finally overrunning them.
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:57 am
by Zovs
I just look and accept that RBC is very much like the old board war games concept of overrun.
I think what some folks miss is that a battalion, regiment, brigade or division even, each have a dynamic TOE's and various states of readiness, proficiency, and supply levels, not to mention other things like the attrition divider, shock, unit types, terrain, unit and formation proficiency. Hence in general if you have a shock level of 150 and a full strength division getting RBC on a lower class under strength division, regiment or battalion then the unit will be RBC'ed.
If you surround a unit you can still get a RBC in hex.
I guess I am just used to it since 1998 and have learned to adapt to use it and defend as best I can against it.
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:15 pm
by Hellen_slith
SO many scenarios, so little time.
One of the things I would like to see incorporated in any update is some sort of installer that dumps all of the great user-created scenarios in their latest iteration into the directories that they belong ....
I know that it must be a chore to weed out all of the scenarios that might not be "worthy" of incorporation in any update or installer thing, but for me (a now technophobe) it is sometimes just too much for me to try to download and "install" all the worthy scenarios that are coming out now.
I appreciate all the work that goes into creating the new scenarios, but alas I will never be able to play them all (much less install them) so it would be a great help to me to have at least some sort of installer thing created. I used to be really good at computer stuff, but time has passed me by, so any help in that regard would be greatly appreciated.
Ok, well, thanks for reading!
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:55 pm
by John T_MatrixForum
Can you affect the chance a unit will surrender, or evaporate?
apart from encirclement?
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:40 pm
by Lobster
If a unit is in poor enough shape or small enough it can be killed off by fairly any kind of combat. Even disengagement.
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:10 pm
by Hellen_slith
ORIGINAL: John T_MatrixForum
Can you affect the chance a unit will surrender, or evaporate?
apart from encirclement?
You can disband a unit under the proper circumstance (thus putting its resources back into the replacement pool, iirc)
That would be affecting the chances 100 percent, if you have the opportunity to disband.
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:10 am
by John T_MatrixForum
ORIGINAL: Lobster
If a unit is in poor enough shape or small enough it can be killed off by fairly any kind of combat. Even disengagement.
But there is none of the "fudge factors" (force characteristics) that the scenario editor can modify?
"Force Loss Intolerance" did sound promising but meant something else.
The thing I 'm looking for are something that makes a unit to evaporate before taking major losses.
Like having a factor to determine how large losses this unit will start to have a chance to evaporate.
Often Expressed as a percentage of losses sustained,
Iwo Jima Japanese will take 95% losses before thinking of surrender(or suicide).
while some Norwegian units surrendered in April 40 without being shot at.
Or the rather common event in 1940 of units surrendering just because they where surrounded.
That could be one way to handle the "whack-a-mole" syndrome
or just that I got better understanding of TOAW works to make units more fragile.
How well is the current model of evaporate documented?
But in general the game's mechanism of retreat are OK.
Cheers
/John
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:58 am
by Zovs
I guess from playing so long one of the first things I do in a scenario is to look for a way (a tactic if you will) to open up the lines with any RBC, then either move or follow up with more RBC the idea is self control because you can go down a rabbit trail and either use up your turns moves and burn up readiness or get side tracked and operate out of your plan by chasing things.
Balance.
I do like the idea of make things more brittle (surrender threshold). You can do that a bit with TOE and formation and units proficiency.
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:00 am
by sPzAbt653
Strictly speaking, there is no Surrender flag, so units don't technically surrender. I think most designers would use poor unit proficiency to model units evaporating easily. However, also think of this - if you are modeling a unit that offers no resistance, then how should you model it?
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:51 am
by John T_MatrixForum
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Strictly speaking, there is no Surrender flag, so units don't technically surrender. I think most designers would use poor unit proficiency to model units evaporating easily. However, also think of this - if you are modeling a unit that offers no resistance, then how should you model it?
One of the things I liked with Steel panthers where the division between Proficiency and Morale.
It is nice to be able model a Professional force that will avoid losses,
and a fanatic suicidal mob with no experience.
Well, the issue I try to model is the "Norwegian wake up" in April 40,
initially most offered little resistance but those units who
had some week(s) to adjust started to act similar to the British units sent there.
(With the addition, Norwegians understood how to deal with that white fluffy thing on the ground, that the British never grasped)
I have used readiness = 28 to limit initial capacity, a good thing is it will raise "by it self" if left alone.
But it does not affect the chance the unit evaporates, if I got you right.
I think I have to fiddle a bit with Shock level during the first week,
Erik had it in the original Weserübung scenario but later removed it (IIRC)
Cheers
/John
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:42 pm
by cathar1244
It is nice to be able model a Professional force that will avoid losses,
and a fanatic suicidal mob with no experience.
As far as AI control goes, one has settings for aggressiveness and loss tolerance in TOAW. Likewise, human control of units allows setting for loss tolerance.
One thing you may wish to look at is using movement bias to hinder the Norwegian response in the first days.
Cheers
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 3:52 pm
by BigDuke66
Several times a problem with the airpower was mentioned here but no details given.
Is there really a problem?
I haven't seen anything unusual so far.
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:49 pm
by Lobster
ORIGINAL: BigDuke66
Several times a problem with the airpower was mentioned here but no details given.
Is there really a problem?
I haven't seen anything unusual so far.
Maybe you are talking about interdiction. You can more easily see the problem in scenarios with large numbers of air units. According to Bob, air units on interdiction that don't get to complete their interdiction missions get an opportunity bombardment mission. He says it models the air units getting rid of their ordinance on opportunity targets. Bob said it is supposed to happen at the end of the player turn. But instead it happens at every combat round. So instead of only one round of opportunity bombardments there are several rounds of opportunity bombardment attacks.
BTW, there is no mention of this opportunity bombardment in any manual.
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:32 pm
by BigDuke66
Thanks.
I guess it can be circumvented by setting no air units on interdiction while doing the turn and only setting them to interdiction on the last or at least late combat rounds.
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:35 pm
by Lobster
It's in the other guy's turn that the problem arises.
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 5:39 pm
by BigDuke66
How much does this throw off the balance?
It seems to work for both sides and as long as the attacks are properly charged costing readiness & supply it does not seem too bad.