Matrix Games Forums

This type of bonus are necessary for games in which units are distinguish by labels. In TOAW units are built on equipment, so in most scenarios they are already combined arms, however I have noticed that units with armour equipment only, say a Tank Bn, have rather strange behaviour in combat, and the same could be said for units composed of, for instance, selfpropelled AA equipment only. They tend to be impervious to attacks, and to suck lots of combat rounds if of high proficiency. I remember in an scenario in which I attacked for 3 turns a single german AA Bn with several Soviet Divisions and they held heavy casualties without being able to take the hex! In my scenarios I add other non armour equipment  to Tank Bns to make them behave more reasonably.

There probably should be a combined arms effect for armor and infantry. Infantry alone is exposed. Armor alone is subject to close assault. Together, the infantry can advance in shelter behind the tanks and the tanks are protected from close assault. But implementing it will be complicated.

There actually is a combined-arms effect in TOAW - for artillery. Bombard alone at x1 or bombard in support of an assault at x4.

Unfortunately, there is no test of the ground assault unit's nature. Players have learned to exploit this via "ant attacks", using relatively tiny, throwaway units just to get the artillery bonus and suck supply from defenders. Fixing this is a current programming priority.

But any combined arms effect for armor and infantry would incur the same issue. It probably could be resolved just by counting tanks and squads - not enough tanks, no benefit for the infantry; not enough squads, no benefit for the tanks, etc.

Another major problem is that TOAW does not actually model close assault on tanks. By that, I mean sticky bombs, molotov coctails, grenade down the hatch, etc. Currently, tanks can only be knocked out via AT weapons. (This is why, in my late WWII scenarios, I bump up the AT level of front-line squads, to cover close assault ability). Any combined arms effect would need to impact close assault effects, and that can't happen until TOAW gets some.

And finally, close assault skills were not present over the entire period-range of TOAW. Probably not available anywhere through 1941. Probably not available universally until 1944. Perhaps the Soviets were first, everyone else catching on eventually. So close assault ability will have to be a force parameter.

[deleted by author]

[Deleting messages is really catching on]

[deleted again]

If it's one thing that pisses me off, it's deleting messages. I'd tell you just how much, but then I'd probably have to delete my post...[:D]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

If it's one thing that pisses me off, it's deleting messages. I'd tell you just how much, but then I'd probably have to delete my post...[:D]

What bothers me is not being able to delete messages. Having those three blank ones above just makes us all look like idiots. It would be much cleaner if we could have removed them outright.

..back to the plot..
 
..Combined arms use really depends on the scen design, in those where sub-units are present, pure AT, pure art, etc then a given hex has to contain units of each type to function well, guns without infantry to guard them run risks, inf battallions without AT have problems, and so on, at larger scales, division size units and up, it's less important as the unit already contains all the bits..

(To maybe clarify) I think this Q came from the 2WIN New Player Tourney, where I think it does impact. Putting a bicycle unit in a town by itself and digging in won't last long, but add a few SPGs and some engineers to help you dig and there you still have it- an impregnable strongpoint.[;)]

As mentioned above it's of course up to scenario designers as to how they wish to implement, if at all. I think very scale-dependent.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

If it's one thing that pisses me off, it's deleting messages. I'd tell you just how much, but then I'd probably have to delete my post...[:D]

What bothers me is not being able to delete messages. Having those three blank ones above just makes us all look like idiots. It would be much cleaner if we could have removed them outright.

My problem is that I always feel like the punchline in that old joke,

Q: How do you keep a moron in suspense?
A:...
...
...
...
...
...

when I look at a bunch of deleted posts, and spend too much time wandering what it was that they might have said in the first place...[;)]

Oh well...curiosity, cats, and bouncing betties...

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

when I look at a bunch of deleted posts, and spend too much time wandering what it was that they might have said in the first place...[;)]

Sure. So it's better that they be removed outright than just left blank.

nine out of ten times when I delete a post it's because what I have just realised that what I said is redundant.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Players have learned to exploit this via "ant attacks", using relatively tiny, throwaway units just to get the artillery bonus and suck supply from defenders. Fixing this is a current programming priority.

Wonderful. There goes the only effective tactic that I had.

PaladinSix

ORIGINAL: PaladinSix

Wonderful. There goes the only effective tactic that I had.

Well, it's an operational game. If you're having problems tactically, it's probably because you're not doing the right thing operationally.

Putting a bicycle unit in a town by itself and digging in won't last long, but add a few SPGs and some engineers to help you dig and there you still have it- an impregnable strongpoint.

In one game I am currently playing, I have hit an entrenched armored Ant-itank platoon in open ground several times with several infantry batts and it is still there.

ORIGINAL: LewFisher

In one game I am currently playing, I have hit an entrenched armored Ant-itank platoon in open ground several times with several infantry batts and it is still there.

Well that would be the designer's fault. One shouldn't get platoons in a battalion level scenario.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: LewFisher

In one game I am currently playing, I have hit an entrenched armored Ant-itank platoon in open ground several times with several infantry batts and it is still there.

Well that would be the designer's fault. One shouldn't get platoons in a battalion level scenario.

Actually, I was misleading. The scenario is Plan Martin and Dan Mc Bride has a number of btn. sized units labeled as platoons so they can't be broken-down. So, it actually is a btn. sized unit. [&:]

ORIGINAL: LewFisher

Actually, I was misleading. The scenario is Plan Martin and Dan Mc Bride has a number of btn. sized units labeled as platoons so they can't be broken-down. So, it actually is a btn. sized unit. [&:]

Right. Not so bad then (n.b. the indivisible size icon is section, not platoon).

Note that "open" doesn't necessarily mean one gigantic 2.5km wide lawn. In Western Europe there will be hedges, fences, the odd tree line and a couple of barns or farmhouses.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: PaladinSix

Wonderful. There goes the only effective tactic that I had.

Well, it's an operational game. If you're having problems tactically, it's probably because you're not doing the right thing operationally.

Oh, its an operational game? Thanks for pointing that out.

"Effective tactic" was a figure of speech, GD.

PaladinSix

ORIGINAL: PaladinSix
Oh, its an operational game? Thanks for pointing that out.

"Effective tactic" was a figure of speech, GD.

PaladinSix

What you described was a tactic, though.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
What you described was a tactic, though.

And a "trick" that I'm glad the designers will be trying to remove. Although it is effective, it isn't particularly realistic. My original post was not intended to be serious, although I admit that I have used that tactic against the PO with great success.