Matrix Games Forums

Wow, so simple. Thanks.

hi curtis
nice AAR......very good stuff here. i have a few questions......
 
1] if you put ships on ignore losses, when they fire in support, i thought that you would use up 3 attack phases??
[ 2 phases for limit losses and 3 pahases for ignore losses etc? ]
 
2] this question goes with the one above......you use limit losses to bombard targets and and ignore losses to support a target.....why? can you explain the whole meal deal for me please?
 
3] you said you move a HQ unit into a hex 1st to help with traffic control......does that lower the move cost into and out of a hex if you have large stacks of troops moving in and thru the hex?? can you explain that please?
 
thanks
 

ORIGINAL: STIENER

hi curtis
nice AAR......very good stuff here. i have a few questions......

1] if you put ships on ignore losses, when they fire in support, i thought that you would use up 3 attack phases??
[ 2 phases for limit losses and 3 pahases for ignore losses etc? ]

That only applies to bombardments (artillery firing alone without a ground assault).

2] this question goes with the one above......you use limit losses to bombard targets and and ignore losses to support a target.....why? can you explain the whole meal deal for me please?

I guess it really doesn't matter what loss setting you have ship units set to if they are just supporting a ground assault. I could have used minimize losses instead of ignore losses. But putting them into ignore losses is a habit I've gotten into with artillery units however, since those units could find themselves facing a ground assault if the turn ended. I just prefer my defending units to be in ignore losses.

3] you said you move a HQ unit into a hex 1st to help with traffic control......does that lower the move cost into and out of a hex if you have large stacks of troops moving in and thru the hex?? can you explain that please?

They have MP squads in them (in the specific case of France 1944 - other scenarios may vary). Those squads reduce the movement cost of traffic congestion.

is it nececary to have RED density on some hexes??
I never do that, your opponent can inflict bigger losses to you.

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

is it nececary to have RED density on some hexes??
I never do that, your opponent can inflict bigger losses to you.

That's true as a general rule, but there are exceptions. In this specific case, ownership of the beach hexes (where all Allied reinforcements arrive) trumps all other considerations. They must be made secure. If that means the Allies will take higher than average losses, so be it. They have plenty of replacements, whereas they have very little ground to spare. This is one of those rare cases where holding ground is more important than force preservation.

On the other hand, I'll admit that it's possible I overstacked a bit around Caen. I'm not claiming this was a perfect move, just that it was good enough.

thanks for the info Curtis....
lets say all our troops are on land for the following questions and were not using any ships.....
 
if you have your arty in tactical reserve to support an attack, is there not a chance the arty will move up a hex if you win the combat???? would it not be better to put the arty in mobile?
 
by using your habit of putting arty in ignore losses when the they SUPPORT ground combat, and your ground units in minimize losses, is that not making the arty fire longer and thus using up more of the turn?
 
do the HQ units lower the movement cost of traffic congestion in CFNA do you know? [ those german units are damn large! ]
 

ORIGINAL: STIENER

thanks for the info Curtis....
lets say all our troops are on land for the following questions and were not using any ships.....

if you have your arty in tactical reserve to support an attack, is there not a chance the arty will move up a hex if you win the combat???? would it not be better to put the arty in mobile?

Absolutely not. Tactical reserve does not cause attackers to advance after combat. Rather it causes defenders to advance into adjacent hexes that have been attacked. So the consequences of Allied artillery being in Tactical Reserve could not be felt until the German player's turn. And if you put the artillery in mobile deployment it wouldn't provide any support. This turn is no time to be cautious.

Now, if the turn ends early and your artillery is left in tactical deployment, then there will be a chance of it being forced to advance into the arms of the Germans (NOTE: that's going to be changed in the next patch!). But, for now, that's a risk worth taking in this situtation.

by using your habit of putting arty in ignore losses when the they SUPPORT ground combat, and your ground units in minimize losses, is that not making the arty fire longer and thus using up more of the turn?

Again, no. If the artillery is supporting a ground assault instead of bombarding by itself, its loss tolerance has virtually no effect. I just prefer ignore losses in that case for no really good reason. Use whatever tolerance you want. And note that I was using limit losses for the ground units, not minimize losses.

do the HQ units lower the movement cost of traffic congestion in CFNA do you know? [ those german units are damn large! ]

Yes, if they are real HQs (the ones with the HQ icons). The regimental/brigade "HQs" do not. You can tell by looking in the Unit Report of the HQ. If it has MP squads it will have a "Traffic Control" % ability listed in the Special Abilities panel.

Curtis
are you debarked at sea in the examples? does this give a combat bonus? or should i say do you have to pay the amphib assault penalty?

ORIGINAL: STIENER

Curtis
are you debarked at sea in the examples? does this give a combat bonus? or should i say do you have to pay the amphib assault penalty?

No. The invasion forces are in road hexes. (They're on deep water hexes, but still on roads). I don't think there is any assault penalty in this instance, but I can't say for sure since I've never run rigourous tests on it.

Curtis,
 
Thanks for this thread and the one on Waterloo 1815. 
 
I've played the AI, so I don't get any feedback or tips.  I felt I never understood any of the subtleties.  Your threads address the subtleties and teach what to look for and why.  It never occurred to me you could get this much action out each round. 
 
There's nothing too simple for me.  I can see other people like this game, and it's been around a long time, but I've had trouble enjoying it.  I'm hoping that by perusing a few AARs I'll see what I've been missing. 

Obviously by your examples it is true--just wanting to be clear--even moving an arty unit till it only has say 1 movement point--placing it in tac reserve for indirect support will not affect the overall round% used---is this the same for an entrenched arty at 0 mp if only in indirect support?

ORIGINAL: B/snafu


Obviously by your examples it is true--just wanting to be clear--even moving an arty unit till it only has say 1 movement point--placing it in tac reserve for indirect support will not affect the overall round% used---is this the same for an entrenched arty at 0 mp if only in indirect support?

That's correct.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Note that the naval units in the ranger’s hex were used elsewhere instead of here. Using naval units to attack an adjacent target is a good way to get your naval units sunk.

Would that still be a problem if they were just left to be on general support? (ie given no specific hex to attack so they support everything within range)

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Note that the naval units in the ranger’s hex were used elsewhere instead of here. Using naval units to attack an adjacent target is a good way to get your naval units sunk.

Would that still be a problem if they were just left to be on general support? (ie given no specific hex to attack so they support everything within range)

It would not be a problem.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: B/snafu


Obviously by your examples it is true--just wanting to be clear--even moving an arty unit till it only has say 1 movement point--placing it in tac reserve for indirect support will not affect the overall round% used---is this the same for an entrenched arty at 0 mp if only in indirect support?

That's correct.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. In past games I had been leaving them in mobile status when I moved them up behind the front line w/ only a few mp's left so as not to eat up the turn. Didn't get their indirect support for last attcks & ran risk of not having them for indirect support during defensive turn.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The artillery units that were still at sea and used in the Utah Beach attack are now embarked – and have thus lost all remaining MPs. Thus, using them in that fashion was a mistake. Oh well.

This is actually pretty good for the scenario. I doubt the field artillery was effective so early in the battle, even if we assume that it's not still aboard boats.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I don't think there is any assault penalty in this instance, but I can't say for sure since I've never run rigourous tests on it.

I believe the penalty for attacking from deep water hexes- strengths multiplied by 0.7 - applies no matter how you're doing it.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
This is actually pretty good for the scenario. I doubt the field artillery was effective so early in the battle, even if we assume that it's not still aboard boats.

Note that the first turn covers 3.5 days. It would be on land. TOAW requires the abstraction of it firing from sea, to function as support and not as an assault. And it abstracts an overstacking situation.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I believe the penalty for attacking from deep water hexes- strengths multiplied by 0.7 - applies no matter how you're doing it.

If so, that's a good thing. I just don't know for sure.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Note that the first turn covers 3.5 days. It would be on land.

Sure, but it might not yet be set up and able to fire. The gunners and the guns might not be in the same place- and the shells and the transport may be somewhere else again. Amphibious invasions can get messy.

Even if we assume that by the end of the turn the artillery is all good to go, that's still the end of the turn. Having them blazing away happily on full support from the word go is absurd- and we've nicely established that this isn't possible in TOAW.