Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Pro: You have a way to heal the Fortified Ignore Losses problem? Con: There might be a PBEM security problem with it?

True. Maybe except I would not claim it beeing healing but rather adjusting/moderating RFC (Retreat From Combat) check in a way which gives more acceptable combat results and hopefully avoids or at least mitigates the feeling that something is wrong with Fortified@IgnoreLosses units. The simple way to do it is by adjusting down Terrain/Deployment factors used within RFC procedure to values somewhere between these used in versions 3.2 and 3.4

ORIGINAL: Lobster
If that is what you are saying then I think most people would be ok with not so much security if you can fix the ignore loss problem.

ORIGINAL: Ruppich
if i dont trust my pbem opponent then i dont play him...

Well hopefully many/most players would think the same. Still some may see it differently. And releasing a patch changing combat logic without providing adequate PBEM safety will affect all players. Don't feel like I have the right at my whim to take decision which may result in disruption of other people games. On the other hand it may be that incoming version 3.5 will soon make it moot point anyway. So maybe it is indeed just hair-splitting on my part - I dunno.

ORIGINAL: governato
A unit can be as fortified as it can be, but with no food or ammos it should find it very difficult to hold ground.

Hi Fabio, glad to hear from you too. I like the idea of making T/D factors more variable, more dependable on unit's internal state. And agree that without sufficient supply even best terrain/deployment should not help much. Another idea with modulating T/D factor by unit quality also has some appeal to me. However at the end what matters is - as Seaclubber pointed out above - players feelings about combat results beeing right or wrong (on average). Making changes according to such ideas - without first testing them through - can easily detune combat results to the level they will look worser/stranger despite sound basic concept behind them. Anyway when I will have some time later I will try to implement both versions - just out of curiosity to see how they would really work. For now I just finished simple version of the patch with Deployment factors moved down a notch and terrain factors taking much bigger cut. For this particular version numbers I choosed to test are:
Fortified depl. - 65 (84, 50 - for comparision numbers used in 3.4-original and 3.2 )
Entrenched depl. - 50 (65, 33)
"Fortified Line"-terrain - 33 (84, -)
Defensive depl. - 20 (26, 20)
dense urban, badlands terrain - 20 (65, -)
mountains terrain - 20 (50, -)

No idea yet if these numbers are too low or maybe too high still so I'm just about to test it on the southern part of DNO frontline ([:D]) where large part of soviet line is using fortified terrain/deployment. Assuming it will work reasonably I will next put the file into Dropbox folder so if you will later have time to take a look and test it a bit I would be glad to get your comments.

EDIT: Hi, Herr Oberst! The file should be in the dropbox ready for testing tomorrow so if you will have some time to spend... [:)]

ORIGINAL: governato

* T/D factors can be scaled down linearly for units in low supply condition. For example once unit supply drops below given threshold (e.g. 33%) its effective T/D factor used in RFC check (if any) is going to go down; so unit with only 16% of supply will enjoy effective T/D factor value of only half of the nominal one.

I am finally catching up with this thread! The above is my favorite solution. A unit can be as fortified as it can be, but with no food or ammos it should find it very difficult to hold ground.

I'd not use morale as a modifier because morale tends to 'drift up' in long scenarios.

You may be confusing morale with proficiency. Morale is a combination of proficiency, supply, & readiness.

Sorry Curtis, Yes I meant: do not use the PROFICIENCY.

I confused TOAW with GWITE, my bad.

Also, what approach would you recommend?

ORIGINAL: governato

Sorry Curtis, Yes I meant: do not use the PROFICIENCY.

I confused TOAW with GWITE, my bad.

Also, what approach would you recommend?

What ever the numbers tried, I think the terrain values should be on par with comparable deployment values.

So, if Fortified deployment is to be 65, then Fortified terrain should be 65.
If Entrenched deployment is to be 50, then Dense Urban, Mountains, and Bocage should be 50.
And if Defending deployment is to be 20, then hills, forest, etc. should be 20.

And, I would borrow a quote from the movie "Contact": "Small moves, Ellie, small moves."

Sorry to step away from the main topic here, but would it be possible to increase the map size and number of names on the map in this way? I've got a scenario stuck due to these factors.[:(]

ORIGINAL: polarenper

Sorry to step away from the main topic here, but would it be possible to increase the map size and number of names on the map in this way? I've got a scenario stuck due to these factors.[:(]

Apply for 3.5 beta tester, I am sure Bob will be able to convince the head-honchos; after all you're producing 1st quality scenarios.

Klink, Oberst

At least i hope my first scenario will be first quality when it's finished...[:o]

Does somebody tested out how AAA works with high altitude bombers?
My tests are showing that 20mm AA can shoot down Lancaster bombers... [:-]
WWII scenario
the lancaster is declared as high altitude bomber and the 20mm flak does not has air defence high(?) and low only 1.

do we have a problem here?

ORIGINAL: Ruppich

Does somebody tested out how AAA works with high altitude bombers?
My tests are showing that 20mm AA can shoot down Lancaster bombers... [:-]
WWII scenario
the lancaster is declared as high altitude bomber and the 20mm flak does not has air defence high(?) and low only 1.

do we have a problem here?

Sometimes even a Tommy Bomber flies low... I've done some tests, too. There are incidents where it happens, just like in real life. Could have been bird-strike, too No, seriously... Which scenario are you playing/testing at the moment?

Klink, Oberst

Om only playing third reich at the moment
messing around with a good strat bomber campaign...
lets do some tests in the "german" forum..
i will open up a thread there.

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Ruppich

Does somebody tested out how AAA works with high altitude bombers?
My tests are showing that 20mm AA can shoot down Lancaster bombers... [:-]
WWII scenario
the lancaster is declared as high altitude bomber and the 20mm flak does not has air defence high(?) and low only 1.

do we have a problem here?

Sometimes even a Tommy Bomber flies low... I've done some tests, too. There are incidents where it happens, just like in real life. Could have been bird-strike, too No, seriously... Which scenario are you playing/testing at the moment?

Klink, Oberst

From the "What's New.doc", v.3.0.0.12 (initial release):

22. High Altitude bombers are now subjected to anti-aircraft fire. Equipment which fires at Low Altitude only, also lends a small proportion of its strength to High Altitude fire. ...

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Ruppich

Does somebody tested out how AAA works with high altitude bombers?
My tests are showing that 20mm AA can shoot down Lancaster bombers... [:-]
WWII scenario
the lancaster is declared as high altitude bomber and the 20mm flak does not has air defence high(?) and low only 1.

do we have a problem here?

Sometimes even a Tommy Bomber flies low... I've done some tests, too. There are incidents where it happens, just like in real life. Could have been bird-strike, too No, seriously... Which scenario are you playing/testing at the moment?

Klink, Oberst

From the "What's New.doc", v.3.0.0.12 (initial release):

22. High Altitude bombers are now subjected to anti-aircraft fire. Equipment which fires at Low Altitude only, also lends a small proportion of its strength to High Altitude fire. ...

So, basically WAD Thanks Bob!

Klink, Oberst

Doesnt really makes sense but its ok for me [:D]

I see it like this .. Some high altitude bombers may be flying lower, for whatever reason.. mechanical or navigational problems

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

I see it like this .. Some high altitude bombers may be flying lower, for whatever reason.. mechanical or navigational problems

Or for tactical purposes - such as ground support, for example. Just because it's a high-altitude bomber doesn't mean it always operates at high altitude. I've seen film of Buffs dropping nap at ground level.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Or for tactical purposes - such as ground support, for example. Just because it's a high-altitude bomber doesn't mean it always operates at high altitude. I've seen film of Buffs dropping nap at ground level.

or the low level Ploesti raid by B-24 Liberators

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Or for tactical purposes - such as ground support, for example. Just because it's a high-altitude bomber doesn't mean it always operates at high altitude. I've seen film of Buffs dropping nap at ground level.

or the low level Ploesti raid by B-24 Liberators

+1 good one.

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

I see it like this .. Some high altitude bombers may be flying lower, for whatever reason.. mechanical or navigational problems

Any stray damaged heavy bombers at low level are already casualties.

Ploesti and an alleged vido of B-52's droping napalm at low level are situations TOAW probably can't simulate and not a reason for low level flak killing heavy bombers as a matter of course.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

I see it like this .. Some high altitude bombers may be flying lower, for whatever reason.. mechanical or navigational problems

Any stray damaged heavy bombers at low level are already casualties.

Ploesti and an alleged vido of B-52's droping napalm at low level are situations TOAW probably can't simulate and not a reason for low level flak killing heavy bombers as a matter of course.

Not every run anyway. Why would this be made part of the routine? Seems kinda arbitrary. "Hey, let's code low level AA into high level bombing runs too. Pass me another beer."

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

I see it like this .. Some high altitude bombers may be flying lower, for whatever reason.. mechanical or navigational problems

Any stray damaged heavy bombers at low level are already casualties.

Ploesti and an alleged vido of B-52's droping napalm at low level are situations TOAW probably can't simulate and not a reason for low level flak killing heavy bombers as a matter of course.

Not every run anyway. Why would this be made part of the routine? Seems kinda arbitrary. "Hey, let's code low level AA into high level bombing runs too. Pass me another beer."

Norm - blessed he shall be [&o] - did this. For whatever reason.. wasn't he an airforce man?

That doesn't prevent this from change.. Plans have already been drafted to revise this completely. Which however doesn't mean anytime soon..