Naive Question About PO

[dogfacedick]

Question about the PO...on the opening move of Operation Barbarossa (for example) the Germans wipe out just about all of the USSR troops--it seems to fight battles continuously. If I try to replicate that, I can't make nearly that much progress---what am I missing here about fighting battles??? (I use the advanced rules, by the way)

[m5000.2006]

do you mean the German PO wipes out just about all of the USSR troops?


well, the PO can always calculate figures and work out the best attacks quite easily and better than we, humans


also, perhaps you haven't mastered the art of moving and attacking, and your turns simply end too early, not leaving you enough time to wipe out the reds - you know, if you e.g. only get two rounds of attacks per turn, you won't take out all, or even most, units

[TOCarroll]

Yeah[:D]. Barbarossa is unbalanced in favor of the Germans (If you mean the "Classic TAOW" scenario). They do not stand a snoballs chance in hell. The Operation Barbarossa scenario in the "East Front" Section is more baanced, but you should still whup Elmer[:'(]! If you want balance, a good game, and have a LOT of free time on your hands, Try DNO (Download from "Rugged Defense") It IS a monster, but a very elegant one.[&o][&o][&o] (The "were not worthy smilies are for the disigner).

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: dogfacedick

Question about the PO...on the opening move of Operation Barbarossa (for example) the Germans wipe out just about all of the USSR troops--it seems to fight battles continuously. If I try to replicate that, I can't make nearly that much progress---what am I missing here about fighting battles??? (I use the advanced rules, by the way)

I think what you're refering to with "fighting battles continuously" are Retreats-Before-Combat. When you see a weakly held enemy hex, always try prodding it with the largest possible unit (preferably with a good recon level) before setting up your attacks. You may find that the weak enemy defence crumbles without a fight, and your chosen unit advances into the hex.

In most scenarios covering this campaign, it is possible to have a great many RBCs on the opening turn. You can feed units in after the first attacker, and continue to press the weak frontier units, using their retreats to bypass any Russian strongpoints.

Always hunt for RBCs before setting up attacks in the area. They may change your perspective. However, getting an RBC is not always the best course- sometimes they can be a distraction from a more important goal.

[rhinobones]

"dogfacedick"

How in the world did you come up with a name like that??? That's even more novel than mine.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Hertston]

I always thought TAOW is a bit like playing chess against a computer in that respect. The tactical aspect of the game is pretty much a mathematical and statistical exercise, and computers are very good at that - just as they are in analysing the best material results for (relatively short) tactical chess combinations. Where the PO and AI in general, though, pretty much sucks is in the long term picture, and your operational plan is likely to be superior to the PO's. It's far more difficult to program wargame AI to 'think' strategically than it is chess AI as the situations are so much more varied and complex.

The trick is to be just competent enough to keep up tactically and avoid embarrasment, and in the long term you will find yourself in the superior position from which the PO cannot recover.

[ralphtricky]

Agreed. The only thing that I'd disagree with is that chess AI never has learned to think strategically. It is a 'brute force' AI. It wins by not making mistakes and thinking further ahead.

GO AI is a better example. The rules are very simple, but the board is too big for a brute force approach. The AI has to be able to think strategically and to recognize patterns. The best AI players are still a very long way away from beating the best human players.

Ralph

ORIGINAL: Hertston

I always thought TAOW is a bit like playing chess against a computer in that respect. The tactical aspect of the game is pretty much a mathematical and statistical exercise, and computers are very good at that - just as they are in analysing the best material results for (relatively short) tactical chess combinations. Where the PO and AI in general, though, pretty much sucks is in the long term picture, and your operational plan is likely to be superior to the PO's. It's far more difficult to program wargame AI to 'think' strategically than it is chess AI as the situations are so much more varied and complex.

The trick is to be just competent enough to keep up tactically and avoid embarrasment, and in the long term you will find yourself in the superior position from which the PO cannot recover.