Matrix Games Forums

I read one article that you should end your turns with all units dug in, but in another one, you should avoid digging in attacking units......

What are the cost of digging in units..other then movement points
aswell, what are the cost of going from dug in to mobility

thanks

ORIGINAL: jjax
I read one article that you should end your turns with all units dug in....

I like to end my turns with my units dug in simply because if they are attacked they have an advantage of being dug in. Even if my units are on the attack.

ORIGINAL: jjax
...but in another one, you should avoid digging in attacking units......

I can't imagine why someone would advocate that.....????....

ORIGINAL: jjax
What are the cost of digging in units..other then movement points
as well, what are the cost of going from dug in to mobility

The cost of digging in is that it costs you all the remaining movement points. I'm not aware of any other cost of any kind. The cost of going from dug in to mobility is that you loose all the defensive advantages of being dug in.

A tip on digging in which is often overseen and unknown to newbies: Use your engineers to help your units to get a better entrenchment level. Just stack the engineer unit with the unit you want to dig in, dig in, but leave the engineers mobile. Move the engineer unit to the next position you want to dig in and repeat. Their mere presence helps friendly units to achieve a better entrenchment level, most times they will go to E (instead D) when they dig in the first time.

also along thos e lines... if you dig to fortified level .. the HEX stays a fortified hex, and a generic unit usually gets to dig in initial lly to a entrenched level etc.. some scenarios this is a must as you are driven back, having pre dug in hexes to fall back into is a must

How old was the article you were reading?
The likely reason that the article you read advocated not diggin in at the end of your turn is because in the very first version of TOAW units would evaporate instead of retreating, if they had no MPs left.
 
So, the moral here is be careful of what you're readin, because a lot of the old articles have no bearing on TOAW III.

ORIGINAL: Telumar

A tip on digging in which is often overseen and unknown to newbies: Use your engineers to help your units to get a better entrenchment level. Just stack the engineer unit with the unit you want to dig in, dig in, but leave the engineers mobile. Move the engineer unit to the next position you want to dig in and repeat. Their mere presence helps friendly units to achieve a better entrenchment level, most times they will go to E (instead D) when they dig in the first time.

I didn't now that !! So technically I am a newbee although I was playing in 1998

ORIGINAL: Veers

How old was the article you were reading?
The likely reason that the article you read advocated not diggin in at the end of your turn is because in the very first version of TOAW units would evaporate instead of retreating, if they had no MPs left.

So, the moral here is be careful of what you're readin, because a lot of the old articles have no bearing on TOAW III.

I think your right, the article is in reference to original TOAW. Seems to make a little more sense now.

ORIGINAL: Telumar

A tip on digging in which is often overseen and unknown to newbies: Use your engineers to help your units to get a better entrenchment level. Just stack the engineer unit with the unit you want to dig in, dig in, but leave the engineers mobile. Move the engineer unit to the next position you want to dig in and repeat. Their mere presence helps friendly units to achieve a better entrenchment level, most times they will go to E (instead D) when they dig in the first time.

hmmm.... I usually have the attitude of " I have engineers??? What the hell am i going to do with them". I think ill start making use of them more [;)].

IIRC the only reason for not digging in was to avoid eating up your supplies.

ORIGINAL: el cid

IIRC the only reason for not digging in was to avoid eating up your supplies.

I didn't think digging in ate up supplies.

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: el cid

IIRC the only reason for not digging in was to avoid eating up your supplies.

I didn't think digging in ate up supplies.

It doesn't.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: el cid

IIRC the only reason for not digging in was to avoid eating up your supplies.

I didn't think digging in ate up supplies.

It doesn't.

Danke. Any opinion on the earlier conversation?

Oh, I'm just FULL of ... opinions. I'll even give you one when I know which earlier conversation you're referring to...[;)]

[:D] I was wondering if my assumption about 'not digging in' had a high probability of being correct.

That's correct. There are articles out there that may have been correct at one point in time of the TOAW evolution, but are wildly off now. Unfortunately, you often have to look at the original publishing dates of them to have any clue as to which version they are referring to. In general, I would take anything written before 2006 with a grain of salt, and anything written before 2000 with a pound.

ORIGINAL: Telumar

A tip on digging in which is often overseen and unknown to newbies: Use your engineers to help your units to get a better entrenchment level. Just stack the engineer unit with the unit you want to dig in, dig in, but leave the engineers mobile. Move the engineer unit to the next position you want to dig in and repeat. Their mere presence helps friendly units to achieve a better entrenchment level, most times they will go to E (instead D) when they dig in the first time.

..depends on the number of engineers, but can be useful to antify if the parent units are large..

..and of course use the last mps to dig in the engineers as well..

I found that thread in the archives, but I still have some doubts.
 
Would digging in affect variable initiative? I remember reading in the manual (not really sure) that remaining MPs would affect chances of being p1 on the turn.
 
It would be great to have a small mp bonus for those units in movement deployment, so that digging in wouldn't be an automated action at the end of a turn. I mean, a unit on the road rushing towards a crucial position wouldn't stop to dig in if it was short on time. Players would have to take the risk for the extra MPs.
 
I consider the use of engineers inconsistent with the game logic (as far as I understand it, since I consider myself still a beginner). If you dig in a unit that arrived in a position (10% MPs left) containing an engineer unit (full MPs left) which is used to help digging in and then is displaced to another hex for other tasks, it wouldn't be on the earlier hex on the same time as the unit it helped to dig in. Toaw simulates the shift in time as consequence of participation in combat, but doesn't do it for other actions. The same engineer unit can help digging in an unit that has 1 MP left and then move to help fording another unit with full MPs left. Ok, I realize that I may be missing something; if so, please tell me what is it... or those are the rules, and that is it?

Those are the rules.  But, it's an abstration of what would really occur.  Let me break down your example scenario.  Such an engineer unit would have several missions at the same time.  A sub-unit of some type might stay behind for a bit, help another unit entrench, while the lead units move to the river to start bridging.  It's unlikely that all of the unit would actually be used for the bridging.  The first sub-unit joins the larger part of the unit later.  And remember, digging in is not just the physical act of digging in, it's also knowing where to place "entrenchments" for the greatest effect.   The engineers are usually experts in field fortifications and this knowledge alone can greatly speed up a unit digging in.  Of course, some engineer units have nifty equipment that speeds up the process, too, and this would be totally useless to help in a river crossing operation.
 
Now, all that's not to say that silly situations won't arise in TOAW with engineers, or any other type of special unit for that matter.  That's why you have to keep in mind that it's all an abstraction of modern operational combat.  It supposed to work well generally, not necessarily completely perfectly, unit by unit.  It should, in essence, model the results of all the actions you take reasonably well, not necessarily the methods.
 
 

Ok. I've got your point and considering it's a game, for me it is ok like that, even if one could argue that in that case fording capacity should be lowered when unit is intensively used... but once again, it's only a game and that would be an exaggeration in terms of detail, perhaps.
thanks