Matrix Games Forums

Hello everybody,

In TOAW III (War II), He111 give the best chances for the destruction of the bridges.
Historically, the stukas were not better for this kind of mission? [X(]
How is the probability calculated concerning the destruction of bridge?

Thank you for answers [&o]

TOAW is not perfect.

The paradigm it uses for determining weapon effectiveness severely underestimates the virtues of some weapons and/or attempts to simulate them in a totally inappropriate way.

For what it's worth, I modify Stukas in all my scenario designs. Not that this would really remedy the particular shortcoming you have noticed.

I believe bridge destruction is based on pure volume of AP firepower in the unit (this would fit with your experience as in the database the He-111 has the highest AP value of any German bomber).

This seems like a valid mechanism, but low altitude bombers (i.e. the Ju-87) should be given some kind of bonus. Of course if the other guy has any AA on the bridge you can say goodbye to those planes.

1) ColinWright,

"TOAW is not perfect." it is not grave.L' essential is to improve

Is what that will do the object of a patch? (please,please,....).I like this game....[8|]


2) "Of course if the other guy has any AA on the bridge you can say goodbye to those planes."  

Of course ,Golden Delicious! [;)]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I believe bridge destruction is based on pure volume of AP firepower in the unit (this would fit with your experience as in the database the He-111 has the highest AP value of any German bomber).

This seems like a valid mechanism, but low altitude bombers (i.e. the Ju-87) should be given some kind of bonus. Of course if the other guy has any AA on the bridge you can say goodbye to those planes.

...which leads us to another problem. The misconceived way AA is portrayed in the game.

In TOAW, AA functions entirely by shooting down planes. In reality, AA does shoot down planes all right -- but that's really a secondary effect. What AA primarily does is play hell with the planes' aim.

What AA primarily does is play hell with the planes' aim.

I defend this point of view too. Combat support and bombing effectiveness drop shouldn't be necessarily linked to planes being shot; mainly in low altitudes.

ORIGINAL: damezzi

What AA primarily does is play hell with the planes' aim.

I defend this point of view too. Combat support and bombing effectiveness drop shouldn't be necessarily linked to planes being shot; mainly in low altitudes.

Yeah...that was the point of dragging around all that flak. You weren't going to wipe out the enemy's airforce -- but if you didn't have flak, his planes would definitely do a number on you. Ask the Polish army about that.

While we're on the subject, what would be great would be if interdiction worked the way it really did.

The effect wasn't so much to render movement impossible; still less to inflict catastrophic losses. It was to slow movement; troops had to move at night, avoid bunching up, generally act as if they were exposed to enemy fire even when they were far in the rear. If they went slow, and traveled at night, etc, they'd normally suffer little. It was if they tried to barrel down the highway in broad daylight that they would get hurt.

The best way I can see to simulate this would be if interdiction 'hits' became more likely as a unit expended a larger proportion of its movement allowance. So one has the basic probability of an interdiction hit as it exists now -- but it's multiplied by some coefficient as the percentage of the MP's used increases.

Like say 0-20% * 0 20-40% * .3 40-60% *.6 60-80% * 1 80-100% *1.5. Something like that.

It would also nice if flak fired at aircraft flying interdiction. I don't believe it does now. Of course, this would require designers to incorporate flak into units rather than having the flak separated out -- but that's not an insuperable obstacle.

I do know that whatever the system now, that when I test Seelowe as the Germans, I tire air units out flying combat support, then 'rest' them by putting them on interdiction. That doesn't suggest flak is firing at them much when they are on interdiction.

You're right again.

I think a good solution would be to establish two movement rates (I always favor giving the decision control to players, after all it's a game). After right clicking a hex players would be able to choose between slow and fast move rate (slow being the same but with the addition of an extra modifier). That way players would be able to move fast through safer regions and slow down or accept casualties in unsafe regions, independently of the percentage the unit already used. Chances to suffer interdiction even in slow rate would increase in modern scenarios. This way players would have to move slowly even to a near combat on the beginning of the turn or accept the risk.