Reconstituted units

[DoomedMantis]

When units are reconstituted in the game, are they drawing on the replacements?

[Obsolete]

Well this word for some reason really reminds me of where the original manual talks about subdividing your units, and then recombining them.  Aparently if you lose one sub-unit, you are forbidden to re-combine any of the others back into a single unit again (grrrr).

However, it is stated that your lost sub-unit will later come back as a replacement unit.  Now this has me wondering as well, is this penalized elsewhere, or does this come as some sort of free-bie.  And how does this relate to losing other units on the map?  I used to think when you completely vapourize a unit, that unit should be gone off the map for good.

But I just don't know anymore.

[DoomedMantis]

what happens then if you have a part unit eliminated from a combat? When this part unit is reconstituted can you recombine then?

[Obsolete]

Yes, only then.

[DoomedMantis]

back to the original question, does the reconstituted unit draw from the replacement pool?

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

back to the original question, does the reconstituted unit draw from the replacement pool?

Yes it does. When a unit is destroyed it forms a 'cadre' in the order of battle that has 0 equipment. At the beginning of your turn a check is made to see if the unit is eligible for reconstitution, and if it passes it will draw equipment from the replacement pool and be placed in the new unit arrival que, to arrive sometime in the future.

[sPzAbt653]

when you completely vapourize a unit, that unit should be gone off the map for good.

It depends on the scenario. Units may or may not be set to reconstitute.

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

when you completely vapourize a unit, that unit should be gone off the map for good.

It depends on the scenario. Units may or may not be set to reconstitute.

Yep. For example, in my Cuba scenario, the Cuban infantry reconstitutes, but the Cuban armor and all Soviet forces do not.

[DoomedMantis]

thanks guys

[Obsolete]

Well, I finally decided to use the scenario editor to open up some maps and take a look.  I see in my current Israel-48 map, that EVERY unit is reconstitable.  That just seems wrong to me.  It's like giving people unlimited lives. 

Is there no proper reward for surrounding and obliterating units?  It seems the only real thing to do is forget about any such strategy and simply defend flag-hexes.  This is where the points are, and it's a shame.  I would THINK that destroying 90% of your opponent's army, while only losing 10% of yours should give you some rather great reward in its own means.

[damezzi]

I would THINK that destroying 90% of your opponent's army, while only losing 10% of yours should give you some rather great reward in its own means.

And you'll have great rewards by destroying 90% of enemy units. You'll be likely given almost as much point as those distributed among objectives.

This is not a game design flaw. It simulates the fact that if you destroy the elements of a battalion, for example, you're destroying units assigned equipment and not the institution (the battalion in itself, it's organization, authorized equipment etc). So, if the fighting country has enough men and production power to replace those elements, the battalion will be reconstituted. This is pretty in accordance to real world. Here you can sometimes have a flaw on scenario design, but then you must check the capacity of the countries historically and see if their replacement pool is accordance. You must consider that, historically, in some conflicts it wouldn't be a good strategy to just kill enemies. Russians in WWII were able to deal with much greater losses, for example.

You get victory points for casualties, since even against a country that can deal with it, those would be elements which could be used elsewhere if not lost on the current battle.

Check the arab side history and the equipment assign to those reconstituted units and then see if the scenario is precise or not. War is not always fair; you must deal with the particular circumstances to define your strategy. The simple 'kill your enemy's soldiers' approach won't necessarily help. Sometimes however.

Anyway, if they are unsupplied when evaporating, equipment don't go to the replacement pool. This simulates the lack of a route of communication to your own positions, so that the unit can not withdraw. Otherwise, since part of the casualties are not necessarily extermination, equipment will be able to go back and be recovered.

[Hyding]

ORIGINAL: damezzi

I would THINK that destroying 90% of your opponent's army, while only losing 10% of yours should give you some rather great reward in its own means.

And you'll have great rewards by destroying 90% of enemy units. You'll be likely given almost as much point as those distributed among objectives.

This is not a game design flaw. It simulates the fact that if you destroy the elements of a battalion, for example, you're destroying units assigned equipment and not the institution (the battalion in itself, it's organization, authorized equipment etc). So, if the fighting country has enough men and production power to replace those elements, the battalion will be reconstituted. This is pretty in accordance to real world. Here you can sometimes have a flaw on scenario design, but then you must check the capacity of the countries historically and see if their replacement pool is accordance. You must consider that, historically, in some conflicts it wouldn't be a good strategy to just kill enemies. Russians in WWII were able to deal with much greater losses, for example.

You get victory points for casualties, since even against a country that can deal with it, those would be elements which could be used elsewhere if not lost on the current battle.

Check the arab side history and the equipment assign to those reconstituted units and then see if the scenario is precise or not. War is not always fair; you must deal with the particular circumstances to define your strategy. The simple 'kill your enemy's soldiers' approach won't necessarily help. Sometimes however.

Anyway, if they are unsupplied when evaporating, equipment don't go to the replacement pool. This simulates the lack of a route of communication to your own positions, so that the unit can not withdraw. Otherwise, since part of the casualties are not necessarily extermination, equipment will be able to go back and be recovered.

It takes replacements for units to be reconstituted. Just because a unit can be reconstituted does not mean it will be. Even if all units can be reconstituted there can also be priorities assigned in individual scenarios that make some units unlikely to be replaced unless a side is receiving almost no unit losses.

I also believe that in most cases a portion of the losses a unit suffers are not truly destroyed but go temporarily to the replacement pool. No losses suffered while a unit is surrounded and out of supply go to the replacement pool so there is some benefit to surrounding units before you destroy them.

[sPzAbt653]

losses a unit suffers are not truly destroyed but go temporarily to the replacement pool.

That is true, and from what I've seen it looks like an average of about 80% or more of losses go into the replacement pool. In playing scenarios on the East Front, this means that if you are the Axis you are doing the Soviets a big favor by attacking units that are not out of supply. In other scenarios you don't have enough units or room for manuever to encircle the enemy units, so you have to slog it out.

[Obsolete]

Boy, I wish these explanations had been written up in the manual ages ago.

[Catch21]

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

Boy, I wish these explanations had been written up in the manual ages ago.

See http://gr-8.biz/toaw/rr/replacementsreconstitution.html

I notice TDG (The Design Group, where this was originally posted as an article) seems to have moved to Matrix as a sub-forum, so the article- which I think even with changes to the TOAW engine should still be valid- could use a new TOAW-related home, if one's available.

If so please let me know, and I can provide all files.

[Panama]

I realize this is an old thread but reading it has raised a question.

If a unit suffers losses and is retreated it no longer has a presence on the field where the losses were incurred. This being true, how can heavy equipment be returned to the replacement inventory? The retreating side no longer has access to this equipment. In fact, it would make more sense to return a portion of this equipment to the victorious side.

This is especially true in scenarios where the attacking side has a large advantage and pushes the defending side back quite a distance.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

I realize this is an old thread but reading it has raised a question.

If a unit suffers losses and is retreated it no longer has a presence on the field where the losses were incurred. This being true, how can heavy equipment be returned to the replacement inventory? The retreating side no longer has access to this equipment. In fact, it would make more sense to return a portion of this equipment to the victorious side.

This is especially true in scenarios where the attacking side has a large advantage and pushes the defending side back quite a distance.

The theory is that units that have been 'destroyed' in TOAW terms aren't necessarily eliminated. They're just not combat-worthy formations for a while.

So for example, in TOAW terms virtually all the German units in Normandy would be 'destroyed.' They then flee across France -- and for this part of their lives they don't appear as units in the TOAW sense -- and then reconstitute about eight weeks later -- back on their fixed reconstitution hexes along the Rhine or whatever.

It's all quite reasonable. Just get the idea of a unit going 'poof' meaning it's been converted to dead bodies and wrecked tanks out of your head and everything will be fine.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama

I realize this is an old thread but reading it has raised a question.

If a unit suffers losses and is retreated it no longer has a presence on the field where the losses were incurred. This being true, how can heavy equipment be returned to the replacement inventory? The retreating side no longer has access to this equipment. In fact, it would make more sense to return a portion of this equipment to the victorious side.

This is especially true in scenarios where the attacking side has a large advantage and pushes the defending side back quite a distance.

The theory is that units that have been 'destroyed' in TOAW terms aren't necessarily eliminated. They're just not combat-worthy formations for a while.

So for example, in TOAW terms virtually all the German units in Normandy would be 'destroyed.' They then flee across France -- and for this part of their lives they don't appear as units in the TOAW sense -- and then reconstitute about eight weeks later -- back on their fixed reconstitution hexes along the Rhine or whatever.

It's all quite reasonable. Just get the idea of a unit going 'poof' meaning it's been converted to dead bodies and wrecked tanks out of your head and everything will be fine.

I'm not speaking of reconstitution as it pertains to whole units. I'm speaking of replacement pools and equipment losses and how returning tanks left on the battlefield that is controlled by the opposing force can be squared with reality. If my armored battalion got it's butt handed to it and I left the field of battle I'm not going to recover the equipment I left behind. Yet in this game it seems some of it is returned to the replacement pool. I'm thinking this indeed is the case.

[Catch21]

ORIGINAL: Panama

I'm not speaking of reconstitution as it pertains to whole units. I'm speaking of replacement pools and equipment losses and how returning tanks left on the battlefield that is controlled by the opposing force can be squared with reality. If my armored battalion got it's butt handed to it and I left the field of battle I'm not going to recover the equipment I left behind. Yet in this game it seems some of it is returned to the replacement pool. I'm thinking this indeed is the case.

In the strictest sense, you're correct. Take Kasserine Pass in 1943- doubtful whether the US got many tanks away from/with wrecked/surrendered/routed units.

But the level of detail in TOAW sometimes represents a general abstraction, and a percent of 'destroyed' equipment being salvaged back to the replacement pool would represent part of it. You can run tests to see these %ages from a scenario turn 1 (i.e. clean with nothing gone yet)- set up combats and note down unit compositions- get the unit destroyed, then check your inventory to see what actually got destroyed versus what was in the unit to begin with and reported as lost.

Note "Much of the equipment “lost” during combat is not actually destroyed. Instead, it is considered damaged or temporarily unserviceable. This damaged equipment goes to the Replacement Pool unless the owning unit is Out of Supply. In the case of Air and Naval equipment, the fraction of damaged equipment going to the Replacement Pool is proportional to the owning unit’s Proficiency.", so there is a case where nothing gets out.

BTW, does Matrix have a section for articles anywhere?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: General Staff



Note "Much of the equipment “lost” during combat is not actually destroyed. Instead, it is considered damaged or temporarily unserviceable. This damaged equipment goes to the Replacement Pool unless the owning unit is Out of Supply.

A good deal of the equipment 'lost' won't even be damaged at all. It'll just be in the hands of a unit that is not fit for combat at the moment.

This is why if a unit is out of supply, half the equipment doesn't go back into the pool. Then it really is going to be lost.

In reality, units have all sorts of states: from fully alert and functional to twitching bits of jello that have just been thrown against a wall to literally not there. TOAW attempts to select and simulate various waypoints in this process: available, reorganizing, eliminated.

The important point is that 'eliminated' merely means 'best described as having no combat value at all at the moment.' It certainly doesn't mean that 22.Panzer has no runners. It could easily still have twenty or thirty. It's just that it's reached a point where having it on the map at all would exaggerate its combat value.