Matrix Games Forums

I've had somebody ask me how to use the attack planner so I put together an html document with instructions and pictures to explain it briefly. Somebody else might have that same question and if you do you can find the document here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?d2mnmm5n1n0

Thanks Larry. I thought I previously understood what the boxes in the atk planner meant, but I really didn't. Thanks for explaining. [&o]

I forgot to explain the color of the flags on the units

Good man! Thank you Larry for this explanation.

Another useful thing about the attack planner: The 'up' and 'down' arrows in the planner can be used to scroll through all attacks planned so far. I find this handy when I realize that some already planned attack will burn the turn, and want to find that particular attack (watch the 'Time expended' boxes until you find the attack with more than one gold box).

ORIGINAL: MarGol

Another useful thing about the attack planner: The 'up' and 'down' arrows in the planner can be used to scroll through all attacks planned so far. I find this handy when I realize that some already planned attack will burn the turn, and want to find that particular attack (watch the 'Time expended' boxes until you find the attack with more than one gold box).

I have never realized that thanks for that little gem of information Martin

Ok, the Attack Planner has changed a bit and now we have an AR number to gauge things by. I have a question though about what the number means. In the picture below I see an AR number over 300+ and STILL the attack planner says that I should expect "heavy losses". Why would losses be heavy if I have more than a 3 to 1 advantage over the defender?

Can you describe: No coop=severe turn burn?

THX

ORIGINAL: MilRevKo
Can you describe: No coop=severe turn burn?

Yes, if there's a unit involved in the combat and it's one of the no cooperation ones, then the turn will suffer more of a turn burn than it usually would have. That's my understanding.

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Ok, the Attack Planner has changed a bit and now we have an AR number to gauge things by. I have a question though about what the number means. In the picture below I see an AR number over 300+ and STILL the attack planner says that I should expect "heavy losses". Why would losses be heavy if I have more than a 3 to 1 advantage over the defender?

The AR is only concerned with whether the attack will be evaluated as an ant attack to one extent or another. In this case it won't be. (Any AR value of 100 or more is guaranteed to be a normal attack). The 348 number seems a little large, just looking at it, but remember that attacker AP and AT values have to be considered proportionately to the defender composition. Maybe that's why.

The evaluation of the attack itself, doesn't look so favorable - not much better than 1:1.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Ok, the Attack Planner has changed a bit and now we have an AR number to gauge things by. I have a question though about what the number means. In the picture below I see an AR number over 300+ and STILL the attack planner says that I should expect "heavy losses". Why would losses be heavy if I have more than a 3 to 1 advantage over the defender?

The AR is only concerned with whether the attack will be evaluated as an ant attack to one extent or another. In this case it won't be. (Any AR value of 100 or more is guaranteed to be a normal attack). The 348 number seems a little large, just looking at it, but remember that attacker AP and AT values have to be considered proportionately to the defender composition. Maybe that's why.

The evaluation of the attack itself, doesn't look so favorable - not much better than 1:1.

I don't understand this answer. I don't know what an ant attack is. Also don't know what AR means and what the 348 is really telling me.

ORIGINAL: toawfan

I don't understand this answer. I don't know what an ant attack is. Also don't know what AR means and what the 348 is really telling me.

Read section III of the 3.4 "What's New".

A question regarding the turn burn, has the unit color schema an impact on the turn burn even if a gold flag appears?

I just try to find out why I have such a high turn burn in the Poland 39 scenario, in that scenario some units have a totally different color schema but look similar to the others by using modified graphic files.
To see what I mean simply move the graphic files out of the Graphics/Poland 39 folder and load it.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: toawfan

I don't understand this answer. I don't know what an ant attack is. Also don't know what AR means and what the 348 is really telling me.

Read section III of the 3.4 "What's New".

I have and still don't understand. Sorry. What does 348 really mean? 348 percent of what?

ORIGINAL: toawfan

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: toawfan
I don't understand this answer. I don't know what an ant attack is. Also don't know what AR means and what the 348 is really telling me.

Read section III of the 3.4 "What's New".

I have and still don't understand. Sorry. What does 348 really mean? 348 percent of what?

I'd like to hear the answer to that myself. And I've read the 'What's New' also.

ORIGINAL: toawfan

I have and still don't understand. Sorry. What does 348 really mean? 348 percent of what?

Then I'm assuming you now know what an "ant" unit is:

There are two new features that attempt to make the employment of “Ant Units” (very small and inconsequential units relative to most units in the scenario) useless.

If so, the AR is used to determine if the attack is an ant attack, and penalize it accordingly if it is one.

The ratio is Attacker Assault Strength to Defender Defense Strength. So, 348 means that the Attacker Assault Strength is 3.48 times the Defender Defense Strength.

Any AR greater than 100 is guaranteed to not be evaluated as an ant attack, and will, therefore, not be penalized in any way. (It will be resolved just as attacks have always been resolved in earlier versions).

As the AR drops below 100 there is more and more chance of penalties for being evaluated as an ant attack.

Oh.  Okie dokie.  *Now* I understand.  Thanks for that.

A couple of notes on this item. I believe this is explained in the 'what's new'

Since toaw doesn't have simple attack and defense strengths, it also takes into account the percent of the defenders who are armored. If you've got infantry against tanks, you're going to see a pretty small value for the AR. It's mainly there to show you if you are going to execute an attack at less than 1:1 odds (100) which don't have the same effect.

Also, the combat algorithms now take the cooperation into account, so there is an even more severe penalty for adding in uncooperating units, or stacking them on the defense, not just increased turn burn.

The reason it said you would take heavy casualties is because that calculation (not AR, the text) takes everything into account. That unit is entrenched so it has something like a 3 or 4x multiplier for it's defense. You're attacking at about 1:1 odds or less, taking that into account, so you probably will take heavy casualties.

Ralph

Excellent post!!!

Good stuff thanks