Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2010 11:00 pm**

1. I always wondered if it is worth using minimise losses setting when defending. The logic of it, as far as I understand, is to spare equipment, supply etc. But since a unit that retreats must go through a disengagement check and with minimise losses the chance of retreating is greater, is it a good idea to use defending units with that setting.
I thought it could be used to simulate a unit that retreats orderly while presenting some resistance to enemy units attacks, but very frequently the disengagement check seems to send units into a reorganization state.

2. Is there any cumulative increase on the chances of repairing a bridge after multiple attempts? It is frustrating to have 4 or more engineering units with 13 or 14 percent chance of repairing a bridge for more than 4 turns in sequence without moving and not having the bridge repaired. Does the chance increase with number of tries?

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2010 11:15 pm**

This must be related to your 2nd question.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2601342

Posted: **Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:54 pm**

ORIGINAL: bevilacqua
1. I always wondered if it is worth using minimise losses setting when defending. The logic of it, as far as I understand, is to spare equipment, supply etc. But since a unit that retreats must go through a disengagement check and with minimise losses the chance of retreating is greater, is it a good idea to use defending units with that setting.
I thought it could be used to simulate a unit that retreats orderly while presenting some resistance to enemy units attacks, but very frequently the disengagement check seems to send units into a reorganization state.

2. Is there any cumulative increase on the chances of repairing a bridge after multiple attempts? It is frustrating to have 4 or more engineering units with 13 or 14 percent chance of repairing a bridge for more than 4 turns in sequence without moving and not having the bridge repaired. Does the chance increase with number of tries?

I want to look into the losses setting more for 3.5. Right now, I think that ignore may make the formation more likely to go into re-organization, but I'm not positive what the other effects are, or whether they still are true with the new turn order.

I think what you're describing is what I would like to have happen, minimize means that they're more likely to retreat in good order, ignore means that they're more likely to end up broken.

Ralph

Posted: **Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:56 pm**

Thanks ralphtrick.

Regarding my second question, now I have 5 units in a damaged bridge hex. Four of them for 4 turns and five the last turn. All have 13-15% chance of repairing the bridge, but after five turns they weren't able. That's frustrating.

I like the way engineering units chances are lessened after moving, it's realistic, but I think that repair chances in the same hex should get progressively bigger after various tries, mainly in larger time frame scenarios.

Matrix Games Forums

Two engine questions

Two engine questions

RE: Two engine questions

RE: Two engine questions

RE: Two engine questions