Matrix Games Forums

I'm playing my first game with v4 and am finding a situation that I found with v2.3. That is that British AFVs can't area fire (Z key) with their coax. In the first few years of the war that was all they have to attack infantry so I'm finding this to be a bit of a problem, I'm having to use infantry to reveal those pesky Germans in hexes I know they're in. It looks as though this happens because it's only the weapon in Slot 1 that's used for area fire. Is there a work around for this?

I'm finding v4 different from v2.3, suppression and casualities seem easier to inflict and rallying is harder (which is good). I've currently bailed a crew out of an armoured car that was immobilised and put them in the hex of an abandoned armoured car of the same type. I'm hoping they'll get in.

Thanks for the game Matrix.

Bill

I thought I had a brainwave and disabled the 2pdr to area fire with the coax in Slot 2 but that didn't work. I also tried changing the 2pdr and coax in their weapon slots in the Oob editor but it meant that all op fire was conducted with the coax in Slot 1, not much use against armour!

Bill

Originally posted by Bill:
I've currently bailed a crew out of an armoured car that was immobilised and put them in the hex of an abandoned armoured car of the same type. I'm hoping they'll get in.

Thanks for the game Matrix.

Bill[/B]

I don't know if the guys at matrix have changed things but in the the original SP games crews would only re-crew their original starting equipment.

Still teh case - the crew and original vehicle are linked - only the originanl can get back in. A code limitaiton.

Dave R is correct, trying to crew another vehicle is so much futile effort. If the original vehicle wasn't destroyed, just keep the crew laying low for a while, if you have any hopes of trying to recrew it. If you sent some infantry in front of the hex to lay some smoke, this would certainly help the possibility a bit.

That brings to mind a strategy which I've never implemented, though has some merit, and that is to place some 2-4 infantry squads in various areas between the general front and the tank, with the idea that should the really most precious tanks get damaged seriously, that the accompanying infantry can then lay a thick wall of smoke to allow safe and east passage for the crew (for escaping as well as getting back to it).

I have a question, though I think I know the answer. I recall that it was stated that the crew needs to be inside the tank for a repair to be done, but what if they abandon it? Given the statement of the rule, this lends one to think that only that crew, can repair that tank. Even so, if the tank is abandoned by whatever means, does that disqualify repair, even should that crew recrew it later? Also, if it can be repaired upon recrewing, does the turns to repair reset, or does it resume from where it left off from before? In other words, If the vehicle was damaged on turn 3, the crew sat in it for 3 more turns, and then abandoned, would their recrewing after this abandonment be 4 turns into the repair (accumulated repair turns), or back to turn 1 of the repair process again?

Can y'all give us a formula (though there are doubtless random factors involved), on the likelihood of malfunction? I ask because some of us don't know just how many times you can fire within a certain timeframe and it not dramatically increase the odds of a malfunction (though in RL, it could happen the first round). Also, from what I've seen, the game seems to suggest that malfuctions will occur only in opfire, or in any case the opfire greatly enhances the odds of it happening, but I hace seen player fire malfunction. If it's wise to get really precise with this stuff, people, as I am now, are going to want to keep track of how many rounds one or more tanks have expended per turn (and perhaps overall) in order to wisely reduce the risk of malfunction.

BTW, would the 37L46, for instance, as an AT gun, malfunction less frequently than a tank mounted one? Also, towed guns generally have larger crews, are they more apt to repair quicker? Ah, there's so much strategy that could go into picking your forces, if indeed there is a marked difference in reliability between how they're mounted. Think about it. Even the mere fact that a towed gun can be repaired, even on the defensive, would add to the consideration for getting transport (to get it out of the heat until it's repaired).

One last question: Paul mentioned that repairs will be noted on the log (great log there!), but will the log ever tell us that the crews have found the repair unmanageable? It seems that such an evaluation might be made pretty quickly in some respects. My, my, my, every little twist and turn adds so much more to the strategies.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Charles22:
If the original vehicle wasn't destroyed, just keep the crew laying low for a while, if you have any hopes of trying to recrew it. If you sent some infantry in front of the hex to lay some smoke, this would certainly help the possibility a bit.]

Conversely, to prevent your opponent from recrewing or repairing a vehicle, some occassional targeting my artillery will keep their suppression too high for an attempt to recrew to succeed.

[I have a question, though I think I know the answer. I recall that it was stated that the crew needs to be inside the tank for a repair to be done, but what if they abandon it?]

They must get back in before the tank will be repaired.

[Given the statement of the rule, this lends one to think that only that crew, can repair that tank. Even so, if the tank is abandoned by whatever means, does that disqualify repair, even should that crew recrew it later?]

No.

[Also, if it can be repaired upon recrewing, does the turns to repair reset, or does it resume from where it left off from before? In other words, If the vehicle was damaged on turn 3, the crew sat in it for 3 more turns, and then abandoned, would their recrewing after this abandonment be 4 turns into the repair (accumulated repair turns), or back to turn 1 of the repair process again?]

Repair time varies greatly. In one battle I immobilised and repaired one vehicle twice before turn 33 while other vehicles seem to be lost. notice that repair can only be made to immobilisation by various means and not to battle damage.

[Can y'all give us a formula (though there are doubtless random factors involved), on the likelihood of malfunction?]

It appears totally random to me although it always seems to happen at a critical moment.

[Also, from what I've seen, the game seems to suggest that malfuctions will occur only in opfire, or in any case the opfire greatly enhances the odds of it happening, but I hace seen player fire malfunction.]

It happens to me more during player fire than with opfire. Then again, I usually decline to opfire unless in dire straits.

[One last question: Paul mentioned that repairs will be noted on the log (great log there!), but will the log ever tell us that the crews have found the repair unmanageable?]

Perhaps you expect too much.
If the officer asks if the vehicle can be remobilised, the crew will answer yes sir. At that point the officer must decide whether to allow the crew to 'carry on' or 'grab a rifle and follow me'.



[This message has been edited by Major Destruction (edited September 12, 2000).]

Thanks, I won't waste my time, I'll try to put them back in their original vehicle. Has anyone got any ideas on the area fire problem?

Bill

ITs becasue the main gun has no HE. Consider it representing poor coordination between armor and infantry That's why they had CS tanks

We will check on it! May be one we have to live with.

Major Destruction: I take it that your answers are mostly learned theory and not fact, correct?

Perhaps you expect too much.
If the officer asks if the vehicle can be remobilised, the crew will answer yes sir. At that point the officer must decide whether to allow the crew to 'carry on' or 'grab a rifle and follow me'

Sorry, I don't understand. Why would the officer ask the question when he knows he'll get the same answer regardless? If he asks the question, doesn't he expect them to tell him the truth? In other words, I take it that he knows nothing on his own, on whether it can be repaired, and in asking the question and expecting nothing but yes-men answers, so that he his question is redundant, he is still relying on an unknowledgable base (in essence he'd rather play mind games [and doubtlesslt the soldiers do too] than know the answer). I understand that may be how things are/were but someone, somewhere, the officer in this case, has to make up their minds anyway. There is a point where someone gives up on it, so that the crew wouldn't remain as sitting ducks should things go badly in battle later, and exit the tank and go off to other duties, or perhaps at least stand by and keep the tank from getting captured (or spike it themselves).

Thanks for the input.

Bottom line guys, I'm NOT complaining that an ommision has been made that should be put into the game, I'm simply wanting to know if we get messages that will tell us the repair cannot be done, that's all. Thanks.



[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited September 13, 2000).]

You don't get a message that a repair can't be done. Just a notification that it is successfully completed.

Paul: Do you think you can lend us the formula for breakdowns? I'm in my first battle, and have tried to find a happy medium in firing/relaxing fire from units, but on turn nine, out of roughly 40-45 anti-tank units, I've lost approximately 8 or nine to malfunction. I'm not exaggerating, because I've seen that many messages. I'm not looking at units that no longer have main guns and concluding a malfunction.

For instance, does a unit who has fired all their rounds three turns actually benefit from not firing at all for a couple of turns, or is it just that there's a random element that they will malfunction, and the odds don't increase one way or the other with more use, and what is excessive use? I understand the terrain/speed issue, though I don't know the specifics, as far as suspension/engine are concerned, but I haven't the faintest clue as to what I'm dealing with as far as guns I've never fired, nor indeed just how you're modeling it. Thanks.

Originally posted by Charles22:
Major Destruction: I take it that your answers are mostly learned theory and not fact, correct?

Sorry, I don't understand.

Bottom line guys, I'm NOT complaining that an ommision has been made that should be put into the game, I'm simply wanting to know if we get messages that will tell us the repair cannot be done, that's all.

My point is/was that you know the vehicle will be repaired. You do not know how long it will take.
The decision the officer (you the player) must make is whether it is better to wait for the vehicle to remobilise or use the crew as infantry.
If the game told you that the vehicle could not be repaired before the turns run out, you would not need to make the decision.
I like the uncertainty.



[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited September 13, 2000).]

For vehicle breakdowns there is a small chance (<1%) per hex of the appropriate type (see terrain effects table in the manual. This chance varies by country and time period. IF you go over half movement (MIke Wood can correct me:-) then each hex checks regardless of terrain.

FOr weapons each time a shot is fired there is a simialr small chance of breakdown. I don't know for sure how it its modified, but I don't think it is. You just have a smaller cumulative chance per turn of breakdown if you fire less shots.

Thank you for the clarification Paul! So, at least I don't have to worry about cumulative firings over turns, but only the turn itself. Given what you just said, I would think that there is no difference between malfunction chances between various gun types. Also, for those who campaign and get more shots as a result of gaining more experience, if the more you fire, regardless of any other considerations, per turn, increases the odds, then the extra earned shots will prove perhaps useless, because they would prove only more chances to jam. Is there any possibility that experience of the unit can decrease the odds of a jam?

BTW, speaking of manuals, I've never seen it! Here at work I tried running it, and Acrobat 2.1 finds errors on it. I've tried going with the errors and without them and both result in no data. It's the same way at home. Also, i've tried keying on the 'manual' option with the introductory SPWAW window, and this locks up the computer, doubtlessly searching for missing files. As Penelope Pitstop would say, "H-Help!!!"

[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited September 14, 2000).]

Hi Charles

I use acrobat 4.0 and have no problems with the manual. You are using an ancient program, upgrade and be happy.

------------------
Divide et Impera
Daniel E

Major Destruction: Sorry, that last transmission sounded an awful lot like me. Were you meaning to say something?

You said,

Conversely, to prevent your opponent from recrewing or repairing a vehicle, some occassional targeting my artillery will keep their suppression too high for an attempt to recrew to succeed.

Good tip, but if someone 'knew' what I was doing in regards to this protection I speak of, I would find a counter. The first one that leaps to mind is to have 'decoys' elsewhere. For instance, let's say that I have a '44 Gerry force. I have a couple of King Tigers and a general assortment of PZIVHs, SGIIIGs and such. I would place infantry around non-critical units, as well as the one I'm protecting, in order to supposedly protect that one as well, when in reality it would only be a ruse. It would turn into a method to get them to put there artillery in somewhat pointless places (at least away from my intent). As well, it would be tricky, because in order to know what I'm protecting, you would need to know what I'm protecting (silly). What I mean, is that someone might think I'm protecting the King Tiger crews because of the expense and potential of the unit, but that might often be flawed thinking. A campaigner, such as myself, might be more interested in crew experience rather than the expense of the unit, so the protected unit could be literally ANY of them. Conversely, if I also knew my smoke, drew bombardment, I would also NOT lay smoke to protect the crew which I abandoned as a countermeasure. Hmmmm.

Also there's a matter of timing. IF I abandoned on my own accord, the enemy would have a delay on his bombardment, therefore rendering killing the crew, closing on impossible. You may say, "Well the crew is only so fast as to get out of the area. We know the crews are only speed three now, should the bombardment come a turn or two later" Yes, I agree, but the wise crew hider, would learn and ultimately would set up a staff car somewhat to the rear of the unit to pick them up and get completely out of the area after that. The speeds of the units have increased. Even if a staff car wasn't very available, there is also the possiblity that the avid crew saver would be willing to use a nearby mobile battle unit to pick it up instead.

Dice4Eyes: Are you sure it's the version? I ask, because version 2.3's manual had no problems whatsoever on Acrobat's 2.1.

Mr. "Short a Manual" here, has a question which I doubt any manual has addressed. If you look at one of your own units with the space bar, you get more internal data. My question is, what is "value"? It generally looks to be the 'cost' of the unit minus a few points. Is the 'value' actually the points given for it's destruction, and if so, why doesn't it match the cost? Is it some background method of making battles more even? I remember in the old days (not necessarily the Sp system) that forces on the defensive used to get double the cost of the unit they destroyed, is this 'value' thing linked to some similar scheme?

Originally posted by Charles22:
The first one that leaps to mind is to have 'decoys' elsewhere. [B/]

I mark ALL abandoned tanks and call mortar fire on their location for the next few turns. After that I usually mortar the tank about every other round. I know the crew needs to get back to the tank, have low suppression and sit there for a turn or two. Any mortar fire spent keeping your crews from getting back in their tank is mortar fire well spent. I don't much care if the crew is even in the area any more, just knowing that I *might* be keeping you from getting back in the tank is comfort enough.

BA Evans

BA Evans: Nice try, but you've miscalculated my intent. If your intent was to thwart my intent, it doesn't succeed.

This whole idea is overshadowed by one reality. When you are actually talking about countering what "I" would do, as opposed to the random player or AI doing the same things, you run into a more complex scenario. Firstly, I never play, but against the AI, but even if you were battling me head-to-head, this would disqualify my concern for preserving crews entirely, or at least if I did, it wouldn't be for the same motives.

The idea my dear friends, is to preserve "experience", besides, as much artillery as it takes to wipe out a crew, a crew which might be any number of places, one could wonder how much an advantage is gained by he who has his opponent lobbing rounds at non-combatant units, thereby preserving the combatants. Actually, to bombard my abandoned tanks, in my case personally, would be playing into my hands. Not only would I be able to get my experienced crews to safety, but one would be bombarding somewhat uselessly, because I would have no intention whatsoever of returning the crew. Why put them back in the tank to get killed very directly by anti-tank fire? You see, what I'm talking about is abandoning the tank under my own discretion. I'm not going to recrew it if I pulled them out for the sake of saving an very experienced crew. I'm only concerned with preserving crews, because I want them for the next battle in the campaign against the AI. There might be a favorite unit, or two or three who have HUGE experience over time. Some people would only upgrade their most experienced crews first, so that shooting at the best tank would accomplish something. But some people on the other hand, believe in leaving the strongest units with the least experienced crews (I'm probably something of a mix of the two trains of thought), thereby figuring that the nastiness on the superior unit will make up for the inefficiencies, plus, it leaves some of the lesser units with EXTREMELY potent fire. Would you rather face a King Tiger with 50 experience, or a Panther with 140 experience? Besides, over the course of a campaign, if you're like me, I might lose track of who the best crews were (the upgrade menu doesn't display the stats on the crew [or I never noticed it]), so that when I upgrade, it may be more towards making a balanced platoon, rather than putting the best crews in the best stuff.

Now, if I were of the mindset of flinging away in one battle, where saving experienced crews doesn't matter anymore than losing inexperienced crews, I would be keen on recrewing, that is, if the abandonment was involuntary in the first place. IF I were fighting such a battle, especially given that some things can be fixed now, I would be very unlikely to consider voluntary abandonment.

Hope I'm not being too boring here, but it has exercised my brain a bit.