Matrix Games Forums

I've been doing some testing/comparison of TOAW 3 4 1 9 versus 3 4 0 202 (with and without 3xBb mod) to see how the new version handles anti-air and retreat-from-combat versus the old ones. I encountered this glitch while playing a hot seat game of Road to Rimini. The Allied forces needed to clear an entrenched German company from a hill-escarpment hex, so they attacked with two rested infantry battalions (neighboring hexes), had lots of support from armor/motorized units stuck on the road hex next to the German company, lots of Allied artillery, plus some heavy artillery directly targeted on the defenders, and a fighter-bomber outfit also directly targeted. Allies did force the German unit to retreat, were unable to enter the hex.

The glitch is :
the after battle report showed this as only the air unit directly targeted as the sole attackers (both in the summary and in the attacker detail). It showed no air losses (correct) and no other Allied losses (incorrect, the infantry units lost 5-6% of their strength each). I was surprised by this, and in the midst of a turn, so did not think to save the screenshot... I later checked the sit rep for that battle (see pic). It matches what I remember of the after-battle report. Even though the infantry AND some artillery are shown as directly attacking.

In an earlier test run using Anzio 2KM, I had a similar experience - sorry no screen shots. Combined arms attack on dug in defender, no directed air (combat support only), and both after-battle and sit rep show this as an air "attack" while the ground attackers do suffer appropriate losses.

I recollect a similar glitch back on TOAW 3.2.29.27 -- although, back then, the sit rep would report fully and correctly (or so I thought), only the after-battle report would be "attacking air units only". I do not recall this happening on 3.4.0.202 or with 3xBb.

I'm posting this to bring it to attention, in chance it a) might be fixed, and b) in case it's the upstanding nail that leads to resolving other problem(s). Of course, if you are doing very detailed loss tracking (as part of scenario design, etc.), you need to be aware of this as it means the sit rep nor the after battle reports are partially complete or partially accurate (likely 95%, or higher in accuracy, but...just something to plan around).

The games themselves played well, and I think, accurately. So this glitch is just that -- something erroneous with reporting of the effects of combat. But if the effects are coming straight from the combat-loss-accounting routine, and if (sorry, big IF) that also is off... Also having this occur twice in less than 100 turns on several scenarios (vs no occurrences on 1000's of turns of many scenarios with 3.4.0.202) is noticeable.

Some good news :

a) after-battle report and sit rep AGREE ! better than what happened on 3.2 at least, where you did know which to accept

b) air losses on 3.4.1.9 seem to me about the same as with 3xBb -- nice that all those 20mm and 50cal eqp the units have been dragging around all these years get used again.

c) retreat-from-combat on the new version, seems to me to be easier than 3xBb (and certainly easier than 3.4.0.202), BUT I cannot prove that... when I bother with logs and crawl through those, 3.4.1.9 is very close to what happens with 3xBb. I think 3.4.1.9 has a more dynamic RFC calc than 3xBb's static calc, and I think at the beginning of most scenarios (lots of rested units nearby) make the new patch "easier for attacker" at the start of a scenario. I expect as I get into games going 30, 40 turns, that 3.4.1.9 may not be so 'easy' when I gotta gotta attack with what's available.

I had the same thing happen to me, two German Pioniere units attacking against a Soviet Rifle division, resulting in the evaporation of the latter, no casualties to the Germans, and the report only showed the Luftwaffe units doing the work, and the engineers did not enter the hex (it wasn't a limited attack). I took screenshots, don't know If I have the log enabled, will check.

No log, sorry [:@]

Only one image per message allowed, so...

And Finally:

Also, sorry Ogar for the hijack: units who normally couldn't enter a super river hex, doing it after attacking or RBC a enemy unit that it's on top of it. Is this an old bug or a new one?

They can attack a unit on a super river hex, but can't advance onto the super river.

It would be interesting to know what the supply levels, entrenchment rate/status and the proficiency levels were. From my sandbox tests with Tutorial '43 the new patch works like Kapitan Klose's 3XBb.exe. I noticed though that Elmer kinda is a tad smarter.

Klink, Oberst

@Meyer1,

Thanks for the confirming pix. Again, this is likely just a reporting glitch, as the two attacks I watched seemed to process 'normally'.

No problem with that hijack -- if those units really do enter the super-river hex after combat, that is a bug, and deserves its own thread. (I havent seen this yet.)

@Oberst

In my cases -
Rimini - attackers supply >85, including air; attackers' prof 70+; defenders' supply less than 60; def. prof 70+, defender was colored orange; terrain is hilly with escarpment (those hexes bordering the middle road to the R. Conca). def was entrenched

Anzio - attackers supply >85, including air; attackers' prof 70+; defenders' supply 70-90; def. prof 70+; terrain was cropland/muddy, defender status = D

I'm positive that the units advanced into the super river, but took no pictures. I'll try to replay old saves to see if I could duplicate it.

Ok, managed to do it again. The attack setup:

The result:

Thanks for the screenshots. I can replicate the same thing, with 3.4.1.9 and 3.4.0.202, so I guess its always been like that. As long as a unit has any Engineering Capacity, it will cross a Super River where a Bridge is Blown.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Thanks for the screenshots. I can replicate the same thing, with 3.4.1.9 and 3.4.0.202, so I guess its always been like that. As long as a unit has any Engineering Capacity, it will cross a Super River where a Bridge is Blown.

Well, in my case, two units advanced to the river hex: an Infantry division with 1% engineering and 2% minor ferry, the other, a cavalry brigade, have none of those abilities.
Are you saying that this only happens in hexes with broken bridges, but doesn't if no road is present? Bug or feature?

Happens only in hexes with broken bridges. I tried it with rail and road, road only, and rail only. With the broken rail only the attacking unit can advance into the hex. I could not get a unit with no Engineering Capacity to move into the hex.

I checked the Cavalry units involved in your combat and they do have Engineering Cap.

Seems like a bug but there might be some reason why it's like that.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


I checked the Cavalry units involved in your combat and they do have Engineering Cap.

I was watching the units after expending most movement points, forgot that they lose engineering cap that way. So I'm sure you are right.

Thanks for the testing.

It would appear this is not bugged.

12.3 Major Ferry Support
Land units cannot usually enter Super River or Suez Canal locations. Units that have a Major
Ferry Capacity of greater than 10% have the ability to enter these locations and create tempo-
rary crossing points for other units. If the hex contains a blown bridge, a unit with engineering
equipment can move into, or through, the hex and even attempt to make repairs. If a Scenario
designer has placed an Anchorage (port) in the hex, this will allow Land (and Naval) Movement
into and out of the hex as well.

Notice it does not specify either major or minor engineering, simply engineering equipment. I don't think this makes any sense. If the bridge is blown it effectively means there is no bridge and it should be treated as a river with no bridge until the bridge is fixed. As an example, the allies on the Rhine.

Thanks Lobster, that clarifies it.
Yeah I don't like it either, I would agree that in some cases a bridge could be fixed, but it assumes that no bridge is ever completely destroyed. Also units with just 1% engineering could move onto the hex with no problems (just tested it)

My opinion - I shouldn't have put Engineers in all of those units, since that indicates that they have Engineering Equipment. We can use Assault Squads to represent Combat Engineers, Engineer Squads to represent Bridging Equipment, and Ferry Teams to represent actual bridges.

I'll put it on my OPART-to-do list to fix TGW.

Hey took me like 6 turns to realise that most units have engineering abilities. And I was moving those Pioniere like crazy... boy the AI likes to blow bridges or what? [:D]