Matrix Games Forums

So, I was giving the tooltip a second chance, and I noticed this inconsistency:

Now, from the manual

1.9.1 defensive anti-armor strengths
Defending units benefit from increased Anti-Armor Strengths in
some terrain or Deployments. Effects are not cumulative. Only
the strongest modifier is in effect:
In a Fortified Line hex (any Deployment), or Fortified Deploy-
ment (any terrain): x5
Dense Urban, Dense Urban Ruin, or Mountains (any Deploy-
ment), or Entrenched Deployment (any terrain): x3.5
Urban, Urban Ruin, Bocage, or Marsh (any Deployment), or De-
fending Deployment (any terrain): x2

1.9.2 defensive anti-personnel strengths
Defending units benefit from increased Anti-Personnel Attack
Strengths in some terrain or Deployments. Effects are not cu-
mulative. Only the strongest modifier is in effect:
- In a Fortified Line hex (any Deployment), or Fortified Deploy-
ment (any terrain): x4.5
- Bocage (any Deployment) or Entrenched Deployment (any ter-
rain): x3
- Mountains (any Deployment), or Defending Deployment: x1.5

1.9. defensive strengths of vehicles
Vehicles in defending units benefit from increased Defensive
Strengths in some terrain and Deployments. Effects are not cu-
mulative. Only the strongest modifier is in effect:
- In a Fortified Line hex (any Deployment) or Fortified Deploy-
ment (any terrain): x3
- Dense Urban or Dense Urban Ruin (any Deployment) or En-
trenched Deployment (any terrain): x1.5

1.9.4 defensive strengths of infantry
Infantry and non-static weapons in defending units benefit from
increased Defensive Strengths in some terrain or Deployments.
Effects are not cumulative. Only the strongest modifier is in ef-
fect:
- In a Fortified Line hex (any Deployment) or Fortified Deploy-
ment (any terrain): x8
- Dense Urban, Dense Urban Ruin, or Badlands (any Deploy-
ment): x4
- Urban, Urban Ruin, Bocage, Dunes, or Mountain (any Deploy-
ment): or Entrenched Deployment (any terrain): x3
- Forest, Jungle, Hills, or Wadi (any Deployment), or Defending
Deployment (any terrain): x2.0

First screenshot: It´s a fortress hex, AT bonus 500%, Ap 800%

So, it appears here that the AT 500% level corresponds to the anti-armor strength to the unit, while the 800% should be the case for the infantry in the unit, not to the unit itself.

Second case, mountain hex, AT bonus 350%. Ap 200%.

This is even stranger, as 200% AP bonus doesn't correspond with either the unit nor the infantry bonus for a mountain hex.

So, is this a bug for the tooltip, or for the combat calculations, or a undocumented change?

Yes, they do indeed leave one confused as to what is going on. I never bothered with the tool tips.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Yes, they do indeed leave one confused as to what is going on. I never bothered with the tool tips.

Yeah I guess so. Man, this forum is so dead.

As Lobster wrote, I also do not bother with ToolTips. I just look at unit attack/AT/defense; unit health; terrain and weather (I've finally come back to paying attention to weather conditions, especially when attacking).

But following Meyer1's suggestions, I wonder if the AP value calc also includes the AP strength of any armor eqp in the unit. Of course, whether or not AP from armored eqp engages depends on what combat occurs (attack, defense, overrun attempt,,,) and on what eqp is present in the opposing units. And then, factoring in any strengthening/weakening from supply and readiness values (gotta love those units who've built up to 104% readiness/128% supply) will affect how much of a unit's eqp participates. It does not look like that's factored into the Tool Tip.

There are four factors taken into account. Two account for offensive actions taken by the defending units, they do shoot back. Two account for the defensive strengths of the defending units or how well they defend themselves from offensive fire. Now, unless I am totally wrong, (I am only human, i think [;)]), the tool tip gives you a mixed bag of these factors. It pulls one from the defender's offensive actions and the other from the defenders defensive actions. Now this wouldn't be so bad if they did this for both AT and AP so you would have four percentages. But instead they pull one from the defenders offensive fire and the other from the defenders defensive strength mixing the AT from one and the AP from the other.

In the first example the AT is from 1.9.1 (anti armor attack str) and the AP is from 1.9.4 (infantry defense str). It's a mixed bag. It really doesn't give you a proper picture of what the hell is going on. In fact, it muddies the water so much you would think the enemies counter intelligence agents were doing a great job.

ORIGINAL: ogar


But following Meyer1's suggestions, I wonder if the AP value calc also includes the AP strength of any armor eqp in the unit. Of course, whether or not AP from armored eqp engages depends on what combat occurs (attack, defense, overrun attempt,,,) and on what eqp is present in the opposing units. And then, factoring in any strengthening/weakening from supply and readiness values (gotta love those units who've built up to 104% readiness/128% supply) will affect how much of a unit's eqp participates. It does not look like that's factored into the Tool Tip.

Seeing that the numbers shown in the tooltip ara always round (200%, 300%...) doesn't look like this is the case.

As Lobster wrote, I also do not bother with ToolTips. I just look at unit attack/AT/defense; unit health; terrain and weather (I've finally come back to paying attention to weather conditions, especially when attacking).

I always find the tooltip to be very annoying, but now I have it set to show at 6000msec, so it only appears when I want to (still would like a key to activate it but..). It comes handy to see the effect of terrain on a potential combat, unfortunately I think its features were not thoughtfully documented.
Oh, the weather... I always forget about it [:D]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

In fact, it muddies the water so much you would think the enemies counter intelligence agents were doing a great job.

[:D]

This reminds me another thing that the IV could improve over the III version of TOAW: a better and broader Fog of War. Currently, Players know WAY too much about the enemy. But, as I said in the other forum, we are not in good position to ask for more things.

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

ORIGINAL: Lobster

In fact, it muddies the water so much you would think the enemies counter intelligence agents were doing a great job.

[:D]

This reminds me another thing that the IV could improve over the III version of TOAW: a better and broader Fog of War. Currently, Players know WAY too much about the enemy. But, as I said in the other forum, we are not in good position to ask for more things.

very low recon values ( smaller than 10%) help, if only for unit locations.