Response to Veers

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Response to Veers

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Response to Veers

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Response to Veers - 7/8/2007 2:17:51 AM

wolflars

Posts: 184
Joined: 6/8/2006
Status: offline

Veers I will send a copy your way as soon as it is a little more cleaned up

But here some more description

AIR:

As far as air in EA goes we noticed there was a fairly consistent ratio of aircraft represented versus historical aircraft produced/present at any given time. We felt that it worked pretty well was consistent across the board and would be accurate enough for play. The only problem was Soviet Air fell short of the ratio. We had great info on the posture and makeup of the early VVS as well as what things looked like by the end of the war. Since the early air force took a hard beating after Barbarossa we actually made 2 sets of Soviet Air. The first representing the early forces made up of early war planes (I-16, I-15 etc). These are withdrawn through a variable event thus allowing the Luftwaffe to �destroy� most of the Soviet Air Force in one fell swoop�but it is no guarantee�and it eliminates the problem of having I-16s mixed with Yaks. The second set of Soviet Air are brought in by reinforcements and events. They are made up of better mid and late war planes. Some are even Lend Lease.

The original EA numbers for the Luftwaffe are pretty much dead on with the accepted ratio. We did, however, break them down into Wings. This is somewhat historically problematic because much of the Luftwaffe Wings dispersed, divided, combined, and otherwise ended up all over the place but I prefer the unit designations and its allows for smaller (albeit more) wing sized units�more flexible and of course airfields become valuable objective.

Same with the US. Numbers and type were only altered slightly and now each Air Force has its own Formation with the appropriate fighter and bomber wings assigned to it.
One thing we did do as far as assignment goes is we moved some aircraft types around to allow for more single type representation in the air units. I think this works better for how TOAW handles air units. So, for example, if a given fighter wing had a makeup of 3 squadrons of P-51s and 1 P-47 we moved the numbers around until it was pure P-51 and another was pure P-47. In the end the total sum of P-47 and P51 would be unchanged. Many units are also made up of multiple wings.

EXPANDED USA OOB:

FDR wanted 200 divisions. He never quite got there for two reasons: 1) didn�t need them and 2) believe it or not the USA actually had manpower shortages by 1945. Our expanded OOB deals with these two �obstacles�. Simply �not needing� doesn�t mean it could not have been done had they been needed (successful Seelowe or Barbarossa is worth at least raising a few extra divisions right?). So, we have the 2nd and 14th Armies ready to go with a total of 9 hastily raised and trained (but well equipped corps) and 3 additional Armor Divisions which will show up in the very late war period with M26 Pershings. Another 2 corps deal with the manpower issue. One main reason the USA had a manpower problem was the refusal to desegregate the armed forces (which FDR wanted to do but was advised otherwise). So, there is an event that calls for this and thus releases 2 corps. So these still far short of FDRs 200 division but its better than nothing�

One of our concerns has always been speculating reinforcements for nations if the fighting extended into 1945. Upon research, it seems clear just about everybody was at their limit by this time however. So, while there are some minor units available in the late war period they are mostly present to reflect equipment enhancements. The exception, of course, is built around the possibility of France and Italy not collapsing. It is obviously reasonable to have some new units ready for them if they somehow avoid surrender. As a result, there are. Of course, France has quite a few and we kept the original EA OOB with only minor changes. Italy gets one, maybe two, corps. However, Italy can get bonus units through a successful Med campaign. Spanish entry gives Italy an armor division equipped with French tanks taken from Vichy.

< Message edited by wolflars -- 7/8/2007 2:24:59 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Response to Veers - 7/8/2007 2:18:27 AM

wolflars

Posts: 184
Joined: 6/8/2006
Status: offline

UK OOB

Refined mostly because of the Pacific commitments.

NAVAL OOB:

Huge. Yes, I know TOAW and navies are strange bedfellows. But that is how this started. Every EA game felt wrong as pulling off Seelowe was just too easy. There just wasn�t enough Royal Navy. And now there is. Most major capital ships are represented. They are usually accompanied by some destroyers and a cruiser or two. The total sum of ships represented is about 90% accurate with the exception being destroyers. Capital ships do not reconstitute. So, if you lose the Bismarck you loose her forever, along with her escort. Obviously, navies didn�t necessarily fight like this but it actually works within reason. The Italian Navy has some teeth. Norway is a huge challenge for the Germans. And Sealion is just about impossible and can only be done with planning, diversion, air superiority and luck (play balance, I know, but I mean really has anyone ever looked at the size of the Royal Navy versus the Kriegsmarine�good luck Adolf)

Here is the bulk of the Royal Navy including Pacific before the color palette changes, she is the most fun Navy because of the heavy commitment to defending the Channel, the Med, and elsewhere. In playtesting her losses are heavy but inline with historical results. She also gets screwed by some random submarine events (ie loses Coourageous, Royal Oak, Ark Royal, Barham, QE, and Valiant separately)

COLOR Palette

The rationale behind changes the color had to do with changing levels of cooperation at first. Also, it also easier withdrawal of some units. For example, depending on how France falls, the army may surrender whereas the navy or air force might not. Much of this concept was done in EA.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by wolflars -- 7/8/2007 2:22:34 AM >

(in reply to wolflars)

Post #: 2

RE: Response to Veers - 7/8/2007 2:18:54 AM

wolflars

Posts: 184
Joined: 6/8/2006
Status: offline

whoa, something went wrong above sorry about that

BDE size units and chrome:

Hot topic in a corps sized scenario. I said we eliminated many of them, but that is probably an exaggeration. Some were consolidated into corps, some of the UK Armor Bdes for example. Still, I think there are way too many. But, I agree about the chrome and many of these units represent units with special capabilities (Airborne or Heavy Armor for example) and are a huge operational force multiplier so we left most and even added some. Especially in the Pacific, we ended up with many division size units. So, in the spirit of chrome and operational flexibility we actually added a couple of division sized units to the Europe portion. I call them �playmaker� units or �elite.� Essentially, I chose 10 divisions from the Allied side and 10 from the Axis side whom I considered to be damn fine outfits who either always seemed to significantly adding to the battlefield. I added them without subtracting from any corps. So, in many cases they are double represented. One might disagree with this but oh well�In some cases the divisions were already represented so they just gained a small boost in proficiency. (US 4th Arm Div for example, or UK GdsArm). For the most part, I just picked my favorite divisions or units I served in (that�s enough to make them elite right? lol) The USA gained 1st and 3rd Infantry Divisions and 10th Mtn to give the USA at least one Mountain unit. The UK gained 6th or 9th Australian (cant remember, maybe both). 2 New Zealand (or were they already in EA?). The remainder were armor units already in the game.

For the Germans, I avoided the obvious temptation to have Waffen SS in this category with the exception of the 4th Wiking. For the most part, I think the Waffen SS is over rated. Motivated and well equipped but unwieldy and often times inexperienced. I know others will disagree and I am not inviting discussion on this. Other divisions I added were the 7th Pz, 11th Pz, and 2nd Pz Divisions along with a GD regiment that gets withdrawn in lieu of a division and then again for a corps. I added a Lehr Div but didn�t really want to and a couple of others that I cannot recall at the moment.

In the Pacific, there are independent division for a couple of Japanese units (Marines and Guards mostly) and for the USA the 25th Infantry Division and, of course, the First Marine Division (I would like to add additional Marine Divisions but am short on unit slots so one will have to make do with the 2 or 3 corps of Marines�all have relatively high efficiency).

I made no addition to the Soviets and am willing to entertain any suggestions for the addition of 1 or two Soviet Division that functioned as �playmakers�

With the exception of Finland getting a Division (sorry can�t remember which one) I don�t recall any minors receiving any units in this category but again am willing to entertain suggestions. Keep in mind some independent divisions were already part of EA.

Divisions aside, the inclusion of less than corps sized units is a problem. As such we are trying out a rule which prohibits a lone unit to attack any unit that is two echelons higher in size. If they are stacked then its fine, or if it is a amphibious or air assault that is fine too. Not sure how well this would work but at least it curbs a player from attacking an armor corps with a RR unit. Opinions on this subject are welcome.

< Message edited by wolflars -- 7/8/2007 2:23:22 AM >

(in reply to wolflars)

Post #: 3

RE: Response to Veers - 7/8/2007 2:19:12 AM

wolflars

Posts: 184
Joined: 6/8/2006
Status: offline

VICHY:

Complicated, very complicated. As you know from EA the whole French thing is off kilter. We have events that allow for France to continue to fight despite losing Paris. This was a very real possibility, a redoubt in Brittany/Normandy or continuing the fight from North Africa. During the exodus from Paris, Reynaud and his government fled, mostly to Bordeaux. Things went awry from there. What I have never liked is how there is always an assumption that a nation will surrender with the loss of the capital, sometimes it takes more, sometimes less. For France, in our version, it will be a decision made by the allied player. If we do it right it won�t be an easy choice to make, there will be consequences to NOT surrendering once Paris falls (Spanish Entry for sure and probably reduced USA EV). I also don�t like how there is a big battle for Paris which destroys the city. These two things will be tied together. Basically if the allied player does NOT defend Paris (open city) then it will be a full collapse. If he does defend, partial collapse if/when Paris falls. In this case the Army still surrenders, but Navy and Air Force as well as Colonial forces fight on. The Colonial OOB is expanded to reflect additional units that might have been built later. In this case also DeGaulle does not form the Free French.

Mers-el Kebir:

What a crazy thing. Well, we have aUK theater option to destroy (some anyway) the Vichy French Fleet. Side effects are historical, Vichy loses some boats and they are uncooperative. Churchill ordered this because he feared Hitler might seize the fleet. We know now Hitler had no intention to do so. However, in our game he can (%50 success)so the fear is very real and there is an accompanied boost in Axis shipping. If he does, he gets a healthy amount of French ships added to the Kriegsmarine. These are in addition to Vichy ones already on the map. Because of this, the Vichy fleet is under strength because we are avoiding duplicating ships. Ordering Mers-el Kebir cancels the Axis T/O.

Simple so far. But where it gets complex is what happens to the UK if they do not launch this raid. Well, it turns out a number of French ships were in various ports, including Alexandria and the Caribbean about this time. It is possible they might have joined the Free French had it not been for this event. So, in our game they do. We have had varying degree of success getting this event to trigger properly however and are still working on it because it runs the possibility of duplicating ships.

Our craziest Vichy events revolve around Darlan, DeGaulle, and Giraud. This is a work in progress and is largely affected by the fact I just finished Rick Atkinsons �Army at Dawn� lol. Vichy is complicated all the way around, but if we get this right it will be one of the best features of this scenario.

Strategic Warfare:

This probably won�t work. We have 2 models that we are trying out. What we really need is a �Formation Withdrawal Event� What I don�t like in EA is how you can commit so many B-17s and B-24s to close air support. But, then again, I like it because you have a choice. I also don�t like bombing those industrial units in the German cities, never seems to work out for me. What we are working on is a series of player activated events which essentially make the player choose between using these units for Strategic warfare or support. Choose SW, you loose the planes but get strategic warfare events. Don�t choose and you can use the planes for whatever.

The second model is very board-gamey and I is largely dependent on a house rule which will require some honesty on the Allied players part. Units �committed� to SW are not withdrawn but basically set aside. They can be brought back into the fray, however. To this end, we have set up a little SW track that relies on unit disbands, captured locations to trigger events. Units brought out of SW commitment can only be done by disbanding a certain unit (house rule, honesty required). This triggers a �respite in the bombing campaign� event for the German or Japanese which presumably allows for more production. Depending on which one it was it will result in what is usually additional reinforcements for the Axis player. They range from more Jet units to SS Volunteers to Type XXI subs produced en masse to supply effects. Mostly they are inconsequential but add chrome and, more importantly, punish the allied player for using his B-17s to bomb tanks and not airplane factories. All in all, this model may not work whatsoever because it needs a more ebb and flow. What would be ideal, is to have the ability to set aircraft to a SW mode similar to Interdiction, whereas a certain percentage of air dedicated to this would produce a desired effect.

(in reply to wolflars)

Post #: 4

RE: Response to Veers - 7/8/2007 8:01:05 PM

will5869

Posts: 17
Joined: 10/23/2006
Status: offline

This sounds interesting. I would like a copy of it when you get it finished please.

(in reply to wolflars)

Post #: 5

RE: Response to Veers - 7/8/2007 8:36:43 PM

Veers

Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wolflars
Veers I will send a copy your way as soon as it is a little more cleaned up

Excellent.

quote:

As far as air in EA goes we noticed there was a fairly consistent ratio of aircraft represented versus historical aircraft produced/present at any given time. We felt that it worked pretty well was consistent across the board and would be accurate enough for play. The only problem was Soviet Air fell short of the ratio. We had great info on the posture and makeup of the early VVS as well as what things looked like by the end of the war. Since the early air force took a hard beating after Barbarossa we actually made 2 sets of Soviet Air. The first representing the early forces made up of early war planes (I-16, I-15 etc). These are withdrawn through a variable event thus allowing the Luftwaffe to �destroy� most of the Soviet Air Force in one fell swoop�but it is no guarantee�and it eliminates the problem of having I-16s mixed with Yaks. The second set of Soviet Air are brought in by reinforcements and events. They are made up of better mid and late war planes. Some are even Lend Lease.

I'd love to see your reasearch here for possible improvements to EA.

quote:

The original EA numbers for the Luftwaffe are pretty much dead on with the accepted ratio. We did, however, break them down into Wings. This is somewhat historically problematic because much of the Luftwaffe Wings dispersed, divided, combined, and otherwise ended up all over the place but I prefer the unit designations and its allows for smaller (albeit more) wing sized units�more flexible and of course airfields become valuable objective.

Same with the US. Numbers and type were only altered slightly and now each Air Force has its own Formation with the appropriate fighter and bomber wings assigned to it.

With the number of airbases we have on a 25-ish km/hex map I don't think we'll be able to do this with EA.

quote:

One thing we did do as far as assignment goes is we moved some aircraft types around to allow for more single type representation in the air units. I think this works better for how TOAW handles air units. So, for example, if a given fighter wing had a makeup of 3 squadrons of P-51s and 1 P-47 we moved the numbers around until it was pure P-51 and another was pure P-47. In the end the total sum of P-47 and P51 would be unchanged. Many units are also made up of multiple wings.

I've been thinking of this. The Donut of Death may have been (mostly) fixed iwth T3, but it's still a good idea to keep aircraft types seperate.

quote:

EXPANDED USA OOB:
FDR wanted 200 divisions. He never quite got there for two reasons: 1) didn�t need them and 2) believe it or not the USA actually had manpower shortages by 1945. Our expanded OOB deals with these two �obstacles�. Simply �not needing� doesn�t mean it could not have been done had they been needed (successful Seelowe or Barbarossa is worth at least raising a few extra divisions right?). So, we have the 2nd and 14th Armies ready to go with a total of 9 hastily raised and trained (but well equipped corps) and 3 additional Armor Divisions which will show up in the very late war period with M26 Pershings. Another 2 corps deal with the manpower issue. One main reason the USA had a manpower problem was the refusal to desegregate the armed forces (which FDR wanted to do but was advised otherwise). So, there is an event that calls for this and thus releases 2 corps. So these still far short of FDRs 200 division but its better than nothing�

Shane and I have already been thinking of this and hwo to do it. Again, I would love to see your research for possible improvements to EA.

quote:

Italy gets one, maybe two, corps [late in the war]. However, Italy can get bonus units through a successful Med campaign.

I like this idea. I'd love to see what you came up with for possible improvements to EA.

quote:

Spanish entry gives Italy an armor division equipped with French tanks taken from Vichy.

I like this idea, as well. I'd love to see what you came up with for possible improvements to EA.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to wolflars)

Post #: 6

RE: Response to Veers - 7/8/2007 8:38:47 PM

Veers

Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wolflars

UK OOB

Refined mostly because of the Pacific commitments.

NAVAL OOB:

Huge. Yes, I know TOAW and navies are strange bedfellows. But that is how this started. Every EA game felt wrong as pulling off Seelowe was just too easy. There just wasn�t enough Royal Navy. And now there is. Most major capital ships are represented. They are usually accompanied by some destroyers and a cruiser or two. The total sum of ships represented is about 90% accurate with the exception being destroyers. Capital ships do not reconstitute. So, if you lose the Bismarck you loose her forever, along with her escort. Obviously, navies didn�t necessarily fight like this but it actually works within reason. The Italian Navy has some teeth. Norway is a huge challenge for the Germans. And Sealion is just about impossible and can only be done with planning, diversion, air superiority and luck (play balance, I know, but I mean really has anyone ever looked at the size of the Royal Navy versus the Kriegsmarine�good luck Adolf)

Here is the bulk of the Royal Navy including Pacific before the color palette changes, she is the most fun Navy because of the heavy commitment to defending the Channel, the Med, and elsewhere. In playtesting her losses are heavy but inline with historical results. She also gets screwed by some random submarine events (ie loses Coourageous, Royal Oak, Ark Royal, Barham, QE, and Valiant separately)

COLOR Palette

The rationale behind changes the color had to do with changing levels of cooperation at first. Also, it also easier withdrawal of some units. For example, depending on how France falls, the army may surrender whereas the navy or air force might not. Much of this concept was done in EA.

I'd like to have a look at what you've done with the navy in more detail. Obviously we won't be expanding EA into the Pacific (after all you've already done this

), but an enhancement of the European Navies would be a good thing.

< Message edited by Veers -- 7/8/2007 8:39:01 PM >

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to wolflars)

Post #: 7

RE: Response to Veers - 7/8/2007 8:46:31 PM

Veers

Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wolflars

So, in the spirit of chrome and operational flexibility we actually added a couple of division sized units to the Europe portion. I call them �playmaker� units or �elite.� Essentially, I chose 10 divisions from the Allied side and 10 from the Axis side whom I considered to be damn fine outfits who either always seemed to significantly adding to the battlefield. I added them without subtracting from any corps. So, in many cases they are double represented. One might disagree with this but oh well�In some cases the divisions were already represented so they just gained a small boost in proficiency. (US 4th Arm Div for example, or UK GdsArm). For the most part, I just picked my favorite divisions or units I served in (that�s enough to make them elite right? lol) The USA gained 1st and 3rd Infantry Divisions and 10th Mtn to give the USA at least one Mountain unit. The UK gained 6th or 9th Australian (cant remember, maybe both). 2 New Zealand (or were they already in EA?). The remainder were armor units already in the game.

For the Germans, I avoided the obvious temptation to have Waffen SS in this category with the exception of the 4th Wiking. For the most part, I think the Waffen SS is over rated. Motivated and well equipped but unwieldy and often times inexperienced. I know others will disagree and I am not inviting discussion on this. Other divisions I added were the 7th Pz, 11th Pz, and 2nd Pz Divisions along with a GD regiment that gets withdrawn in lieu of a division and then again for a corps. I added a Lehr Div but didn�t really want to and a couple of others that I cannot recall at the moment.

This is a very interesting idea.

quote:

Divisions aside, the inclusion of less than corps sized units is a problem. As such we are trying out a rule which prohibits a lone unit to attack any unit that is two echelons higher in size. If they are stacked then its fine, or if it is a amphibious or air assault that is fine too. Not sure how well this would work but at least it curbs a player from attacking an armor corps with a RR unit. Opinions on this subject are welcome.

Shane has his own Personal House Rule that states:

quote:

Require a 1:3 (or other � 1:1?) ratio for all attacks after the first; a brigade can attack a division; a division can attack a corps, etc. So if you have a hex that has 7 enemy corps, an armor division, and an HQ (HQs count as brigades) in it, you'd need 2 corps, 1 division & 2 brigades to launch a 2nd (or 3rd, etc) attack. (Always round up). (This is the one that I prefer).

I kinda like it. Alternately, in my game Mark we simply agreed not to do supply drain or 'ant' attacks (with massed Arty support).

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to wolflars)

Post #: 8

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Response to Veers

Page: [1]