Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: German trucks

 
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 >> RE: German trucks Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: German trucks - 12/3/2007 2:31:16 AM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
"The best solution is to:

1) Have the Soviet border guards not reconstitute"

Well if their only role is to man the border, and then die and not reconstitute, why not just eliminate them entirely? Why have 40 slots for units that are eliminated on the 1st turn?

My point about fortress regions was that the Soviet player has limited slots, so it would be better for him to have more infantry divisions at the price of fewer fortress regions. Of course you could just change the FRs so they don't have a movment of 1, and make them a little more useful. Yes it is unrealistic to get rid of them, but it is also unrealistic to have the number of Soviet RD limited by unit count, in the end I think it would be more useful to the soviet player to have more rifle divisions.


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 211
RE: German trucks - 12/3/2007 2:58:57 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
AFAIK there's no particular shortage of Soviet rifle divisions is there?  how many get formed?  There's a list of 440-450 in Wiki, which is about what Charles Sharp gets to IRC.

Which fortified regions would you remove?

Possibly a better idea would be to raise some of the Rifle Brigades as under-strength divisions - they don't reconstruct, and many of them would later be reformed or amalgamated as divisions anyway - although it's also possible that this was done by the original designers - there are many such "fudges" in the scenario already due to the unit limit - have you seen the background document at http://www.ac-smolf.dk/fite/?  Plus there's a complete listing of the Soviet OOB for FiTE 5.0, which is already a bit different from Zorts mod.

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 212
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/3/2007 3:48:01 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
The motorcycle battalions were disbanded at the end of '41 for being ineffective in their role. That's why in the game they do not reconstitute. Combining them with the recce/aufklar battalions won't be a nice thing to do, but their equipment could be added to the auf's without changing the authorized level. Then they would eventually be disbanded on their own.


At the moment these 2 units can be split into 6 subunits for each panzer division - which can make het battlefield look like an ants nest!! :)

My understanding is that often the infantry of the armoured car unit would be used in a traditional infantry role rather than supporting the recce role.

So perhaps the infantry companies could be amalgamated with the tank regt, and the motorcycle and armoured car elements amalgamagted into a single unit.

The motorcycle part of it would wither away once production of them ceases (assuming it does)?

quote:

Soviet recon regiments are very 'ant'y on their own. They could be combined with cavalry divisions or tank brigades from the same army.


I don't see them as anty - more like mousey - they don't break down and there's not as many of them and they're quite easy to trap and kill!!

how would you combine them with tank brigades? Make 1 brigade/army into a heavy armoured recce unit?


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 213
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/5/2007 7:38:58 PM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
Hey guys I know this problem has come up before but I seem to be having trouble getting the .egp to work. I tried deleting the spaces like one poster did and that didn't work. Any ideas? Zort Suggested opening the file with the editor and save it but when i did that i get the same message> I"ll give that a shot> cheers>

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 214
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/5/2007 10:37:38 PM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
I recall having problems with teh egp, but mainly because I had 3 versions of Buzz's mod installed at once amd eas getting confused between them!!

I dont 'remember the details but I'm faitrly sure the problem lay in hte location of the file - it has to be in a sub directory of graphics or alt-graphics with exactly the same name as the scenario file name?

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 215
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/5/2007 11:23:32 PM   
Trick37_MatrixForum


Posts: 172
Joined: 8/10/2007
From: My mama
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman

Hey guys I know this problem has come up before but I seem to be having trouble getting the .egp to work. I tried deleting the spaces like one poster did and that didn't work. Any ideas? Zort Suggested opening the file with the editor and save it but when i did that i get the same message> I"ll give that a shot> cheers>


Hey Cesteman, this is very OT, but I noticed where you're at. I was in Monterey from June 2005 to October 2006, and I enjoyed it (except for the constant fog and high proces). I drove past Paso Robles a couple of times when going to and from the LA/San Diego areas, and that's a beautiful area. :)

I used to listen to a Classic Rock station that was out of the Gonzales area, and I could get it all the way down to your area. That was a breath of fresh air as stations in Germany die off after a very few miles (they exist, but on another station...annoying). This is because of the German rules on radio/relay station power limitations.



_____________________________


(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 216
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/6/2007 1:12:14 AM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
SMK,
I created a folder called FITE_modded_7 and put the folder with the .egp file in the graphics folder not the alt graphics folder. I see you talking about Buzz's mod, Zort sent me the .sce and .egp file am I missing a mod (stupid question I know). Just trying to nail everything down before I try something else.

Trick,
Yep, nice place to live if your in CA! I love the central coast and wouldn't trade it for anything. Well, maybe a lot of money :) Cheers.

(in reply to Trick37_MatrixForum)
Post #: 217
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/6/2007 2:04:22 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
Same as the shot below, except instead of 'Fire in the East 653', you will have the scenario name that you are trying to get to work. It has to be the same exact name of the scenario that is located in the 'scenario' folder. That way when the scenario opens, it looks to the graphics folder for a scenario specific .eqp file. I tend to put all three files in the proper folders, then name them each to the same thing so I know what they are. Also, the first time you open a scenario after making a change like this, it will always say 'you are playing with the wrong equipment file', but that only will happen the first time.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 218
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/6/2007 2:07:03 AM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
Alright thanks for the info. I tried putting it in the alt graphics folder and got the same messgae. so your saying it will only show up the first time? How do I know it's loading the correct .egp file? Thanks.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 219
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/6/2007 2:49:18 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
Not Alt Graphics, put it in the Graphics, like shown in the screen shot above. You'll know it's proper because after the first time, you won't get the message. Don't worry, it takes all of us (ok, most of us) several tries to get this right.

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 220
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/6/2007 5:30:09 AM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
Thanks for the info. I had it in the graphics file the first time with the same results. I read through this thread from the start and noticed that someone suggested putting it in there. I moved it back to the graphics folder and the scenario loads fine. Zort said to check the equipment roster for the axis minor which I did and didn't see anything. As a another note, I renamed everything "FITE". Anyways Thanks for the help.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 221
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/6/2007 9:33:52 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
With Buzz' Fite Modded scenario and equipment file, you will see this stuff at the end of your inventory.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 222
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/6/2007 7:11:26 PM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
Uh nope file slots are blank :( Now this is really starting to bother me. WTH?

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 223
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/6/2007 7:21:30 PM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
I don't know how to attach a copy like you did but mine looks the same except I changed the name to Fite. Same goes for the .sce file. I'll keep looking

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 224
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/6/2007 7:23:34 PM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
Just another thought. Could I somehow have another version of Buzz's files somewhere else that I'm not aware of?

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 225
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/6/2007 8:19:17 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
Um, try naming the .sce, the graphics file and the .eqp file something completely different. Maybe, 'Booboo'. If all three are named exactly the same, it works.

If you use a program like paint, you can make a screenshot by hitting 'alt' and 'print screen' at the same time. Then you can 'edit', 'paste' it into paint and crop and save it to post it. It's kind of tough the first couple times you try it if you have no experience with it.

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 226
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/6/2007 10:35:16 PM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
Thanks for both tips. I'll rename both files and see what happens. Cheers.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 227
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/7/2007 12:32:13 AM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
Didn't work. Checked the equipment file and the last entry is the FA2 Buffalo. What the heck?

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 228
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/7/2007 12:33:59 AM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
Another question. I have a scenario named "Fire in the East." Could this scenario be linked to the modded one? Maybe that's what's causing the problem? Thanks for all your help btw!

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 229
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/7/2007 12:55:00 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman

Didn't work. Checked the equipment file and the last entry is the FA2 Buffalo. What the heck?


That means you checked an unmodified equipment file - you must have moved an old file to the directory insteadof the new one.

A suggestion - extract Zort's mod files to a completely different folder, then create a folder in TOAW graphics with the same name as the .sce file, then move the eqp file to that folder, and finally move the .sce file to the scenario directory.

I have several versions of Zort's mod - each of them I call "FITE Buzzes mod 5" (or "mod 6", currently "mod 7", etc) - this ensures I know which eqp file goes with which mod. Each mod has it's own folder in graphics, with the apporpriate eqp file in that folder. I can actually have all of them up and running at the same time.....I shoudl really delete teh old ones soon!!


< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 12/7/2007 12:57:32 AM >

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 230
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/7/2007 2:00:41 AM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
Well I didn't create the folder in the order you suggested, but I'll give that a shot. Thanks for the help.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 231
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/7/2007 2:21:04 AM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
Alright, copied everything just like you suggested SMK and I am still getting the same error. I noticed the scanario says V5.0 in the info box at the right when I click on the file I was sent. Could I have the wrong file maybe? I have a scenario called Fire in the East v5.0? Cheers.

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 232
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/7/2007 2:39:18 AM   
OTZ

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
Any chance someone can email me the latest version of this mod?

< Message edited by OTZ -- 12/11/2007 2:39:19 AM >

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 233
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/7/2007 3:53:29 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
FITE 5.0 is the original non-buzz-modified file - I suspect Buzz/Zort has kept that there because his is only a modification of it and out of respect for the awesome work of hte original authors.  I don't know any more sorry :(

(in reply to OTZ)
Post #: 234
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/7/2007 4:18:36 AM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
I can understand that SMK and that solves what I thought might be causing the problem, but what about the scenario description box to the right which says v5.0? Maybe I have the wrong file? I know it's something silly it's just driving my nuts trying to figure out what might be causing the problem after all the suggestions from other posters. Thanks for your help. Cheers.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 235
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/7/2007 6:32:40 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
Yes, the scenario description box on the right is the same for 'Fite modded 7' (by Buzz) and 'Fire in the East 1941-1945' (the original). The original description, as SMK says, was not changed.
Another suggestion, to help avoid confusion, is to put these modded scenarios in a different folder from the original. On my system all the mods are put in the 'Hypothetical' folder so I know where they are.

Mr. Steman, did you get it straightened out yet?

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 236
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/7/2007 8:24:38 AM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
not yet. The only mod I am aware of having on my system is the one were talking about. I'll take this one out and start over again. The description box for Fite modded 7 has in the description box v5.0 so that was why I was asking about the Fire in the east scenario which happens to be the same version. Strange. I'll keep at it.

update: Redownloaded the file(s) again and put the .sce in the folder suggested and it still says v5.0. I think I have the wrong file? I'll try and post a pic here later.

< Message edited by cesteman -- 12/7/2007 8:31:22 AM >

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 237
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/7/2007 8:46:27 AM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
It seems I don't have a print screen button on my computer so I am looking for another way to set it up.

How the heck do you upload an image? I can post here. Thanks.



< Message edited by cesteman -- 12/7/2007 10:47:49 PM >

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 238
RE: FITE Revamping - 12/8/2007 12:29:57 AM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Yes, the scenario description box on the right is the same for 'Fite modded 7' (by Buzz) and 'Fire in the East 1941-1945' (the original). The original description, as SMK says, was not changed.
Another suggestion, to help avoid confusion, is to put these modded scenarios in a different folder from the original. On my system all the mods are put in the 'Hypothetical' folder so I know where they are.

Mr. Steman, did you get it straightened out yet?

Special thanks to sPzAbt653 for the help. Finally got it to work!!

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 239
RE: FITE Revamping - 3/17/2008 2:51:35 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
I just got sent a copy of this (my thanks to Buzz and SMK). Just a few random early thoughts, no order of important, these are just the things I was poking around with first.

Replacements

I noticed the SS units for AXIS are set to very high priority when everything else seems to be set to High.

Historically, I don't think it was the case that the SS were given priority replacements. The only examination of the issue I've seen was Zetterling's in Normandy 1944 and you certainly couldn't show the SS had priority using tank deliveries. The Germans essentially ran most units into the ground before withdrawing them for rebuilding. Some infantry formations were disbanded, after service on the eastern front left just a handful to form the cadre of something new, but armoured formations were generally built and rebuilt because they took the brunt of the fighting.

Even more to the point, the Germans from summer 1942 onwards allowed the strengths of the infantry divisions in some sectors to take a hit in order to ensure the formations taking part in Blau were at 85%+ strength. This was a policy that continued on throughout the war as some divisions were downgraded in status as fit for defensive operations only or fit for limited offensive operations etc.

I'd argue the only real priority is for the mobile troops over the infantry troops. Certainly, as the war progresses, the AXIS essentially mass armoured reserves to counterattack Soviet breaches. The ever thinning front line is held by weakening infantry formations. This is essentially my experience of FitE during Winter 41 counterattack as well.

So, I'd suggest dropping the replacement priority for SS formations or increasing the replacement priority for all Pzgr and Panzer formations. The main item in quesiton are clearly the Heavy rifle Squads and if the Germans are going to sustain offensive operations, these need to be given priority when rebuilding.

Since some infantry divisions were rebuilt or reinforced to full strength at different times to support offensive operations, one option might be to "decide" on (say) 25% of German infantry formations that are given a boost in priority. As these units reinforce faster, the German player could remove them from the line and asign them offensive tasks wherever he pleases as the war progresses. We could create a list of these formations for player use. Gamey? A little, but then it would allow the concentration of these fitter formations for Blau in 42 and Citadel in 43.

One other option might be to create "SS heavy rifle" squads in the bio editor and give them their own replacement pool, reducing the overall pool accordingly. Then, I'd set everything to Normal priority save the premier formations which were rebuilt time and time again like Liebstandarte, Das Reich, Totenkopf and Wiking. This would see them strengthened at the expense of some of the lightweight SS formations.

Without this, I think recreating full or close to full strength armoured formations in summer of 1942 might be difficult unless the Wehrmacht had a really easy time in 1941.


Shock

What is this actually simulating? I see the point of shock in 1941 as the Soviet C3 meltsdown and without it, Soviet player will halt the AXIS too early. General shock levels are also fine because they help simulate general combat efficiency.

However, in the winter of 41, the Germans lost heavily because of factors which can already be simulated without giving the Soviets ten turns of advantage.

They were weak after months of heavy casualties and few replacements; they were ill supplied; they were facing increasingly hostile weather; they were in exposed forward positions with big flanks frequently in the air; the Soviets were massing enough to achieve local superiority in areas they wanted to.

All of the above can be simulated. Since most Soviet offensives were well masked, I can see value in giving them two turns of shock to simulate that and aid the breakthrough, but after that the shock should be wholly dependent on the German operational position.

In other words, lets imagine a German player has reached the line of the of the Luga, Lovat, Ugra, Oka and Donetz late in 1941. Lets imagine he has dug in behind these rivers with infantry formations that have time to become fully supplied before the Soviets attack. Lets imagine casualties were not prohibitive and railheads have been established and forward troops are fortified behind rivers at decent supply.

Why are we giving big shock bonuses to the Soviets for turn after turn when the German player has not created any of the operational conditions that gave the Soviets the advantage in late 1941? It was a surprise, so they should have two turns, but by the end of the first week etc, the surprise was wearing off. Much the same for the post Typhoon drop to 80%. If the Germans have really stretched themselves out in going for the prize during Typhoon, fail and are exposed, the Soviets have the conditions necessary for to hit back.

I'd be tempted to revamp the German and Soviet position re shock completely. One idea I had was to create several shock theatre options for each side, each year, from winter 41 onwards. Each one would generate two turns of shock advantage (although this is open to suggestion). If the German player had three at the turn of 1942, he could choose to use them whenever he wished before they disappeared at the end of 1942 and were replaced by "Shock 43" events. The Soviets would get more since they routinely launched more offensive action in most years after 1941.

This would allow the two sides to pick and choose when they launched their offensive action and where. It would also allow limited offensive action at times, since a surprise offensive to snap out a bridgehead could be done without endangering proper offensive action elsewhere which could utilise one of the year's other shock theatre options. Under the current system, anything the German players wants to do in 1942 has to happen during Blau if he wants shock advantage. It also gives the other side advance intel on when something is likely to happen.

Just a suggestion, but with the odd house rule, this might open up the system to a little variety.

Any thoughts? Including any starting with "The game system wouldn't allow this to be done in this way" at which point I'll shut up completely.

regards,
IronDuke

_____________________________


(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: German trucks Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953