Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Directive 21

 
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 >> Directive 21 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Directive 21 - 10/13/2008 8:57:18 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		I'm getting an error message saying that I'm playing with the wrong .eqp file. Is anybody else getting this message?

EDIT: This is manifesting itself in my attempted playtest as giving me 100x T-64A tanks instead of 100x RR Engineers in the Bautrupp regiments.

EDIT P.S. I'm unclear on how RR repair units that are 'rail only' can be of any use. If you are trying to get to a broken rail hex to repair it, but you can't rail into the hex (because it's broken), then how can you ever repair a broken rail hex using 'rail only' RR repair units?

< Message edited by vahauser -- 10/13/2008 9:02:46 PM >

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Directive 21 - 10/13/2008 9:24:58 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		You need to install the .eqp file in the graphics folder, along with the Directive 21 folder.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 2
RE: Directive 21 - 10/13/2008 9:52:19 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

I'm unclear on how RR repair units that are 'rail only' can be of any use. If you are trying to get to a broken rail hex to repair it, but you can't rail into the hex (because it's broken), then how can you ever repair a broken rail hex using 'rail only' RR repair units?


This is a good question, and thanks for asking. Remember the good old days when we had to run all over the map to find our rail repair units and then move them to the desired location and then right click and left click to get them to try to repair a broken rail hex? In this new age of rail repair we only have to put the rail repair units in embarked status on turn 1, then simply move them along the rail lines each turn. During the bookkeeping phase your rail repair crews will jump off the train and repair the rail line for you!

As stated in the scenario briefing - 'Rail Repair will tend to occur automatically nearest 'Bautrupp' units at a maximim rate of 28 per turn.'

In the game engine, this 'auto' repair has been adjusted to simulate the historical German east front rail repair issues. So not all rail repair crews are 100% efficient, and some lines will take longer than others to get repaired.

If you use the '.' (period, dot) button on the keyboard at the start of each turn, you can easily phase thru each of the bautrupp units to advance them to the desired location. Move, . , move, . , etc. In 10 seconds your rail repair chore for the entire east front is complete. This leaves you much more time to try and figure out how to get to Moscow in 15 turns!

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 3
RE: Directive 21 - 10/13/2008 10:09:18 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		First Impressions of Directive 21
I am only talking about the Axis here right now.  I think fixing the Axis first, and then dealing with the Soviets is a reasonable approach.


Weather
There were storms covering the entire map when I first tried to play Directive 21 (I’m having .eqp problems right now, so I haven’t actually been able to play yet).  But the weather must be clear on 22 June 41.  The Germans delayed their invasion for several weeks precisely in order to ensure clear weather.  Two solutions: A) just force players to reload the game over and over again until they get clear weather on 22 June; or B) in the scenario Editor, set the Environment to ‘No Precipitation’. 

Movement Rates
The movement rates are very illogical to me.  This is an enormous issue because movement rates affect pretty much everything.  I recommend a total overhaul of the movement rates.  I also recommend using ‘benchmark’ movement rates that all other movement rates are based on.  From what I can tell, the number of trucks and/or horse teams within units are all messed up (i.e., illogical).

Replacement Priorities
It seems to me that the default is ‘High’.  It also seems to me that the default should be ‘Normal’.  I recommend dropping most all replacement priorities by ‘1 level’.  To me, only a few units should be ‘High’ and ‘Very High’.  Most (i.e., the default) should be ‘Normal’ and ‘Low’.

Unit Proficiencies
The default for the Germans seems to be 80%.  I don’t have a problem with this, in theory, but there seem to be irregularities.  I would definitely rate most ‘rear-area’ units at least 10% lower than ‘front-line’ units.  For instance, if German infantry is 80%, then German security units should be 70%, or lower.  A few specifics: Brandenburgers too low (I recommend 90%), SS too high (I recommend 75%-80%), Kriegsmarine too low (I recommend 80%), security and RR engineers too high (I recommend 65%-70%).

National Colors
I am getting older and my eyesight is not what it used to be.  The current national color choices are hard on my eyes (especially all the red Soviet units which give me a headache, and the dark gray German air units, which I can’t read the numbers).  I recommend light blue German air units and tan Soviet units (with red being used for ‘special’ Soviet units).
EDIT: Special Note: Grossdeutchland should not be in SS black. GD was a Wehrmacht unit, not an SS unit, and should be in standard Wehrmacht colors.

Neutral Nations
I would eliminate most all neutral nations.  Not only would this make the map significantly smaller (which I think is a good thing), it would also free up a lot of units that might be useful within the actual combatant nations’ OOBs.  Personally, I will never ever play with the Turks and the Swedes.  If I am winning the game to such an extent that the Turks and/or Swedes want to join my side, then I’ve already won the game.  Eliminating the Turks and Swedes also frees up some additional national colors that can be used elsewhere.

Initial Combat Support
I don’t want all of my German bomber units on Combat Support at the start of the game.  I want to use my bombers to hit the Soviet Air Force.  I recommend editing all the German Bombers to ‘Rest’ in the initial force deployment so that their supply and readiness remain at 100% for attacks on the Soviet Air Force.

Attrition Divider and MRPB
I’m guessing that the AD=6 (which seems too bloody for me) and the MRPB=3 (which seems about right to me) is based on some preliminary playtesting.


< Message edited by vahauser -- 10/13/2008 10:36:45 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 4
RE: Directive 21 - 10/13/2008 10:47:58 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Thanks for the comments Victor, I don't know if I can answer all of them properly, but here are some ideas:

Weather : There are no storms in the scenario until October.

Movement rates : I would also think that the number of trucks is too high. But when looking at history, the Germans did some amazing troop movements in this campaign, so we have to keep that in mind. I would, however, like to reduce the number of trucks in the replacement pool, because I feel that as it is now, the Axis never have a problem keeping a good amount of trucks on hand. This wasn't true historically.

Replacement Priorities : The level of 'high' only means that the units may qualify for 80% of any deficiency. It really doesn't matter to the game at all.

Unit Proficiencies : These settings increase as the scenario progresses, so any at start setting really doesn't matter. By turn 100, most units will be up to 100%. We could set them all to 50%, but that would only mean that by turn 200 they would all be at 100%.

National Colors : I would suggest you need to change your monitor settings, or wear sunglasses. Baby Blue German units ?? You can't be serious, that's a terrible insult (unless you are a fan of Goering's costumes).

Neutral Nations : There are no neutral nations in Directive 21. There are some Turk and Iranian units in the oob that are not used in the scenario. These slots may be used in the future, but currently the Axis side uses only 1,562 slots. So we are not in a pinch for more slots.

Attrition Divider and MRPB : This is part of the playtest, we have strayed from the typical default settings based on theory. These parameters are to my knowledge in no way able to be set for any scenario based on any predetermined setting. Let us know what your findings are concerning these two topics.

Thanks for letting me poke you in the side concerning the unit colors!

Steve

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 5
RE: Directive 21 - 10/13/2008 11:16:48 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Sorry, what I meant by ‘storms’ was that the entire map was overcast/raining on the first turn I tried to play. Unacceptable from an historical perspective.

What I meant by illogical movement rates: Tiger units moving faster than light panzer units. Security units moving faster than Jagers. All sorts of various movement rates for different mobile/non-mobile units. What I’m saying is that the movement rates are inconsistent and make no historical sense. The reason I mentioned trucks and horse teams is that these need to be adjusted within units to make the movement rates more historically consistent. Right now they aren’t.

Yes, the long-term effects of TOAW are that units gain proficiency over time. But the initial proficiencies still matter at the start of the campaign. I think that it’s important to at least start the campaign with a ‘historical’ flavor in terms of unit proficiencies.

If the Turks and Swedes aren’t used, then why not just reduce the map size? Won’t that speed up the game a little (in terms of CPU processing speed per turn)? I’m all for making the map as small as possible (for scrolling purposes if nothing else).

What are your thoughts regarding my suggestion for initial ‘Rest’ settings for German bombers instead of ‘Combat Support’?

P.S. Did you catch my edit regarding Grossdeutchland?


_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 6
RE: Directive 21 - 10/13/2008 11:51:54 PM   
Silvanski


Posts: 2506
Joined: 1/23/2005
From: Belgium, residing in TX-USA
Status: offline 		to sPzAbt653:

I wrote you and TPOO about the map

A quick word about the PO
It may be a good idea to use 'PO strategic bias' events. A basic setting of at least "Normal" , preferably "Aggressive" from the start, in order to make the PO more competitive in combat
During turns with positive Soviet shock and/or higher supply, it could be set to "berserk" to aid the PO executing counterattacks

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 7
RE: Directive 21 - 10/14/2008 6:37:38 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Weather : I don't think I have any control over the first turn cloud cover. Setting the environment to 'no precipitation' isn't a reasonable solution given the fact that we need to cover such a large area and range of weather conditions.

Movement rates : This isn't a truck issue, as units with no trucks still display the characteristics you are describing. We can make units with at start movement capabilities that conform to some standard but when casualties/attrition/replacements kick in that would change.

Map : The northern boundary is Finland, the western boundary is Berlin, the southern boundary is Sofia, and the eastern boundary is Baku. Turkey and Sweden have no influence.

Air unit settings : You still have to click on the unit to assign it to 'airfield attack'. Whether it is initially in 'rest' or 'combat support' has no bearing. On the other hand, if you are using the bombers for combat support, then the first move a player would have to make is to go thru the entire air order of battle to switch them all from rest to cs.

Unit colors : The black color isn't really to denote that GD is SS, rather that it is an elite unit. I'm 50/50 on it, so since you bring it up, I'll change it to the gray/black that the panzer divisions have.

(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 8
RE: Directive 21 - 10/14/2008 6:42:48 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Silvanski,

There are some things I have in line to make Elmer more difficult, strategic bias is one of them. I first want to see what the players experience is from around turn 120+. I also want to give the playtesters the chance to actually make it to the Urals before I change it so they can't.


(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 9
RE: Directive 21 - 10/14/2008 10:15:44 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

First Impressions of Directive 21
I am only talking about the Axis here right now.  I think fixing the Axis first, and then dealing with the Soviets is a reasonable approach.


Weather
There were storms covering the entire map when I first tried to play Directive 21 (I’m having .eqp problems right now, so I haven’t actually been able to play yet).  But the weather must be clear on 22 June 41.  The Germans delayed their invasion for several weeks precisely in order to ensure clear weather.  Two solutions: A) just force players to reload the game over and over again until they get clear weather on 22 June; or B) in the scenario Editor, set the Environment to ‘No Precipitation’. 


I had a similar problem in Seelowe. My solution was 'no precipation' and looped storm events for when I did want the weather to get bad. Works pretty well -- you can make the timing and likelihood whatever you want.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 10
RE: Directive 21 - 10/14/2008 10:22:36 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Thanks for the comments Victor, I don't know if I can answer all of them properly, but here are some ideas:

Weather : There are no storms in the scenario until October.

Movement rates : I would also think that the number of trucks is too high. But when looking at history, the Germans did some amazing troop movements in this campaign, so we have to keep that in mind.


Note that you will achieve the maximum possible movement rate with around one truck for every two pieces of gear to be carried -- and even a few trucks will get those leg infantry moving at a pace that would qualify the whole division for the Olympic marathon. If, for example, I had a unit with 100 rifle squads, 10 81 mm mortars, and 4 75 mm guns, and I wanted it to walk, I wouldn't give it more than one truck. If it was to be motorized, I'd give it 57.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 11
RE: Directive 21 - 10/14/2008 10:31:02 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


Unit Proficiencies : These settings increase as the scenario progresses, so any at start setting really doesn't matter. By turn 100, most units will be up to 100%. We could set them all to 50%, but that would only mean that by turn 200 they would all be at 100%.


? I've never seen anything like that. You can get big jumps the first time a unit enters combat if it starts as 'inexperienced' rather than 'veteran' -- but after that it'll slow down.

This is based on my playing 'Fall Grau' -- which is a very long scenario, if not two hundred turns. No units rose markedly over the course of the scenario -- and certainly none went to 100%. The maximum increase was maybe 10% to about 85-90% -- which caused problems.

Of course, maybe this was changed for OPART III. I hope not.




_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 12
RE: Directive 21 - 10/14/2008 1:44:00 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Regarding Movement Rates

14 = Base foot movement (just infantry with no transport or heavy weapons)
17 = Base horse-drawn movement (infantry/artillery with full wagon transport)
20 = Base horse movement (just cavalry with no transport or heavy weapons)
33 = Fully motorized movement (infantry/armor/artillery with full truck/halftrack transport)

From these base movement ‘benchmarks’ we can establish reasonable, consistent, and historically justifiable movement ratings for all units in Directive 21.

0-1 = fortress/garrison units
2-13 = non-motorized units that are deficient in some way: recommended for static/rear-area units
14 = absolute minimum for combat infantry units of all nations
15-16 = combat/rear-area units that have some organic transport (mostly wagons)
17 = combat units that have full organic transport (mostly wagons)
18-21 = ‘fast infantry’ type units (like jagers and gebirgsjagers and fallschirmjagers) that have full organic transport (with some trucks)
22-25 = basic cavalry (a little motor transport)/very slow mech (like Elefants/Jagdtigers)
26-28 = ‘fast cavalry’ (more motor transport)/slow mech (like Tigers/KVs)
29-32 = deficient motorized/mech/armor (not full organic motor/mech transport)
33 = fully motorized/mechanized (full organic transport) and all recon units

Some existing problems with the Axis transport situation.
On hand 22 June 1941:  13,118 wagons, 44,552 trucks, 9,360 halftracks.  These numbers are badly inconsistent with history.  The Axis invasion forces were still primarily horse-drawn.  I suggest a complete overhaul of the initial Axis transport situation to more accurately reflect history.

For example, each German infantry division currently has 90 trucks and 30 wagons for a movement rating of 19.  19 is too high.  Changing the infantry-division transport to 144 wagons and 60 trucks drops the movement rating to 18 and frees up 30 trucks per division which can be justifiably added to the German mobile units.  30 trucks per infantry division works out to about 6000 trucks (~200 infantry divisions).  Further, the trucks assigned to the security units can be pretty much all be replaced by wagons (historically, the security units were rear-area units that had very low priority on mobile assets).  The effect this has is to more historically distribute available transport assets within the German Army.

This is just a start.  Each unit type needs to be carefully scrutinized and calibrated for movement rates that are more historically accurate.  As of now, I estimate that 90% (or more) of all movement ratings are historically inaccurate in Directive 21.  I recommend using a spreadsheet that list units from 33 (at the top) to 0 (at the bottom).  This list can be manipulated in various spreadsheet ways to provide movement-rate goals that units should attain.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 13
RE: Directive 21 - 10/14/2008 5:00:50 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

I had a similar problem in Seelowe. My solution was 'no precipation' and looped storm events for when I did want the weather to get bad. Works pretty well -- you can make the timing and likelihood whatever you want.


I'll have to check but I think we do have looped storm events, so maybe we can try 'no precipitation'.

quote:

I've never seen anything like that. You can get big jumps the first time a unit enters combat if it starts as 'inexperienced' rather than 'veteran' -- but after that it'll slow down
.

I don't have any of my old save files where this was seen, so we'll have to monitor what is currently happening.

quote:

0-1 = fortress/garrison units
2-13 = non-motorized units that are deficient in some way: recommended for static/rear-area units
14 = absolute minimum for combat infantry units of all nations
15-16 = combat/rear-area units that have some organic transport (mostly wagons)
17 = combat units that have full organic transport (mostly wagons)
18-21 = ‘fast infantry’ type units (like jagers and gebirgsjagers and fallschirmjagers) that have full organic transport (with some trucks)
22-25 = basic cavalry (a little motor transport)/very slow mech (like Elefants/Jagdtigers)
26-28 = ‘fast cavalry’ (more motor transport)/slow mech (like Tigers/KVs)
29-32 = deficient motorized/mech/armor (not full organic motor/mech transport)
33 = fully motorized/mechanized (full organic transport) and all recon units


I can work with this, thanks Victor.

Some of the units have no transport assets to manipulate, so those are what they are.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 14
RE: Directive 21 - 10/14/2008 5:40:22 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Here's what I meant by 'spreadsheet manipulation'.  I use Microsoft Excel.

Let's say we are making a spreadsheet entry for Romanian cavalry divisions.  Historically, I think that the Romanians, Hungarians, Russians, and Germans had a 'cavalry tradition'.  [Not sure about the Slovaks, Finns, and Italians.]  What this tells me is that Romanian cavalry should be 'competitive' with other 'cavalry' nations' cavalry units.  For instance, if German cavalry has a movement rating of 26 or 27 (due to a moderate amount of motor transport), then Romanian cavalry should probably have a movement rating of 24 or 25 (since they don't have quite the level of motorization of German cavalry).  So, a spreadsheet entry (rows probably works better than columns) for Romanian cavalry could have (where the following letters refer to column headings along the row entry):
A.  Unit Nation (Romanian)
B.  Unit Size (division)
C.  Unit Type (standard cavalry)
D.  Unit Aggregate (total number of equipments in the unit, not counting transport)
E.  Wagon transport (number of wagons in the unit)
F.  Truck transport (number of trucks in the unit)
G.  Mech transport (number of mech transport in the unit)
H.  Number of special equipments that especially affect movement (like jeeps, armored cars, Elefants, etc.)
I.  Movement Rate
J.  Miscellaneous Notes (special notes of interest/importance)

Once the data is entered into the spreadsheet, then things like total trucks in the Romanian Army can be calculated (by sorting by Nation) and totalling the trucks from the Romanian subset.  You can also sort by Movement Rate, etc.  These are the kinds of 'manipulations' I was referring to.  Also, just because a unit has no transport as of today, said unit might conceiveably have some transport by the end of the playtest.  I'm guessing that most units by the end of the playtest will look radically different (in terms of Movement Rate and number/type of transport) than they do today.

[P.S.  Please note that the 'politically correct' spelling is Romanian, not Rumanian.  I doubt if you had anything to do with the word 'Rumanian' spread throughout Directive 21, but I wanted to bring it to your attention.]

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 15
RE: Directive 21 - 10/14/2008 7:20:17 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser


Some existing problems with the Axis transport situation.
On hand 22 June 1941:  13,118 wagons, 44,552 trucks, 9,360 halftracks.  These numbers are badly inconsistent with history.  The Axis invasion forces were still primarily horse-drawn.  I suggest a complete overhaul of the initial Axis transport situation to more accurately reflect history.


Moreover and compounding the problem, a good deal of the Axis' trucks were seized French vehicles, which obviously presented servicing and maintenance problems. So not only were the trucks in short supply -- their numbers were going to decline more rapidly than they would have had the Wehrmacht been using all indigenous products.

(To simulate this, buy a garage full of Ford parts and one old Fiat. Then try to keep the latter running with the former).


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 16
RE: Directive 21 - 10/15/2008 4:19:52 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		One way of modeling this is to give Axis units a 'surplus' of motor transport at the start of the campaign that does not get replaced.  This is being done right now with the Heavy Rifle Squads (infantry divisions have 360/300 at the start of the campaign).  So, doing the same with the infantry divisions' trucks would be something like 60/48.  I probably wouldn't 'front load' the mobile units' trucks because they would always get priority in replacements.  Infantry divisions could be 'front loaded' even more harshly (say, 60/30 instead of the 60/48 I mentioned earlier) to compensate for the mobile units being maintained at 'full' motorization.

However, instead of a 'harsh' front loading of infantry divisions (I don't really like this), I would rather see the infantry divisional HQs 'folded into' the infantry divisions.  This would not only unclutter the map, it would also allow for a Jun41-Jun43 TOE and an additional Jun43-May45 TOE to reflect the infantry reorganizations that took place following the winter of 1942.

EDIT: Folding the infantry divisional HQs into their divisions has the further benefit of allowing for more 'redistribution' of trucks to the mobile units since all those infantry divisional HQs have a significant number of trucks that could be reallocated elsewhere.

< Message edited by vahauser -- 10/15/2008 4:26:18 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 17
RE: Directive 21 - 10/15/2008 4:46:06 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		I just did an experiment of 'folding' an infantry divisional HQ into its division.

My original proposal was for 144 wagons and 60 trucks (with the divisional HQ separate), which yielded a Movement Rate of 18 (which is stretching it for 'normal' infantry).  That original proposal freed 30 trucks to be allocated elsewhere.

This new idea of folding in the divisional HQ yields the following: 168 wagons and 72 trucks for a Movement Rating of 18.  This new idea frees up an additional 28 trucks per infantry division (the HQ currently uses 40 trucks in Directive 21). 

Thus, this new idea:
A) frees up a total of 58 trucks per infantry division to be allocated elsewhere
B) eliminates a lot of map clutter, thus simplifying the game
C) allows for the reallocation of 32 support groups per division into higher HQs (if desired)
D) results in a more historically realistic balance of wagons and trucks in the German Army


_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 18
RE: Directive 21 - 10/15/2008 9:47:08 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Hi Victor,

We have adjusted the movement rates and I will send you the file.

The German divisional HQ's serve the main purpose of artillery control in this scenario, so they can't be rolled into the divisional unit without losing that capability. Additionally they provide bonuses to their attached units, critical during the horrible supply periods on the east front. This can be worked around, but I point it out to make the distinction between clutter and a functionally important unit.

The Corps and Army HQ's are another case, and many have asked what to do with them. Later in the scenario the Axis will find themselves in a position where organised withdrawals will be mandatory, and the corps hq's assist greatly in this capacity. A well placed corps hq or two can be the difference between a situation that is impossible to reverse, and a well executed Wehrmacht withdrawal to a new position.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 19
RE: Directive 21 - 10/15/2008 10:55:17 AM   
Silvanski


Posts: 2506
Joined: 1/23/2005
From: Belgium, residing in TX-USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
...the Axis will find themselves in a position where organised withdrawals will be mandatory, ...


Withdrawal? You dare to disobey the Fuher's orders?

About the transport assets, indeed despite fielding all those panzer and motorized divisions the Wehrmacht was still depending heavily on horsedrawn transport.
Replacement of trucks shouldn't be too forthcoming.

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 20
RE: Directive 21 - 10/15/2008 2:44:21 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Replacement of trucks shouldn't be too forthcoming.


Yes, and when playtesters send me the end game files and I see 20,000 trucks on hand, I'll be knocking them down.

(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 21
RE: Directive 21 - 10/15/2008 3:24:28 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		And yet, that is precisely why I don't like the infantry divisional HQs. I don't have a problem with the mobile divisional HQs (well, actually I do have a problem with them, but not this problem). Historically, infantry divisional HQs did not operate 10km from their combat components like mobile divisional HQs sometimes did.

If this were a 5km/hex scale game, then separate infantry divisional HQs have some historical justification. But at 10km/hex, historically the infantry divisional HQs simply did not have the tactical flexibility that the mobile divisional HQs had. Further, having infantry divisional HQs allows players to 'game' the system to their advantage. For example, players should NOT be allowed to mass their infantry divisional HQs into 'grand batteries'. This is absolutely unhistorical and gamey. I don't like infantry divisional HQs. And the more I think about them, the less I like them.

I've looked over your first (of many) revisions to Directive 21. Heavy overcast and rain all over the map again at the start of 22 June 41. Not good.

The movement rates in Rev-1 show a definite improvement over the original version (Rev-0). I especially like the 17 Movement Rate for German infantry divisions. I think that is the historically correct rating for them. However, I don't like all the trucks still assigned to those divisions. They should be stripped out of the infantry divisions, replaced with wagons, and all those trucks should be given to the mobile units to fully motorize them as much as possible.

Also, the Movement Rates of the security units are still too high. They should be slower than combat infantry. I think you are very close with the jagers and gebirgsjagers and kavalrie Movement Rates, though. A definite improvement there. I'm not happy with the mobile units yet, but one step at a time. Let's get the non-mobile units right first.

So, all in all Rev-1 shows a big step in the right direction, I think. Still a long long way to go, but so far, so good.

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 22
RE: Directive 21 - 10/15/2008 4:51:49 PM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline 		I'll get on this scenario right now. Cheers!

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 23
RE: Directive 21 - 10/15/2008 7:27:44 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

...'redistribution' of trucks to the mobile units since all those infantry divisional HQs have a significant number of trucks that could be reallocated elsewhere.


I think it's a fundamental mistake to think of the number of 'trucks' in OPART as bearing anything like a 1:1 correlation to the number of trucks historically present.

Most actual trucks were engaged in hauling stuff you don't see in OPART -- munitions, the divisional medical staff, the colonel's mobile wine cellar. I think you're better off simply seeing trucks and wagons as 'transportation assets.' You assign them to achieve the desired effect. Any relationship to the number of 'trucks' actually assigned to a particular unit is indirect. So how many trucks the Germans actually had should be a matter of purely academic interest. What matters is whether the combat elements rode in them. If they didn't, the number of trucks and/or wagons should be more or less limited to the number that will be required to enable the static equipment to move along at the foot movement rate.

...and incidentally, on the average and over the long haul, thirty km a day was an excellent pace for a first-line leg infantry unit to maintain. I mention this because most scenarios I see have infantry movement rates far in excess of that. What this scenario has I don't know.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 24
RE: Directive 21 - 10/15/2008 9:09:30 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

...'redistribution' of trucks to the mobile units since all those infantry divisional HQs have a significant number of trucks that could be reallocated elsewhere.


I think it's a fundamental mistake to think of the number of 'trucks' in OPART as bearing anything like a 1:1 correlation to the number of trucks historically present.

. . .

...and incidentally, on the average and over the long haul, thirty km a day was an excellent pace for a first-line leg infantry unit to maintain. I mention this because most scenarios I see have infantry movement rates far in excess of that. What this scenario has I don't know.



I agree that there is no real correlation between historical transport allocations and TOAW transport allocations. However, within TOAW there should be some justifiable and logically consistent reasons for transport allocations. That is the direction I'd like to see Directive 21 heading towards. Have you examined the Directive 21 transport allocations?

German infantry divisions currently have a Movement Allowance of 17 in Rev-1. That will allow German infantry to advance ~80km in 3.5 days. Jagers and gebirgsjagers are a little faster (but historically they were elite troops that had generally lighter equipment and capable of slightly faster movement). I don't have any serious complaints regarding the Movement Rates of German infantry, jagers, and gebirgsjagers at present. I realize that those rates will drop within a few turns as supply and readiness values drop. And playtesting will quickly reveal whether further adjustments are needed.


_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 25
RE: Directive 21 - 10/16/2008 1:20:43 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

...the Movement Rates of the security units are still too high.


We changed them to 17-18 instead of 15-16 as most of them are out of the scenario early on, by turn 65. I reason that they would have had slightly better mobility early in the campaign than that of units in the later stages.

On some other points, I see we are getting some confusion between 'historical' and 'historical simulation'. So to clarify one point, the units in the scenario with the Divisional HQ icon are historical simulations of artillery, command and control, and supply assets. Where they operate and what they do should not be confused with the same attributes of an historical division headquarters.

quote:

...and incidentally, on the average and over the long haul, thirty km a day was an excellent pace for a first-line leg infantry unit to maintain. I mention this because most scenarios I see have infantry movement rates far in excess of that. What this scenario has I don't know.


If a typical infantry unit has 17 movement points, and it moves along a road under optimal conditions, it could move 48.5 km per day.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 26
RE: Directive 21 - 10/16/2008 6:03:01 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

...the Movement Rates of the security units are still too high.


We changed them to 17-18 instead of 15-16 as most of them are out of the scenario early on, by turn 65. I reason that they would have had slightly better mobility early in the campaign than that of units in the later stages.

On some other points, I see we are getting some confusion between 'historical' and 'historical simulation'. So to clarify one point, the units in the scenario with the Divisional HQ icon are historical simulations of artillery, command and control, and supply assets. Where they operate and what they do should not be confused with the same attributes of an historical division headquarters.

quote:

...and incidentally, on the average and over the long haul, thirty km a day was an excellent pace for a first-line leg infantry unit to maintain. I mention this because most scenarios I see have infantry movement rates far in excess of that. What this scenario has I don't know.


If a typical infantry unit has 17 movement points, and it moves along a road under optimal conditions, it could move 48.5 km per day.


My concern over the security units is that they had no significant motorization. Rev-1 gives security regiments 10 wagons and 10 trucks. From a 'historical realism' perspective, that should be 18 wagons and 2 trucks (or 20 wagons and 0 trucks). With 18 wagons and 2 trucks, the regiment has a MR of 16. No argument from me if security regiments have MRs of 16 or less. Further, stripping the trucks out of the security units and giving all those trucks to the MP battalions is historically justifiable (having fully-motorized MP battalions is historically justifiable).

My concern over the 'historical simulation' is that it is not simulating history. By stripping out the artillery from the German infantry divisions, you are giving the players the ability to abuse the TOAW game system. Directive 21 should not reward players for abusing the TOAW game system.

Also, to address Colin's concern over 'leg' MRs. The base 'leg' MR is 14 (just foot infantry with no transport/hvy weapons). A MR of 14 can move a maximum of 14 hexes (140km) along friendly rear-area roads per half-week turn. Advancing into enemy territory cuts that to 70km per 3.5 days. A MR of 17 (which is what Directive 21 rates the German infantry) raises those numbers to 170km 'rear-area' movment and 80km 'combat' movement per 3.5 days. Of course, practically speaking in game terms, heavy marching will quickly degrade a unit's readiness and supply, thus quickly lowering its effective MR. As of now (the start of the playtest), I don't have any major worries regarding the MRs of German infantry, jagers, and gebirgsjagers. I think that the kavalrie MRs are a bit too high (I think 26 is more historically reasonable than 28), and I have worries about many many many other units' MRs, but establishing a 'benchmark' MR of 17 for the German infantry allows a good cross-reference point for all other non-motorized units to be compared to. I, for one, am satisfied today with the German infantry, jager, and gebirgsjager MRs.


_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 27
RE: Directive 21 - 10/16/2008 3:21:36 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		I'll just note that in my "Soviet Union 1941" scenario, I applied a 10% penalty to Axis movement allowances (via the movement bias parameter) to model the very poor intel the Axis had about Soviet road nets.

Of course, that scenario is just about Barbarossa, whereas this one covers the entire war - the intel problem obviously would not apply after the initiative switched to the Soviets. There's no way to change that parameter by event just yet.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 28
RE: Directive 21 - 10/17/2008 11:31:39 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Here is another issue related to the problem I have with German infantry HQs.

Security units have a problem.  As it stands now, the separate security regiments are given a proficiency rating of 70%.  I noted earlier that I thought this was too high for 'second-rate' rear-area troops.  It turns out that I am correct. 

Here is what is going on.  When you break down a German infantry division into its component regiments, the infantry regiments suffer a 20% proficiency loss.  Thus, a proficiency 80% German infantry division that is broken down results in infantry regiments that are proficiency 64%, which is inferior to the security regiments' proficiency of 70% (as of Rev-1).  Clearly, this is messed up.

Here is the solution.  Combine all security units into their associated divisions (2 or 3 regiments and 1 divisional HQ) and give these divisions a proficiency of 65%.  65% is chosen because:  A) it is close to the 64% German infantry proficiency when the German infantry is broken down, and B) because 20% of 65% is exactly 13% with no fractional remainder, which yields a proficiency of exactly 52% when broken down.  I also favor this solution because I don't like all these non-mobile divisional HQs (since they can be abused in the TOAW game system), which is exacerbated by the current situation of German rear-area 'second-rate' security troops getting divisional HQs.  Please do away with all non-mobile divisional HQs. 

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 29
RE: Directive 21 - 10/18/2008 7:19:47 AM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline 		I am only on turn 3 of the updated version and I've noticed that the Axis forces in the south are taking a beating. I'm sure as more of the axis forces move east, they will probably fall out of supply and no longer be a problem just something I've noticed. Cheers.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Directive 21 Page: [1] 2 3   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