RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread

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: Directive 21 playtesters thread

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: Directive 21 playtesters thread

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 12/26/2008 5:16:02 AM

sPzAbt653

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

quote:

has anyone else noticed that Elmer likes to cluster his units?

Yes, it's true, and it is a valid complaint. It may not be totally avoidable, but we do what we can to prevent it. Finland is one of the most difficult areas, and we've already done a lot up there. You can send me the save file so I can take a look to see if something should be done for that particular situation. Of course, it could be a result of your excellent game play! You can see by this screen shot that I am not experiencing the same situation as you are.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 91

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 12/27/2008 8:03:27 PM

sPzAbt653

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

Somebody didn't tell this engineer unit that he has to get off the ice when it melts. I would think he should either swim to shore or sink. Maybe he uses his little rubber boats to paddle around all summer, although he can't move out of that hex, but he is in supply. Shelling him with artillery or air units with anti-shipping capacity does little, so he's not a boat and he's not embarked.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 92

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 12/27/2008 9:07:17 PM

sPzAbt653

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

Turns 72-93. With Moscow secure for the time, the next obvious target is the huge salient from Leningrad east. My lines are so long now that most of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Panzer Armies are involved in defensive assignments. So I can only gather 6 panzer, 2 motorized, and the newly arrived GD divisions to be used for offensive operations. With this size force a short route to Leningrad would be best, but between Lake Ilmen and the area just north of Moscow Elmer has been aggravating me, so I want to spank him. If I can, I'll follow the green line, staying close to the support of infantry divisions, while rolling up the line. If this gets bogged down, then I should quickly withdraw and reform for the direct approach to Leningrad across the Luga River.

The loss penalties have taken a strange look, 380-0 and such. But I think that and the rifle squad loss ratio is not important right now, as both are skewed by the large initial Soviet losses. It would be a better gauge to start over with those figures from this point. The air superiority numbers have been consistently like 20 for me, 70 for Elmer. I checked the Soviet replacements are they have over 20,000 planes on hand. But even after the recent eight mud turns, Elmer is still operating with zero on hand rifle squads, although he is getting 1,500+ each turn.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 93

Directive 21 eqp - 12/28/2008 8:38:27 PM

Silvanski

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

A few tiny equipment�assignment issues.. I don't wanna be a whiner, only pointing it out

The 53th Werfer (OKH) starts with�the '1942' 210mm Nebelwerfer assigned
All Pz Divisions and some FS Divisions already start with the '1942' 120mm Mortar

'1944' guns already in garrison units

The Soviets have 1950s ER artillery assigned. I understand that is to give Elmer�more punch

Just for eye candy, since you use a modified eqp file, the years given for the 1950's arty could be blanked out
edit: this can be done in a nick of time with the ODD

The 18th Art Div (OKH) has a "Turn500?" appearance set... FYI The division was formed in October 1943

< Message edited by Silvanski -- 12/28/2008 9:04:44 PM >

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 94

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 12/28/2008 8:46:18 PM

Silvanski

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Turns 72-93. ....

If the first winter poses not too many problems for the Axis I'd suggest setting a short period of force pestilence to erode the units in winter zones a bit

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 95

RE: Directive 21 eqp - 12/28/2008 9:12:27 PM

Silvanski

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

blurbed out--- double post

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

< Message edited by Silvanski -- 12/28/2008 10:44:27 PM >

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to Silvanski)

Post #: 96

RE: Directive 21 eqp - 12/28/2008 10:25:38 PM

sPzAbt653

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

quote:

...don't wanna be a whiner, only pointing it out...

Whining is ok, and pointing is encouraged!

quote:

The 53th Werfer (OKH) starts with the '1942' 210mm Nebelwerfer assigned

Thank you.

quote:

All Pz Divisions and some FS Divisions already start with the '1942' 120mm Mortar

There are a couple things going on here. The Soviets had 120mm mortars, and the Finns had some, and the other Axis units used ones that were captured. Also, the Germans had two different 82mm mortars (not in the editor). I checked the 1.Pz Div and didn't see that they have 120's. I didn't check all the rest of them, so let me know if I need to go further with this.

quote:

the years given for the 1950's arty could be blanked out

I wouldn't want to dupe the diligent investigator into thinking we believed that the Soviets had 1950's capability in the the 1940's!

quote:

The 18th Art Div was formed in October 1943

Yes, it took the place of the mauled 18th Panzer Division. I left it in the order of battle, but it will not appear. If I am questioned further on this, it will spark a debate out of me.

quote:

If the first winter poses not too many problems for the Axis I'd suggest setting a short period of force pestilence to erode the units in winter zones a bit

In my first 90 turns I had 29 turns of restriction due to muds, cease fires or bad shocks. The constraints on the Axis player can approach making the scenario unplayable. However, history must be modeled to some extent when it comes to these issues. If the consensus of the playtesters is that the Axis have it too easy during the first winter, we can change things.

Thanks Silvanski !

(in reply to Silvanski)

Post #: 97

RE: Directive 21 eqp - 12/28/2008 10:43:49 PM

Silvanski

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

...18th Arty, I wouldn't dare to fuel a debate

About the eqp issues: the flexibility to edit scenarios is a virtue of TOAW and as this scenario is designed primarily for play vs Elmer, players like me can modify it to their liking.

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 98

RE: Directive 21 eqp - 12/29/2008 8:07:27 AM

sPzAbt653

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

18th Artillery Division- It's just that for it to be included one has to assume all the heavy casualty conditions that were the cause for its' creation. I don't see where a player has to conduct the campaign in that fashion, and I don't think they should if they expect to be successful.

That said I did leave it in the oob in case it could be put to use. Maybe it would have been formed even if the 18th Panzers' remnants hadn't been used to help fill it out. In that case it could arrive on its' own, maybe a little later than historically. I seem to remember that it didn't stay around for the duration, but that it too was decimated at some point.

The only other use I had thought for it was to have a theater option for 'Convert the 18th Pz Div into the 18th Art Div'. Maybe that way if the 18th Pz was mostly destroyed in the scenario and was lounging about in the reconstruction que, the player would have that option.

(in reply to Silvanski)

Post #: 99

RE: Directive 21 eqp - 12/29/2008 10:02:54 AM

Silvanski

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

18th Artillery Division- It's just that for it to be included one has to assume all the heavy casualty conditions that were the cause for its' creation.

An event chain like this can be set, only if the 18th Pz Div is destroyed, the 18th Arty Div appears - with an xx turn delay

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 100

RE: Directive 21 eqp - 12/29/2008 10:53:17 AM

sPzAbt653

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

18th Artillery Division- It's just that for it to be included one has to assume all the heavy casualty conditions that were the cause for its' creation.

An event chain like this can be set, only if the 18th Pz Div is destroyed, the 18th Arty Div appears - with an xx turn delay

Yes, but my point would be that would assume the type of heavy casualties that were incurred historically. In a short term scenario that would be ok. But in a scenario that can be played quite differently from the historical situation, where the Axis player can choose not to bash his units to pieces, I feel that is imposing a restriction on the player. The last time this discussion came up, I gave a few examples to stretch the point. In a Market Garden scenario, the 1st Airborne is automatically withdrawn on the historical date that it surrendered. I understand the principal, but why should that be in a scenario where the player has the opportunity to do better than history? Should the entire 6th German Army be withdrawn by event on February 3rd, 1943 because they surrendered historically?

On the other hand, 10th Panzer Division is sent to North Africa historically, and in the scenario it does go. That's an influence of another front that the player has no control over, so it should happen. Each situation should be looked at individually to determine what the effect should be.

That's my rant, Thanks!

(in reply to Silvanski)

Post #: 101

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/2/2009 11:36:15 PM

SMK-at-work

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Axis Brandenburg Override:
In post #17 of your AAR you bring attention to the unit and hexes in the far northeast corner of the map. These are not concerned with play and you need not pay attention to them. I will, since you ask, give you an explanation as to what they are for. In some cases it is desired to have one event that is triggered by multiple, independent events. The event list for these can become quite twisted and unmanageable. I find it much easier to use a few units and hexes to monitor the situation. It also makes playtesting and troubleshooting a breeze. Like I said, the player need not be concerned with any of this. The only thing I can't get around is that when a unit is placed there, it is announced as a reinforcement, so this does bring attention to something that needs no attention. In this case, we felt that the withdrawal of Finland from the war was based on a set of circumstances, and that it was best to use this type of multiple event trigger.

Ooops- just noticed this...so what effect would it have if, er....say hypothetically you understand....the axis player disbanded a couple of these for their squads to become replacements??!!

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 102

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/3/2009 6:51:36 AM

sPzAbt653

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Axis Brandenburg Override:
In post #17 of your AAR you bring attention to the unit and hexes in the far northeast corner of the map. These are not concerned with play and you need not pay attention to them. I will, since you ask, give you an explanation as to what they are for. In some cases it is desired to have one event that is triggered by multiple, independent events. The event list for these can become quite twisted and unmanageable. I find it much easier to use a few units and hexes to monitor the situation. It also makes playtesting and troubleshooting a breeze. Like I said, the player need not be concerned with any of this. The only thing I can't get around is that when a unit is placed there, it is announced as a reinforcement, so this does bring attention to something that needs no attention. In this case, we felt that the withdrawal of Finland from the war was based on a set of circumstances, and that it was best to use this type of multiple event trigger.

Ooops- just noticed this...so what effect would it have if, er....say hypothetically you understand....the axis player disbanded a couple of these for their squads to become replacements??!!

They would only generate replacements for themselves, and you would risk a chance of Finland leaving the war and the penalties that ensue. Hypothetically, of course!

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 103

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/3/2009 7:03:48 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

You mean I've disbanded these two forts for nothing? And there's a chance Finland might leave the war now? Really?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 104

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/3/2009 7:46:18 AM

sPzAbt653

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

Sweet Mother Moses! Why are you guys disbanding these units? Do they pose some form of aggravation? Does their mere existence at the edge of the map give cause for directing harm in their direction?

As you can see, they are the only units with AT- Squads, so disbanding them gains nothing. And although 'Override' doesn't tell us anything, Narva, Viipuri and Tolvajarvi give a clue to their purpose, and Finland staying in the war is directly tied to them. This reflects the fact that if 'Helsinki falls, Finland leaves the war' is unrealistic. If and when Finland leaves is unknown to the Axis. But like I said, you have clues!

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 105

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/3/2009 11:37:29 AM

SMK-at-work

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

Why give them even vaguely useful troops at all, and make them part of the Brandenburg formation? Why not just civilian labourers or something? And a note that they shouldn't be disbanded...:)

Seriously - players are going to disband units they see no use for in order to return the troops to the pool - I barely looked at them - I just thought "oh - base units for the Brandenburgers - better disband a couple to give replacements.."

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 106

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/3/2009 8:42:27 PM

sPzAbt653

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

I see, thanks for the explanation. Those units just ended up in the Brandenburg formation by chance. As the Axis are about out of formations (out of 400 possible, there are 395 used), I didn't want to use one just for them. I will look into moving them to some other formation in order to avoid confusion.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 107

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/4/2009 6:07:06 AM

sPzAbt653

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

Turns 95-103, beginning Operation Blau (not the historical southern version, but a northern version aimed at the capture of Leningrad). The offensive managed to break the Soviet lines southeast of the Volkhov River and the momentum of the mobile formations carried them across that river. With the Finns holding firm just to the north of Leningrad, I need to cut the remaining rail lines leading to the area from the east, which means pushing thru to the southern coast of Lake Ladoga. Then Leningrad's defenses will crumble, I think.

The loss ratio since turn 90 has been 7.5-1 in my favor, but would be much higher if it weren't for Elmers constant attacks around Moscow and in several areas to the south. However, as the current replacement rate of first line rifle squads is 3.5-1 in favor of Elmer, he is still at a disadvantage. Most of my minor Allies' air formations have disappeared, and I have been rotating the German air units to the rear to rest and maybe gain a few planes. Only 2-4 units at a time though.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 108

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/4/2009 6:38:51 AM

sPzAbt653

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

Turns 103-108, bustin' up Elmer at Leningrad. Once the 41st and 57th Pz Korps approached the Volkhov River from the southeast, Elmer started shifting units around to meet the threat. But the combined weight of the two Panzer Korps with the support of the four infantry divisions of 6th and 8th Korps, and the excellent flank coverage provided by 46th PzKorps, was too much.

The two red circles indicate hexes where supplies will come across Lake Ladoga, so it is important that they be reckoned with. Once I captured Shlisselburg and cleared the southern banks of whatever the river is that runs from there to Leningrad, I rushed some engineers to provide a crossing point for the recon units, and then asked the 7th Fj Division to drop over a wide area to break the Soviet supply link and hook up with the Finns. This they did, but this screenshot is after the Soviet turn, and we can see that Elmer has made some efforts to deter my plan. However, the effects of no supply can be seen in his unit strengths, and he didn't push my recon units back, and he didn't recapture Shlisselwhateveritis from the grasp of GD Division, and he stripped his western and southwestern defenses, allowing my veteran 1st, 26th, 38th, and 10th Infantry Korps (not seen in this screen shot) to move in, so I am confident.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 109

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/4/2009 10:32:37 AM

SMK-at-work

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I see, thanks for the explanation. Those units just ended up in the Brandenburg formation by chance. As the Axis are about out of formations (out of 400 possible, there are 395 used), I didn't want to use one just for them. I will look into moving them to some other formation in order to avoid confusion.

Given that they're related to Finnish surrender/armistice, how about as part of Mannerheim?

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 110

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/4/2009 11:16:26 AM

SMK-at-work

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

I've got a problem with rail bridges - the Bautruppen don't seem to be repairing them- the bridges aren't actually destroyed - but the rail in the river hex is broken so bridging engineers don't get an option to repair (as per the picture attached), and, well...they just aren't getting repaired by the automatic rail process.

Is this bad luck on my part, or an actual problem?

I noticed it when I had a stack of Bautruppen next to 1 bridge leading to Smolensk for 2 turns without getting it repaired.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 111

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/4/2009 1:45:59 PM

sPzAbt653

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

The situation requires an engineer for the 'ferry' capacity, and then the bautrupps will repair the rail. We also had this back in posts 80-84 on page 3.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 112

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/4/2009 2:15:09 PM

sPzAbt653

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I see, thanks for the explanation. Those units just ended up in the Brandenburg formation by chance. As the Axis are about out of formations (out of 400 possible, there are 395 used), I didn't want to use one just for them. I will look into moving them to some other formation in order to avoid confusion.

Given that they're related to Finnish surrender/armistice, how about as part of Mannerheim?

That's good, but now that I'm forced to think about it, maybe it would be better to have them in their own formation. Maybe 'Risto Ryti', or 'Ryti-Ribbentrop', since as long as the units are in place, the agreement will stay in place, and the Finns will keep their place!

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 113

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/6/2009 1:23:11 AM

SMK-at-work

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

Makes sense :)

And thanks for clearing up the rial bridge thing already! :)

One odd thing happened in my game today - Totenkoph's recce Bn got divided in combat & 1 company destroyed a few turns ago - it regenerated in Norway!� It's taking the long way home....but at least with Leningrad captured it'll be faster once it reached the Finnish rail system! :)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 114

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/6/2009 2:44:20 AM

Silvanski

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

One odd thing happened in my game today - Totenkoph's recce Bn got divided in combat & 1 company destroyed a few turns ago - it regenerated in Norway!�

Reconstitution is not set fixed for all Axis units (that is, on Obj Point 1 of their formation) so those units will reconstitute rat ather random points

Also I see that the Soviets have no fixed reconstitution points, this is what causes the "respawning" behind German lines
If Soviet units should be set to reconstitute at their formation's Objective 1 -usually close to the Eastern and southern map edge, this may help in having more Soviet units on map to form a line of defense instead of having many hotspots which can be bypassed

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 115

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/6/2009 6:32:10 AM

sPzAbt653

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

So far I'm about 75% against fixed reconstitution for all units in this scenario. When we've come across specific instances that make no sense (Finn units reconstituting in Berlin) then we can attempt to do something about it (Finn units are now set to reconstitute at Helsinki). As for SMK's destroyed recon company reappearing in Norway, it doesn't seem impossible because he has apparently established a land link thru the Leningrad area to Finland. But as to why the game choose Norway is annoying. If anyone knows why Norway would be chosen instead of a more reasonable location closer to Helsinki, let me know. For the positive side, if a German division evaporates in an attack on Stalingrad, we know that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire unit was destroyed. So for it to appear later near Rostov accurately portrays the fact that the unit was messed up real bad, withdrawn for refitting, and it's major components were then gathered around Rostov. This seems more likely than the unit appearing in Berlin.

On the other side, historically Soviet formations existed in the areas bypassed by the Axis in the early part of the campaign. So if the Axis player has this occur, it wouldn't be abnormal or wrong, it is expected. Soviet units will not reconstitute in Axis controlled hexes (except for a small possibility after the Soviet summer '44 offensive). Although the same is true with the Soviets as what I stated above, that is if something appears to be totally wrong, we can address it. And so far there are several Soviet formations and units that are set to fixed locations.

Additionally I would say that I'm not 100% sure that setting units to reconstitute at their #1 objective means that they will. I can't reproduce any cases, but I know I've seen where this hasn't been true. And before somebody else jumps in to say that I don't know what I'm talking about, I would insist that they play the first 100 turns of this scenario several times, and all the way thru twice, with all units set to fixed reconstitution, and tell me that they are positive that all units that reconstituted appeared at their #1 objective. Thank you.

(in reply to Silvanski)

Post #: 116

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/6/2009 7:15:46 AM

Silvanski

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

So far I'm about 75% against fixed reconstitution for all units in this scenario. .../... Thank you.

Point taken.
What the Axis player has t do inorder to avoid dealingwith Soviets popping up behind his lines is to attempt to gain control of as much territory as possible
It all depends from scenario to scenario

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 117

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/6/2009 10:25:42 AM

SMK-at-work

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

Are there 2 or 3 Baltic fleet units?

'cos if there's only 2 then one just reconstituted next to Krondstadt after Leningrad fell...which seems a bit odd!! :) If there's 3 then it would be the 3rd one that I didn't destroy a few turns ago.

Just a minor point about the Sea of Azov - historically no major unit could operate there as it was quite shallow - the Italians (I think) shipped a few small gunboats to it but certainly there were no major Soviet fleet units operating in there, so it might be a bit more accurate to make it shallow sea.

(in reply to Silvanski)

Post #: 118

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/6/2009 1:55:22 PM

sPzAbt653

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

quote:

Are there 2 or 3 Baltic fleet units?

Well, there's two, but there's a possibility of four. I was hoping that they wouldn't reconstitute if Leningrad was captured, and I've been watching my current game to see what goes on there, so you beat me to it. I assume that you will re-destroy it, so I'm interested if it continues to reconstitute. If it/they do, I guess at that point it's best to withdraw them, as they probably had no choice but to scuttle in the case of Leningrad falling.

We haven't made the Sea of Azov shallow because if it freezes, Elmer will have a skating party. We've tried to arrange it so that no naval activity will occur there.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 119

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 1/8/2009 7:58:56 AM

SMK-at-work

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

Does freeezing happen that far south? A couple of shallow hexes Kerch that are not ports would stop the heavies tho - I have had them bombarding the coastline hexes along the north shore of hte sea fairly often.

Yes the reconstituted BB unit got promptly destroyed - taking the Nurnberg with it...which doesn't matter much as there's now no land combat within range of hte fleet :)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread