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 turn 5

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Directive 21 turn 5 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Directive 21 turn 5 - 12/30/2009 9:31:10 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I got another early turn ending so there was only 1 round of combat in turn 5 but I did clean out Riga, and I'm sneaking up on Minsk and have surrounded most of the Stalin line and have moved east to the last river between me and Odessa.  Turn 5's AAR can be found here:

http://www.filedropper.com/d2122dec2009turn5

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 121
RE: Directive 21 turn 6 - 12/31/2009 10:42:51 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I captured Minsk, sterilized part of the Stalin Line, burst out from Riga headed north and east, and generally destroyed some more Soviet stuff.  Turn 6's AAR can be found here:

http://www.filedropper.com/d2122dec2009turn6

Here's the minimap moves movie from turns 2 thru 6:




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 1/1/2010 4:10:52 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 122
RE: Directive 21 turn 7 - 1/2/2010 1:02:03 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		The mop up at Minsk is finished and the Stalin Line is gone and I'm on the move in the north.  Turn 7's AAR can be found here:

http://www.filedropper.com/d2122dec2009turn7

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 123
RE: Directive 21 turn 8 - 1/5/2010 9:16:53 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Axis turn 8 was a small dissappointment....I only got one round of combat before an early turn ending.  But some progress was made and the advance is on schedule.  Turn 8's AAR can be found here:

http://www.filedropper.com/d2122dec2009turn8


< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 1/5/2010 9:17:03 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 124
RE: Directive 21 turn 8 - 1/11/2010 6:10:44 PM   
Silvanski


Posts: 2506
Joined: 1/23/2005
From: Belgium, residing in TX-USA
Status: offline 		A question for Larry:
How do do you go about handling the German divisions. D21 is unique in having many tiny Werhmacht formations consisting of a HQ (with supporting arty) and the proper combat division.
Do you send HQ's to other divisions to assist, i.e. does it happen that let's say a particular HQ ends up many hexes away from it's infantry unit? Or do you prefer to keep 'em together?


< Message edited by Silvanski -- 1/11/2010 6:11:04 PM >

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 125
RE: Directive 21 turn 8 - 1/11/2010 6:16:50 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		So um....I prefer to keep the HQ unit with it's associated infantry unit but let's face it, HQ units have arty and arty is arty.  If I need some more arty somewhere really quickly I'm not beyond moving more HQ units in there reguardless of who belongs to it.  I've had opponents who had a large gang of HQ units acting as arty whenever and wherever he needed a breakthrough.  I guess you can play it either way.  It just seems more realistic to keep the associated units together.  This from the same guy who uses OKH as if it was just another HQ unit in his games instead of leaving it in Berlin for the duration of the game. LOL.

(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 126
RE: Directive 21 turn 8 - 1/11/2010 7:07:41 PM   
Silvanski


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

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson...This from the same guy who uses OKH as if it was just another HQ unit in his games instead of leaving it in Berlin for the duration of the game. LOL.


In that case we need an event whereby destruction of OKH constitutes an immediate defeat

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 127
RE: Directive 21 turn 9 - 2/19/2010 3:23:44 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Dave hasn't sent me his moves yet.....Randy sent me the wrong file....so I have a few minutes to work on D21.  I decided to switch to the style of AAR that I'm using for the FITE game Dave and I are playing.  Anybody object?  Here's a sample ( the turn 9 AAR, unfinished yet ) :

http://www.mediafire.com/?eg20lmdzwk2

(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 128
RE: Directive 21 turn 9 - 2/19/2010 6:57:10 AM   
Abnormalmind


Posts: 200
Joined: 11/24/2009
Status: offline 		Looks good Larry. Nice format!

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 129
RE: Directive 21 turn 8 - 2/19/2010 3:51:31 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

So um....I prefer to keep the HQ unit with it's associated infantry unit but let's face it, HQ units have arty and arty is arty.  If I need some more arty somewhere really quickly I'm not beyond moving more HQ units in there reguardless of who belongs to it.  I've had opponents who had a large gang of HQ units acting as arty whenever and wherever he needed a breakthrough.  I guess you can play it either way.  It just seems more realistic to keep the associated units together.  This from the same guy who uses OKH as if it was just another HQ unit in his games instead of leaving it in Berlin for the duration of the game. LOL.



It's not your fault the artillery happens to be in the HQ unit.

_____________________________


(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 130
RE: Directive 21 turn 8 - 2/25/2010 1:05:09 AM   
Randy Collins


Posts: 23
Joined: 2/22/2010
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		I agree with Panama's comments. The arty should be spread out into the units that would have the support. The HQ unit should serve purely an HQ function. I do it also, but it just does not seem right.

_____________________________

"Scouts Out!"

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 131
RE: Directive 21 turn 8 - 2/25/2010 3:32:49 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I'm not sure why but I seem to prefer to have the Arty units in a dedicated arty unit 'counter'. That gives me more flexibility to move just the arty to where it needs to go rather than having to move an HQ unit that happens to have arty in it. Or a ground fighting unit that has organic arty. Sometimes it's really cool to establish an artillery park so you can support all the units within range in a circle around the park. Like in 'Nam. They were called Firebases and there were a lot of them. They had a small ground unit dedicated to the defense of the firebase but sometimes they got overrun. It was a hairy existance for those who lived there...sometimes for days ( weeks ? ) at a time. I'm not sure how long they loitered because I wasn't there so I donno.

(in reply to Randy Collins)
Post #: 132
RE: Directive 21 turn 8 - 2/25/2010 1:25:38 PM   
sPzAbt653


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

prefer to have the Arty units in a dedicated arty unit 'counter'


I agree with this, but do we really want three counters for each division in this scenario? I don't see where it would solve any issues that people have, and it would reduce playability. A divisions equipment can't all be fit into one counter, there has to be at least two. No matter how you look at it, I don't see any way to prevent a player loading up a bunch of artillery in one location (in any scenario for that matter).




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 133
RE: Directive 21 turn 8 - 2/25/2010 2:00:31 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

prefer to have the Arty units in a dedicated arty unit 'counter'


I agree with this, but do we really want three counters for each division in this scenario? I don't see where it would solve any issues that people have, and it would reduce playability. A divisions equipment can't all be fit into one counter, there has to be at least two. No matter how you look at it, I don't see any way to prevent a player loading up a bunch of artillery in one location (in any scenario for that matter).



It's not uncommon for divisional/corp/army assets, especially artillery, to be pulled together for awhile. But in this game they get put together from all over the map. I'm as guilty of that as anyone else. But when the artillery is with the HQ then that get's mashed together too. That is as wrong as it gets. Blaming it on a scenario or the game is like saying it was the gun's fault it was used in a robbery. If the artillery is separate at least it would keep HQ where it belongs...maybe.

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 134
RE: Directive 21 turn 8 - 2/25/2010 3:40:03 PM   
Da_Huge_D

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 8/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

prefer to have the Arty units in a dedicated arty unit 'counter'


I agree with this, but do we really want three counters for each division in this scenario? I don't see where it would solve any issues that people have, and it would reduce playability. A divisions equipment can't all be fit into one counter, there has to be at least two. No matter how you look at it, I don't see any way to prevent a player loading up a bunch of artillery in one location (in any scenario for that matter).



It's not uncommon for divisional/corp/army assets, especially artillery, to be pulled together for awhile. But in this game they get put together from all over the map. I'm as guilty of that as anyone else. But when the artillery is with the HQ then that get's mashed together too. That is as wrong as it gets. Blaming it on a scenario or the game is like saying it was the gun's fault it was used in a robbery. If the artillery is separate at least it would keep HQ where it belongs...maybe.


That's why i would like to see HQ hierarchy system like HOI 3 in TOAW. Would be asskick!

Edit: That would solve all those problems etc. + Its more realistic (while i am fan of realism. LOL)

< Message edited by Da_Huge_D -- 2/25/2010 3:43:20 PM >

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 135
RE: Directive 21 turn 8 - 3/1/2010 10:03:10 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		Doesn't D21 have the 105's in the div units, and the 150's in the Korps HQ?  Or am I thinking of a suggestion someone made?

(in reply to Da_Huge_D)
Post #: 136
RE: Directive 21 turn 8 - 3/1/2010 10:33:03 AM   
larryfulkerson


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

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Doesn't D21 have the 105's in the div units, and the 150's in the Korps HQ?  Or am I thinking of a suggestion someone made?

You may be thinking of a suggestion somebody made since the Korps HQ units, or at least the one I picked as an example, doesn't have any howitzers. But the HQ units have both kinds. The infantry unit has some light guns.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 137
RE: Directive 21 turn 8 - 3/1/2010 5:24:27 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Yes, it was a suggestion, to put the corps artillery with ranges of 3 and 4 into the corps HQ units, in order to give the corps HQ's a purpose. I like the idea, but it is a lot of work for what seems little effect. Another reason it was suggested was to keep the player from massing artillery in one area, but it doesn't matter whether the artillery is in the HQ or separate, the same massing can still be done.

MechFo has provided info that the stats for the 105how in the database are inaccurate, and the 105gun is more appropriate. We plan to switch the How with the Gun, if I can ever get the 3.4 working.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 138
RE: Directive 21 turn 9 - 3/2/2010 8:03:15 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Well, I finished the Axis turn 9 last night so I thought I'd publish the AAR for it.  You can find it here:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/nqjnmrzmwin/D21 22dec2009 turn 9.zip

_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 139
RE: Directive 21 turn 9 - 3/3/2010 12:15:40 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		It looks like a coastal battery but it has the equipment and name of an infantry division. ???




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 140
RE: Directive 21 turn 9 - 3/3/2010 12:48:52 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1823
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline 		150mm fixed guns, 128mm guns and 'invalid movement' suggest it isn't 'exactly like an infantry division'.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 141
RE: Directive 21 turn 9 - 3/3/2010 2:46:53 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Ok, you caught us being tricky. The 199th Division was a garrison unit stationed in Norway. Obviously if we included it as a regular infantry division, the player would use it in Murmansk (or somewhere else). But we wanted it to be stationed in Norway, so we stuck the equipment in a coast battery unit.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 142
RE: Directive 21 turn 9 - 3/3/2010 3:17:41 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		About the artillery/HQ thing. Why not have a separate artillery unit for each division, eliminate the division HQ and use only corp level HQ for supply. It would reduce the counter count (ha ha) and give the corp HQ a reason for living. Personally I'd give the corp HQ one command unit so if it gets killed the whole corp formation is screwed. Make em treat HQ like they should be. YARRR.



_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 143
RE: Directive 21 turn 9 - 3/3/2010 8:46:41 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Dave is on vacation and I'm through with Randy's moves so I thought I'd work on D21 and actually finished turn 10. Here's the AAR:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/zontdyewynv/D21 22dec2009 turn 10.zip

_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 144
RE: Directive 21 turn 9 - 3/3/2010 10:37:16 AM   
sPzAbt653


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

ORIGINAL: Panama

About the artillery/HQ thing. Why not have a separate artillery unit for each division, eliminate the division HQ and use only corp level HQ for supply. It would reduce the counter count (ha ha) and give the corp HQ a reason for living. Personally I'd give the corp HQ one command unit so if it gets killed the whole corp formation is screwed. Make em treat HQ like they should be. YARRR.




Well, we don't need the counter count reduced, but eliminating the HQ unit and creating a separate artillery unit doesn't reduce the count anyway. That also wouldn't prevent the player from aggravating himself by piling up multiple artillery units in one area (don't like it? Save yourself the aggravation and don't do it). Giving the corp HQ command squads to increase their vulnerability would only affect a few corp artillery and engineer units, not any type of perceived corp formation as there really aren't any.
If we were dealing with a scenario of smaller scale and time frame, a corp HQ could contain corp artillery and have several divisions attached to it, with the divisional artillery included in the division itself. Such is not the case. I'm all ears for suggestions to increase playablity and realism, but the way it is now is the way it works best for the scenario.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 145
RE: Directive 21 turn 9 - 3/3/2010 12:12:47 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

About the artillery/HQ thing. Why not have a separate artillery unit for each division, eliminate the division HQ and use only corp level HQ for supply. It would reduce the counter count (ha ha) and give the corp HQ a reason for living. Personally I'd give the corp HQ one command unit so if it gets killed the whole corp formation is screwed. Make em treat HQ like they should be. YARRR.




Well, we don't need the counter count reduced, but eliminating the HQ unit and creating a separate artillery unit doesn't reduce the count anyway. That also wouldn't prevent the player from aggravating himself by piling up multiple artillery units in one area (don't like it? Save yourself the aggravation and don't do it). Giving the corp HQ command squads to increase their vulnerability would only affect a few corp artillery and engineer units, not any type of perceived corp formation as there really aren't any.
If we were dealing with a scenario of smaller scale and time frame, a corp HQ could contain corp artillery and have several divisions attached to it, with the divisional artillery included in the division itself. Such is not the case. I'm all ears for suggestions to increase playablity and realism, but the way it is now is the way it works best for the scenario.


Sorry, guess I wasn't clear enough. Corp formations would be made of course. Why else would you bother with a command unit? And I don't think that any of the major powers in WW2 were above stripping artillery from a unit. Just didn't do it in the scale some players do. Shouldn't prevent them from it though.

Seeing the responses to the different ideas it seems no one really has a problem with people stripping command/control units from formations anyway so why bother to change it.

< Message edited by Panama -- 3/3/2010 12:13:36 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 146
RE: Directive 21 turn 11 - 3/16/2010 1:56:42 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I finished the Axis side of turn 11 and posted the AAR here:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/dhjjjaiouti/D21 22dec2009 turn 11.zip

Not much happened though.


_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 147
RE: Directive 21 turn 12 - 3/17/2010 7:37:21 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I finished turn 12 and published the AAR here :

http://www.mediafire.com/file/zy0yzcyjngj/D21 22dec2009 turn 12.zip

I don't remember a lot happening this turn though.



_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 148
RE: Directive 21 turn 13 - 3/18/2010 8:50:51 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I finished Axis turn 13 and posted the AAR here:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/dkymmymzyz2/D21 22dec2009 turn 13.zip

I'm having some modest success north of Leningrad. The peninsula is almost cleared of Soviet troops. I'm sneaking up on Smolensk.

_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 149
RE: Directive 21 turn 16 - 4/10/2010 6:24:33 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		So um......I had some free time on my hands and thought I'd do some D21 work.  Here's the AARs for those turns that I've finished so far:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/rejmw12uy4z/D21 22dec2009 turn 14.zip

http://www.mediafire.com/file/2mankunyiww/Directive 21 turn 15 AAR.zip

http://www.mediafire.com/file/oja5mjfemu2/Directive 21 turn 16 AAR.zip

_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 150
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Directive 21 turn 5 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   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

0.844