Directive 21 v2.0

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 v2.0

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 >> Directive 21 v2.0

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Directive 21 v2.0 - 10/8/2010 6:16:48 PM

sPzAbt653

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

D21 was updated for 3.4 by Rick (TPOO) and that version is included in the beta and will be included with the official 3.4. I'd like to thank Rick for the tremendous amount of time he has devoted to making D21 possible. I'd also like to thank everybody here for all the thoughts/ideas/suggestions. I consider this scenario to very much belong to the community, although I understand that I am a bit of a dictator when it comes to keeping it from straying from my overall view of the direction the scenario should take. We certainly can't implement every suggestion, that would turn the scenario into a misdirected
hogdepodge, but we definately appreciate everyone speaking their part. In the end, I hope D21 will provide a reasonable platform for others to mod for themselves at their discretion.

So we are on to v2.0. The bulk of the changes are to the PO and the objective tracks. (More thanks to Ralph for implementing additional tracks for 3.4, this gives all designers greater flexibility). The playtesters that sent us their save files get extra thanks for helping us identify areas that the PO was having difficulty with, especially in regards to the placement and movement of reinforcements and reconstituted units.

Any new or old thoughts for improvements or revisions to 2.0 are appreciated and welcome. The current 2.0 is available for playtesting now if any are interested. We plan to include D21 v2.0 with TOAW 3.5.

Some ideas that have been banged around in the past but were never ratified and are still up for consideration:

Removal of the OKH unit (it serves no purpose).
Remove the Army Group HQ units (they also serve no purpose).
Rolling the independant artillery units into the corps and army hq units. This would give both of these type units a purpose.
Making the later panzer divisions one unit instead of three.
A possible theater option for 'Guderian style' panzer divisions.
Organize the German divisions into corps formations.
Put some of the German Inf Div's back to 3 regiments. This involves the 300 series ones.
Remove trucks from German Inf Div's.

Overhauling Soviet unit proficiencies:
At start units - 40% prof, 0% supply, 33% ready, veteran.
Reinforcement units up to 11-42 - 0% prof, 33% supply, 33% ready, untried.
Reinforcement units after 11-42 and Gds units - 50% prof, 50% supply, 50% ready, veteran.
(These changes could have the adverse affect of weakening Elmer).

Thanks again to everybody,
Steve Sill

< Message edited by sPzAbt653 -- 10/8/2010 6:18:58 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 10/21/2010 2:41:19 AM

TPOO

Posts: 180
Joined: 11/15/2007
From: Garden Grove, CA
Status: offline

These are all great ideas. Hopefully we will get some feed back.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 2

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 12/3/2010 1:19:05 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

I am playing the version that came with the Beta patch.

I observed something that should/could be fixed. The soviet Baltic Fleet reconstitutes near Kronstadt (maybe due to the local deep sea supply point) even after the fall of Leningrad. This can only be prevented by naval hex conversion. Which i didn't. Maybe better withdraw the unit after the fall of Leningrad. If the city ever is taken back a new Baltic fleet could be built (which might take minimum one year i would estimate).

Also remove the deep sea supply point after the Fall of Leningrad. Soviet land units reconstitute on the Kronstadt island.

I am currently dealing with comrade Elmer's '41/'42 winter-"offensive". More agression couldn't harm. In fact, he did almost nothing except stacking units in front of my units.

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to TPOO)

Post #: 3

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 12/4/2010 2:44:35 AM

sPzAbt653

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

I swear I always laboriously check those events before distribution! Somehow they magically change themselves.

It looks like 'Oct Revolution' will come back, but 'Marat' won't. I'm pretty sure this was in the release version, and not just 2.0. But Telumar, you can check events 254 and 255 to see if they are for the withdrawal of those units.

Units reconstituting at Kronstadt is a problem. Maybe if we sneak a Suez Canal burr right under the Kronstadt name so it can't be seen, then Elmer won't be able to place units there?

Request for more Aggresion for Elmer in Winter '41 - noted. One word on that though - do you feel you put the Axis in the same historical situation that allowed them to be overextended, out of supply and far below strength, which in turn allowed the feeble Soviet masses to boot the Axis back a couple hundred miles? This always concerns me, and I've been waiting for Rick, Patrick, Me and any others to playtest 2.0 to see what the general feeling is (because 3.4 did alter Elmer).

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 4

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 12/4/2010 4:54:28 AM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I swear I always laboriously check those events before distribution! Somehow they magically change themselves.

It looks like 'Oct Revolution' will come back, but 'Marat' won't. I'm pretty sure this was in the release version, and not just 2.0. But Telumar, you can check events 254 and 255 to see if they are for the withdrawal of those units.

They are there in my version. Leningrad fell on Nov 12. So.. i have no idea what happened. And yes, it was the 'Oct Revolution'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Units reconstituting at Kronstadt is a problem. Maybe if we sneak a Suez Canal burr right under the Kronstadt name so it can't be seen, then Elmer won't be able to place units there?

I think removing the deep sea supply point (132/106) after the fall of Leningrad will do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Request for more Aggresion for Elmer in Winter '41 - noted. One word on that though - do you feel you put the Axis in the same historical situation that allowed them to be overextended, out of supply and far below strength, which in turn allowed the feeble Soviet masses to boot the Axis back a couple hundred miles? This always concerns me, and I've been waiting for Rick, Patrick, Me and any others to playtest 2.0 to see what the general feeling is (because 3.4 did alter Elmer).

Umm..well... Yes and No.

I think i know what happened. I am on turn 64 now and Elmer's winter offensive shock was over some turns ago. He started it already on turn 49. But pressure, especially on the front east of Moscow is rising (i took Moscow during Typhoon). Nowhere near threatening, but still much more than during the actual offensive. It would have been better for him to wait with the offensive until now. But i think tying the activation of the offensive to strength on the ground is impossible for Elmer.
What happened is, that Elmer lacked the forces to mount an offensive. Now, as the frontlines are static and my offensive actions very limited (in fact since turn 49, except for some mopping up in Moscow's rear) he is receiving more reconstituted units. Just as Moscow fell i could have advanced further east, he had almost nothing east of Moscow. Honestly, i had the feeling i could easily roll through Gorky, across the Urals and right into Siberia..
But i limited myself to not perform such unrealistic advances..
Also, my forces were in a pretty good shape. Panzer Divisions at 80% and more of authorized TOE. Infantry divisions far from depleted. The whole front rested. No signs of overextension at all, i even enveloped Moscow from the south and north with the pincers meeting in the area Zagorsk / Orekhovo-Zuyevo without running into too much resistance, not to mention supply problems.

It comes down to two things: Elmer had lost bitterly during the summer (more than historically). TOAW's supply system.

I never had the feeling supply was a real issue (except in the mud season), but this has not to do with bad design from your side, rather with the supply system in general. There's nothing that could stop me from rolling into Siberia. Well, at least not supply problems... i have begun to limit myself not to become aggressive with units in the red.

If i am at it. Another observation. Murmansk. I was able to take Murmansk. But it was a hard and long campaign, no easy achievment. I had to plan every move and every attack very carefully and have been rewarded. This part of the campaign is very challenging. Well done!

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 5

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 12/4/2010 2:58:01 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

Another issue - turn 65. The Romanian navy discovered this:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 6

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 12/4/2010 7:53:47 PM

sPzAbt653

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

They are there in my version.

In what I have here, event 254 had changed the target unit. Fixed now, but too late for anyone with the 3.4 release, I suppose. Sorry about that.

quote:

I think removing the deep sea supply point (132/106) after the fall of Leningrad will do.

I think that is ok, but we'll have to check with Rick as I leave the supply point decisions up to him.

quote:

Elmer had lost bitterly during the summer (more than historically). TOAW's supply system.

It's something that bothers me, in that if we make Elmer strong enough to damage an unhistorically strong Axis player, then if the player does play an historical type Barbarossa, he will get creamed because Elmer will be unhistorically strong. I try to balance those two things, the player should be able to conduct an historical advance if he wants, but can also opt to take Hitler's goofiness out of the mix and conduct a more reasonable campaign.

Now, if everyone gets to the Urals easily, then I agree we have to change something. So far Patrick is the only one that has demonstrated that. With complete respect to all players and contributers, I have to tread lightly when I say that those that have called it quits at turn 50 or 100, claiming it is too easy, haven't given it a chance. The German High Command called the campaign over in August, and plans were drafted for the recall or disbandment of all but sixty divisions to be left as a garrison. And I think I have to add something else - reaching the Urals quickly is one thing, but can the player stay there for awhile. In Patricks game the answer was yes. By turn 230 he had shut the Soviets out of all but the area south of the Caucasus. 3.4 and v2.0 addressed some issues that we had with that situation and what effect it had on Elmer.

I'm currently taking a break from D21 and playtesting Brian Topp's BfM. Once I'm done with that I'll get to my first run of 3.4's v2.0, and hopefully Rick, Patrick and some others will also. Then we can get a better grip on how Elmer is doing, I think.

quote:

Murmansk...

Among other things, all the credit goes to Rick for the action 'north of the border'. I had no interest in it and wanted to leave it out of D21 as I considered it impossible to get Elmer to contend with the quirky situations that arise up there. Somehow he got it to work.

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 7

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 12/4/2010 7:58:06 PM

sPzAbt653

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Another issue - turn 65. The Romanian navy discovered this:

What the ... ? Reports of strange activity in the Black Sea ?? I'll make a note to keep an eye on that. Elmer should threaten the coast areas enough so that the player has to keep some garrisons, but I'm not sure why he disembarked in such a position.

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 8

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 12/5/2010 12:24:59 AM

PRUSSIAN TOM

Posts: 156
Joined: 10/23/2008
From: Los Angeles, Califonia
Status: offline

Perhaps the Russian's borrowed Winston Churchill's Sawdust/Iceberg aircraft carrier idea?

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 9

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 12/6/2010 1:51:58 PM

Bulldog1

Posts: 63
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline

I just wanted to say thanks sPzAbt653 for a great scenario. I was getting smug and cozy with my nice neat line on Russian front. The Russian bear has awoken with a vengeance :(
Thanks Again!

(in reply to PRUSSIAN TOM)

Post #: 10

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 12/6/2010 8:43:31 PM

TPOO

Posts: 180
Joined: 11/15/2007
From: Garden Grove, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

I think removing the deep sea supply point (132/106) after the fall of Leningrad will do.

This supply point can be removed if it is causing a problem in 3.4. It was only put in to give Elmer supply at Oranienbaum if units there get cut off.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 11

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 12/6/2010 8:55:29 PM

TPOO

Posts: 180
Joined: 11/15/2007
From: Garden Grove, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Another issue - turn 65. The Romanian navy discovered this:

What the ... ? Reports of strange activity in the Black Sea ?? I'll make a note to keep an eye on that. Elmer should threaten the coast areas enough so that the player has to keep some garrisons, but I'm not sure why he disembarked in such a position.

This may be an issue with the patch. In other versions Elmer would attempt sometimes to attack by sea at Feodosia (which they did historically) but never would the units be disembarked at sea but just adjacent to the coast..

Also, on a separate issue with Axis supply, in version 2.0 the Axis rail building capacity was changed to try make it harder for the Axis to build rail through 1941, and very hard in the winter of 1941-42. It was to easy to build rail heads right to the end of all fronts which was not historical. This should help stretching the Axis supply lines during this period and maybe making Elmer's Winter offensiveds more effective.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 12

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 12/7/2010 11:48:37 AM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TPOO

Also, on a separate issue with Axis supply, in version 2.0 the Axis rail building capacity was changed to try make it harder for the Axis to build rail through 1941, and very hard in the winter of 1941-42. It was to easy to build rail heads right to the end of all fronts which was not historical. This should help stretching the Axis supply lines during this period and maybe making Elmer's Winter offensiveds more effective.

Mm. It was not my impression that it was too easy (neither was it too hard) but i think that depends on one's style of advance. I recently was told by one of my PBEM partners/playtester that i am "aware of logistics" - seems you too. Good! :)

Would you mind sending me the latest version? Steve should have my e-mail still.

I played through to turn 78, but i "somehow" (no joke) lost half a dozen Romanian divisions in the Kerch straight by moving them onto the shallow water/anchorage hex and attacking the soviet occupied opposite shore. The attack failed. Next turn the divisions were gone, among them the precious Romanian Armor Div. The formation report lists them as "retreated" and on location 999/999. Haven't saved for several turns and don't want to replay again - Elmer takes up to half an hour per turn! (can't be the PC - 2x 2,4 GHz & 4 GB Ram) Could well be that the Soviets attacked them and they could not retreat to a safe hex, as the friendly shore was filled with artillery.. i didn't watch the PO turn (half an hour..) and sitrep was off, so i can't tell.

< Message edited by Telumar -- 12/7/2010 11:51:29 AM >

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to TPOO)

Post #: 13

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 12/7/2010 5:19:51 PM

sPzAbt653

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

quote:

The formation report lists them as "retreated" and on location 999/999.

Bizarro

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 14

RE: Directive 21 v2.0 - 12/7/2010 6:47:11 PM

Panama

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

The formation report lists them as "retreated" and on location 999/999.

Bizarro

They are still 'there' but in an unreachable place. An alternate universe where time and space have no meaning. The Twilight Zone.

_____________________________

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 15

RE: Replacement Bug - 1/1/2011 1:48:57 AM

sPzAbt653

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

Rick has detected a replacement bug that gives the Soviets about half the rifle squad replacements that they should get. Apologies to those that got the 3.4 beta version and started playing, Elmer will be at a disadvantage. Anyone wanting the corrected file can contact Rick or me and we will send it, or maybe we can get Mr. Fulkerson to post it somewhere.

We'll call this file v2.1, and as a bonus Elmer is improved based on some advice from Ralph.

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 16

RE: Replacement Bug - 1/1/2011 6:42:53 AM

1_Lzard

Posts: 528
Joined: 8/18/2010
From: McMinnville, OR
Status: offline

Certainly up for more, Steve! Newer is always better, eh?

I'll check my inbox tomorrow, LOL!

Kurt

_____________________________

"I have the brain of a Genius, and the heart of a Little Child. I keep them in a jar under my bed!"

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 17

Newest Version of D21 - 1/2/2011 8:45:06 PM

larryfulkerson

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

I've uploaded the newest version of D21 to a file server and you can find it here:'

http://www.mediafire.com/file/gqo4ln4av85m8xc/Directive%2021%2001-01-11.sce

_____________________________

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

(in reply to 1_Lzard)

Post #: 18

RE: Newest Version of D21 - 1/2/2011 9:41:10 PM

sPzAbt653

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

Thanks very much Mr. Fulkerson, you are one cool dude !!

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 19

RE: Newest Version of D21 - 1/3/2011 12:06:17 AM

larryfulkerson

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Thanks very much Mr. Fulkerson, you are one cool dude !!

Thanks. But I think you're the cooler dude. You're the one doing all the hard work on D21. You and Rick.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 20

RE: Newest Version of D21 - 1/15/2011 8:41:22 PM

witp1951

Posts: 118
Joined: 12/2/2009
From: Tennessee
Status: offline

Hi,

I get a wrong equipment file msg after replacing the 3.4 Beta sce file with 2.1. Can I ignore that or am I missing a file. Thanks.

_____________________________

Baka wa shinanakya naoranai

Dog

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 21

RE: Newest Version of D21 - 1/15/2011 10:46:37 PM

larryfulkerson

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

Check that the equipment file ( *.eqp ) has exactly the same name as the scenario file ( except for the three-letter extention of course ).� If it's different the game engine won't associate the equipment file with the scenario and it will use the stock eqp file which will be the wrong one.� As I recall I renamed the scenario to have the date in it so I'm guessing that the scenario file doesn't exactly match the equipment file and will give the "error" message.� Just rename the scenario to match the equipment file and you should be good to go. Only the scenario file was changed and still uses the same equipment file as the "old" version.

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 1/15/2011 10:47:11 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to witp1951)

Post #: 22

RE: Newest Version of D21 - 1/16/2011 4:43:02 PM

sPzAbt653

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

There is a slight bugger with the Game Text File. The correct one and install instructions can be had here : http://www.dizium.net/TOAW

As far as we can tell, this only affects the new terrain descriptions that were created for D21.

We've added this download section to my business website. Thanks to Mr. Fulkerson for hosting D21 over the past two years, it is very much appreciated.

< Message edited by sPzAbt653 -- 9/13/2012 12:03:59 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 23

RE: Newest Version of D21 - 1/16/2011 4:50:33 PM

sPzAbt653

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

witp1951 - Scroll to the end of the Inventory and Replacements list and make sure you have these :

Attachment (1)

(in reply to witp1951)

Post #: 24

RE: Newest Version of D21 - 1/16/2011 6:01:13 PM

Panama

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

Baka wa shinanakya naoranai

Harsh.

BTW, the wrong equipment message always seems to pop up even if you're using the right one. Anyone ever find out why?

< Message edited by Panama -- 1/16/2011 6:02:10 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to witp1951)

Post #: 25

RE: Newest Version of D21 - 1/16/2011 11:12:02 PM

sPzAbt653

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

I thought it was fixed for 3.4. I don't get the message here, using 3.4.0.178.

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 26

RE: Newest Version of D21 - 1/17/2011 12:21:03 AM

Panama

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

I have .201 running.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 27

RE: Newest Version of D21 - 1/17/2011 8:03:59 AM

sPzAbt653

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

The file name isn't the same as the eqp file name ??

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 28

RE: Newest Version of D21 - 1/17/2011 11:19:32 AM

larryfulkerson

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

I checked the file I uploaded recently and NO it didn't have the same file name ( it included the date in the name ) so I uploaded it again just now, making sure it had the same name as the equipment file and now the newest version of D21 can be found here:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/cugc9ynnggif1ac/Directive%2021%201941-1945.sce

sorry about the mixup.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 29

RE: Newest Version of D21 - 1/17/2011 2:33:19 PM

Panama

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The file name isn't the same as the eqp file name ??

If you'll look at the screen shot you'll see the in the lower right directory window the file name. Everything is exactly the same. That's why I put the directory windows in the shot. So it would be obvious everything was exactly the same.

Now the question may be, why does the window simply display Directive 21 when the scenario file is named Directive 21 1941-1945?

Curioser and curioser. When I open in the editor and go to save it, the editor wants to save it as simply Directive 21. Why would it not try to save it as the same name as it was opened?

I'm going to try saving it in the editor as Directive 21 1941-1945.

Yes Larry, you are correct. When I downloaded the scenario it had a different name but I changed the scenario file name to match the eqp file name. The proper equipment file is being used, I checked. I still got the window saying it was the wrong file.

< Message edited by Panama -- 1/17/2011 2:48:17 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 30