RE: FITE 2

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: FITE 2

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: FITE 2

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: FITE 2 - 4/18/2021 3:58:43 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

While I can understand why units divide due to combat I can't understand why this can't be turned off.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I�m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn�t come back?
A: A stick.

(in reply to Hellen_slith)

Post #: 211

RE: FITE 2 - 4/18/2021 4:21:11 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

Some of the game mechanics prohibit players from doing things. Completely surrounding a unit and then attacking it with one of the units that has not moved at all is so fraught with science fiction implications it's ludicrous. Remove that and the game becomes more capable of allowing the Soviet to do the crazy stuff they did. Maybe a bit more sticky zones of control would help that along. *shrugs*

As it stands now some people play the opening moves until they have it perfect and then pound their chest about how great they are in wiping out all of the Soviet units. Not only this game but the Grigsby one too. How about starting a turn early and allowing the Soviet player to move every unit one hex in any direction. That would take care of the first turn perfectionists.

Don't allow the Soviets to retreat any units in the first turn. If they move at all it's to the front or parallel to it. This is what their standing orders were. Make them stick to it.

Don't allow the Soviet player to retreat beyond the Stalin line before a certain turn. In fact, don't allow them to even go to it until the July 2 turn or until the Germans have met certain conditions. Give them incremental defensive lines east of the Stalin line based on what actually happened historically and based on in game German advances. They never would have retreated wholesale like the way they do in the game.

Do away with the Finnish stop line. Let them advance as far as they can until 5 November. Force the Soviets to defend against them instead of running behind the stop line and lightly defending it.

Soviet reinforcements arrive too early.

There are a bunch of other things that can be done. But you denounce historical measures and at the same time seek historical measures. If you force one side to stick to history then both sides should have to.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 4/18/2021 4:22:31 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to gliz2)

Post #: 212

RE: FITE 2 - 4/18/2021 4:28:30 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Some of the game mechanics prohibit players from doing things. Completely surrounding a unit and then attacking it with one of the units that has not moved at all is so fraught with science fiction implications it's ludicrous. Remove that and the game becomes more capable of allowing the Soviet to do the crazy stuff they did. Maybe a bit more sticky zones of control would help that along. *shrugs*

This was fixed by the BTS thing.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 213

RE: FITE 2 - 4/18/2021 5:09:05 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

This was fixed by the BTS thing.

Is that so- for the specific situation Lobster is referring to? Where a unit is surrounded during the turn but the attacking units themselves remain at full MPs?

I thought only the units actually involved in combat determined the BTS, and that only the hex where the combat occurred had a BTS added- but I'm prepared to be corrected.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 214

RE: FITE 2 - 4/18/2021 5:09:45 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

While I can understand why units divide due to combat I can't understand why this can't be turned off.

It's trivial for the designer to turn off. He just gives the unit the "section" icon.

Back when it was straightforward to customise graphics, you could even change the section icon to look like a brigade icon or whatever.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 215

RE: FITE 2 - 4/18/2021 5:38:53 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

This was fixed by the BTS thing.

Is that so- for the specific situation Lobster is referring to? Where a unit is surrounded during the turn but the attacking units themselves remain at full MPs?

I thought only the units actually involved in combat determined the BTS, and that only the hex where the combat occurred had a BTS added- but I'm prepared to be corrected.

See post #103 in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4274372&mpage=4&key=

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 216

RE: FITE 2 - 4/18/2021 6:29:41 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

See post #103 in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4274372&mpage=4&key=

Thanks. This leaves the (reasonably minor) case where units take advantage of the removed ZOC to move through the adjacent hexes. Since presumably the destroyed unit was on the road, that's not much of an issue.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 217

RE: FITE 2 - 4/18/2021 8:34:33 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Some of the game mechanics prohibit players from doing things. Completely surrounding a unit and then attacking it with one of the units that has not moved at all is so fraught with science fiction implications it's ludicrous. Remove that and the game becomes more capable of allowing the Soviet to do the crazy stuff they did. Maybe a bit more sticky zones of control would help that along. *shrugs*

This was fixed by the BTS thing.

No, it wasn't. Simply advancing a time stamp does not solve the problem. Not sure if anything really can.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 4/18/2021 8:40:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 218

RE: FITE 2 - 4/18/2021 9:03:39 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

While I can understand why units divide due to combat I can't understand why this can't be turned off.

It's trivial for the designer to turn off. He just gives the unit the "section" icon.

Back when it was straightforward to customise graphics, you could even change the section icon to look like a brigade icon or whatever.

It's a lame work around. You are forced to make every unit on the map that might break down into a section and deny the ability for the player to voluntarily divide units. Not a good solution at all.

_____________________________

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 219

RE: FITE 2 - 4/18/2021 9:16:25 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Some of the game mechanics prohibit players from doing things. Completely surrounding a unit and then attacking it with one of the units that has not moved at all is so fraught with science fiction implications it's ludicrous. Remove that and the game becomes more capable of allowing the Soviet to do the crazy stuff they did. Maybe a bit more sticky zones of control would help that along. *shrugs*

This was fixed by the BTS thing.

No, it wasn't. Simply advancing a time stamp does not solve the problem. Not sure if anything really can.

?? In what way does it not solve the problem? The attackers are hit with the same time stamp as any later blockers.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 220

RE: FITE 2 - 4/18/2021 10:48:21 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

You would have to place a time stamp on any unit adjacent to the retreating unit even if the retreating unit isn't completely blocked from retreating because any adjacent unit influences the result of the combat by forcing a retreat in a particular direction.

Or force all adjacent units to take part in the combat. Many games did that in the good old days of board gaming. Taking that step would likely result in a mutiny.

Seems to me the scenario designer should get to decide to what extent any of this matters. Some people don't give a hoot about reality and just want a beer and pretzel scenario. Some want a grognard scenario. Maybe realism switches. Don't know.

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 221

RE: FITE 2 - 4/19/2021 12:24:15 AM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You would have to place a time stamp on any unit adjacent to the retreating unit even if the retreating unit isn't completely blocked from retreating because any adjacent unit influences the result of the combat by forcing a retreat in a particular direction.

What "retreating" unit? This is the situation you described:

quote:

"Completely surrounding a unit and then attacking it with one of the units that has not moved at all"

Again, that has been addressed by the BTS routine.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 222

RE: FITE 2 - 4/19/2021 12:51:29 AM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You would have to place a time stamp on any unit adjacent to the retreating unit even if the retreating unit isn't completely blocked from retreating because any adjacent unit influences the result of the combat by forcing a retreat in a particular direction.

I see. So here. I'm describing another one.

I don't really give a crap anymore.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 4/19/2021 12:52:08 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 223

RE: FITE 2 - 4/19/2021 8:03:21 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

It's a lame work around. You are forced to make every unit on the map that might break down into a section and deny the ability for the player to voluntarily divide units. Not a good solution at all.

Huh? If the unit shouldn't divide, it shouldn't divide. Why should it be possible to voluntarily divide it but not possible for it to divide involuntarily?

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 224

RE: FITE 2 - 4/19/2021 4:29:50 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

Really?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 225

RE: FITE 2 - 4/20/2021 8:55:18 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Really?

So you have no argument? You just get annoyed when your unit divides after being attacked?

Life is tough all over.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 226

RE: FITE 2 - 4/23/2021 1:35:23 PM

FaneFlugt

Posts: 188
Joined: 7/27/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

With the loss of Helsinki to around 400 T-34 og 100 KV-1s plus 1.000.000 dead Soviets, in the summer of 1942.
I have begun to Plan how to defend Petesmo and the Nordkap area from the steel hordes
and I realised that there are no airfields in Northern Norway. Which must be a map flaw?

A small russian offensive through Norway, would be a fun alerternate campaign,
I am pretty sure Stalin picked an ocean going navy option in our game and if it deploys in
the Murmansk area I think it would be a good secondary front (I have no idea, where the navy deploys, designers?).
Maybe even invade Denmark from Norway and push towards Berlin

. but the lack of airfields make it a bit mehhh.
Since it Makes the use of paratroppers very time consuming, drop, move them back to Petasamo, drop... ect.
And it makes it also impossible to guard against, with german fighters.

Another small beef I have with the current Finland situation, is that I think the Democratic allies would
have second thoughts about supplying the soviets with as much lend lease, as they do in the scenario,
if the soviets take Helsinki (Finland being a democracy) and installs a puppet government.
I suggest an event that stops further lend lease and a cancellation of any equipment to the USSR in the event that they take Helsinki.

/ end rant - still a very fun scenario and thanks to the designers.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by FaneFlugt -- 4/23/2021 1:58:00 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 227

RE: FITE 2 - 4/23/2021 2:15:07 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

Edit: Even better http://www.ww2.dk/lwairfields.html
Likely not a complete list. But since the terrain in Norway isn't exactly flat you can imagine the ability to build proper airfields is limited. Also some of these are for float planes only which TOAW ignores completely. Too bad airfields can't base more than three air units.

Airfields in Norway:
1941
Stavanger
Lister
Herdla
Kirkenes
Banak
Trondheim
Tromso
Oslo
Bergen

Listed for 1942 including those above:
Petsamo
Bardufoss
+2 near Trondheim
+1 near Stavanger
+1 near Tromso
Billefjord

< Message edited by Lobster -- 4/23/2021 2:23:51 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to FaneFlugt)

Post #: 228

RE: FITE 2 - 4/23/2021 2:38:28 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

Take a look at the staggering number of airfields in Russia.

_____________________________

(in reply to FaneFlugt)

Post #: 229

RE: FITE 2 - 4/23/2021 5:08:25 PM

FaneFlugt

Posts: 188
Joined: 7/27/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Take a look at the staggering number of airfields in Russia.

Cool link, skimming through the PDF about airfields in Norway during WW2, then it seems that there are a few more that needs to be on the map. At the moment the only an airport is in Stavanger, not even Oslo has one...

_____________________________

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 230

RE: FITE 2 - 4/23/2021 6:40:16 PM

torbenalbertsen

Posts: 23
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Another small beef I have with the current Finland situation, is that I think the Democratic allies would
have second thoughts about supplying the soviets with as much lend lease, as they do in the scenario,
if the soviets take Helsinki (Finland being a democracy) and installs a puppet government.
I suggest an event that stops further lend lease and a cancellation of any equipment to the USSR in the event that they take Helsinki.

Yes, our scenario has progressed to turn 103 and helsinki has just been conquered. With respect to this aspect bear in mind that playing as Russia I lost 2 in supply when I crossed the red line, and until turn 135 (second lend lease protocol) I have only gotten 1 from lend lease (in supply, not calculating the equipment packages). So currently in mathematical numbers they are removing supplies by -1 pr. turn, which off cause is a bit weired. If you furthermore wants to remove the equipment packages that means there is not only no benefit but a negative one, untill turn 135 that is.

just thought this was important to take into consideration for the 2.0 patch. I would properbly go with a much more free germany/finland in the beginnign of the campaign (go over red line in some places perhaps-house rules) since when I played as russia I just pulled back behind the line where they couldent attack, not a very russian or realistic thing to do all in all, so maybe just remove some of the political restrictions to the finish in order to force the russians to actually defend karelia.

Actually the wars in finland-karelia are quite fun, since you are limited in supply, its a kind of mini campaign which is different from central russia.

In fact from my current experience, playtesting (and play-matching: yes you faneflugt:) I would currently rule out leningrad if i were to play as the germans since it seems quite impossible to take (and I know some of you have managed it). But if all red lines were nulled, perhaps except for the one just north of leningrad, I think that goal might come back on the menue, as germany.

< Message edited by torbenalbertsen -- 4/23/2021 9:05:09 PM >

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 231

RE: FITE 2 - 4/23/2021 6:47:55 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: torbenalbertsen

just thought this was important to take into consideration for the 2.0 patch. I would properbly go with a much more free germany/finland in the beginnign of the campaign (go over red line in some places perhaps-house rules) since when I played as russia I just pulled back behind the line where they couldent attack, not a very russian or realistic thing to do all in all, so maybe just remove some of the political restrictions to the finish in order to force the russians to actually defend karelia.

Aye, let the Finns do what they can until first week of November. Force the Soviet player to commit real forces there instead of running behind the stop line and sending everything south.

_____________________________

(in reply to torbenalbertsen)

Post #: 232

RE: FITE 2 - 4/24/2021 7:01:44 AM

gliz2

Posts: 454
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline

This "historical" lunacy is irritating. Like there is a Gandalf saying to the Finns "thou shall not pass!" but on the same time the Soviets can assault Romania if they wish 🤬

My proposal is let the players decide what they want just like with the partisans.

And how on Earth it is "historical" allowing Soviets to play defence in 1941? Or Germans to do withdrawals?
Either you allow this to be a game or you make it into some BS "historical" replay of actual events.

_____________________________

Plans are worthless, but planning is essential.

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 233

RE: FITE 2 - 4/24/2021 12:28:27 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

This is an AAR with the scenario you are looking for.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4901920

_____________________________

(in reply to gliz2)

Post #: 234

RE: FITE 2 - 4/24/2021 12:51:18 PM

Hellen_slith

Posts: 1990
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

This "historical" lunacy is irritating. Like there is a Gandalf saying to the Finns "thou shall not pass!" but on the same time the Soviets can assault Romania if they wish 🤬

My proposal is let the players decide what they want just like with the partisans.

And how on Earth it is "historical" allowing Soviets to play defence in 1941? Or Germans to do withdrawals?
Either you allow this to be a game or you make it into some BS "historical" replay of actual events.

You're right. Fortunately I've found an opponent who is willing to tolerate MY proclivities in playing this GAME.

I think we're on our sixth "restart" now (we've never played past about move 40 yet.) I think it was the third go that the South group of Soviets squeezed through to tear up Hungarian railroads in the Kosice Basin. Almost took out the Romanians in that one.

In the most recent try, Mr. Schickelgruber got within about 20 KM of Leningrad. But then Helsinki fell and the Finns surrendered. Not sure what I'll try for our next go. I guess I'll see how far West I can keep the German horde.

Only beef I have is that Soviet NKVD RR can move their armored trains off track, into woods, hills, etc. Somehow I don't think that was possible to do with Soviet Armored Trains.

Maybe the NKVD had some sort of secret train transportation technology and could do that IRL. Somehow I doubt it.

(in reply to gliz2)

Post #: 235

RE: FITE 2 - 4/24/2021 1:12:59 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

Everyone knows the Soviet ground effects technologies were light years ahead of everyone else. Here's a photo taken east of Stalingrad in 1939. *snicker*

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lobster -- 4/24/2021 1:14:23 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Hellen_slith)

Post #: 236

RE: FITE 2 - 4/24/2021 1:32:53 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hellen_slith

Only beef I have is that Soviet NKVD RR can move their armored trains off track, into woods, hills, etc. Somehow I don't think that was possible to do with Soviet Armored Trains.

Maybe the NKVD had some sort of secret train transportation technology and could do that IRL. Somehow I doubt it.

There is no railroad icon. Units with security icons can move like 'normal' units.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Hellen_slith)

Post #: 237

RE: FITE 2 - 4/24/2021 1:34:49 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

Probably should be something like this. Of course they might have something specific in mind so don't want to limit the units to rail only. These units did send patrols a bit beyond the rails but not by much.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 238

RE: FITE 2 - 4/24/2021 3:26:09 PM

gliz2

Posts: 454
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline

Nice read about Soviet armoured trains (both RKKA and NKVD)
LINK

_____________________________

Plans are worthless, but planning is essential.

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 239

RE: FITE 2 - 4/25/2021 1:35:36 AM

torbenalbertsen

Posts: 23
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

Hi there

Just wondering a think about the soviet tanks. I have two types of tanks (OT-34 produced from turn 58+) and (KV-8 turn 48+) and they are wastly superior to the t-34 and the other KV variants I have at the same time, but I have no units to take them, hence they are just sitting there in reserve being of no use. I presume I will get units to take them in my armor reform I (turn 125). Is there a historical reason they are not used (tecnical issues or something like that) or is it just a querk to annoy stalin:(

also, I get a lot of partisans but I am loosing interest in them because some of them are for no discernable reason OOS all the time. They pop up and are OSS right from their appearance, and stay so, even though they havent meet any germans yet:( Its not all of them, but those that get the OOS mark stays that way.

perhaps you should have a look at them for the 2.0 patch, just in case. Or maybe its the game engine itself.

(in reply to gliz2)

Post #: 240