need OOB help

need OOB help (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III

Message

TAIL GUNNER -> need OOB help (3/27/2006 1:03:01 AM)
I know I'm behind the times, but I've been having a ball re-playing the original TOAW again after all these years, and in particular, B. Topp and T. Porto's Barbarossa 6.0 scenario.... But I want to modify the OOB to Korps formations instead of the current Armee formations...and give the HQs their appropriate names... I've found several OOBs on the net for the German forces that are at the starting line on June 22nd....but what I can't find are OOBs for the reinforcements.....(current scenario groups them all under AGN Reserves, AGC Reserves, and AGS Reserves) Can ya help a brother out?[8D] As a side note, I figured this scenario must push the max of what the TOAW engine can do.....until I stumbled upon the Fire in the East scenario the other night for the COW version...[X(]

golden delicious -> RE: need OOB help (3/27/2006 2:35:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Juggalo As a side note, I figured this scenario must push the max of what the TOAW engine can do.....until I stumbled upon the Fire in the East scenario the other night for the COW version...[X(] There's pushing the limits of sheer size. Then there's pushing the limits in terms of the sort of scenarios you can make. Anyway, I don't think there's an easy answer to your problem, besides looking at what other designers have done (an inadvisable idea in itself). I suspect the reason the units are grouped as they are is to give the player some freedom in where he sends his reinforcements, rather than forcing him to send them to their historical corps. Though depending on co-operation levels that might not matter.

Praepositus -> RE: need OOB help (3/27/2006 3:53:35 AM)
Juggalo- Have you tried: www.feldgrau.com (Go into the Heer section and find each division's history from there) www.diedeutschewehrmacht.de/Kriegsgliederung.htm (gives division assignments for certain months depending on the armee) www.wwiidaybyday.com (This gives OOB for the initial onslaught plus every from September until Christmas Eve 1941. Even covers other theaters) Using these sites, you can probably infer where each division goes. That's what I've done with my scenarios. Other than that, there's the old standby Nafziger- costs money but nobody's better! I also agree with Mr. Apple (Golden Delicious :-) that the probable reason the designers choose to organize the reinforcements is for flexibility of deployment. And this makes sense if you look at feldgrau's listings of division assignment to corps- each month has them in different places. If you use OPART300, you might be able to assign reinforcements to their own organization (i.e., L Korps as the only unit in an organization). But the AI for this option is a real bugger. Good Luck! Praepositus

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: need OOB help (3/27/2006 6:58:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious There's pushing the limits of sheer size. Then there's pushing the limits in terms of the sort of scenarios you can make. Are you saying that particular scenario is unplayable? It looks incredible... I've noticed B.Topp and T.Porto's Barbarossa suffers from overcrowding, or bottlenecking...whatever you want to call it....there's not much room for maneuvering... 25km/hex scale problem I reckon.... Maybe I just don't have the "feel" of the game yet....but it seems impossible to capture Minsk by the end of June.....let alone Smolensk in July! quote: Anyway, I don't think there's an easy answer to your problem, besides looking at what other designers have done (an inadvisable idea in itself). I suspect the reason the units are grouped as they are is to give the player some freedom in where he sends his reinforcements, rather than forcing him to send them to their historical corps. Though depending on co-operation levels that might not matter. All I'll be doing is is switching from Army level formations to Corps-level....and giving the Corps HQs their correct names...co-operation levels are set to full cooperation for all German units if I remember right.. I just thought of a potential problem though....if I switch the Germans to Corps formations, does that also mean the Stavka units have to be Corp formations also? I hope not....I wasn't even going to touch the Soviet side... I'm just one of those nit-picking sticklers that wants everything nice and organized.....I remember spending hours organizing units in Corps Dynamic Campaign Games for East Front II... Thanks for the comments, ChadG

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: need OOB help (3/27/2006 7:08:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Praepositus www.wwiidaybyday.com This is exactly what I was looking for! THANK YOU [&o] quote: I also agree with Mr. Apple (Golden Delicious :-) that the probable reason the designers choose to organize the reinforcements is for flexibility of deployment. And this makes sense if you look at feldgrau's listings of division assignment to corps- each month has them in different places. If you use OPART300, you might be able to assign reinforcements to their own organization (i.e., L Korps as the only unit in an organization). But the AI for this option is a real bugger. Ah, another thing to add to the wish list I suppose: Ability to transfer units from one cooperative HQ to another. To which I'd also add: Whenever any HQ is selected, ALL of its subordinate units are highlighted....regardless of formation setting. Thanks again, ChadG

golden delicious -> RE: need OOB help (3/27/2006 2:11:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Juggalo Are you saying that particular scenario is unplayable? It looks incredible... That's actually not what I meant on this occasion, but now that you mention it the very large scenarios tend to be too big for a single player to play effectively. Back in the days of 'manual' gaming a game was considered very large if it had a couple of hundred units. Fire in the East has 2,000 Soviet and nearly 2,000 German units. quote: I've noticed B.Topp and T.Porto's Barbarossa suffers from overcrowding, or bottlenecking...whatever you want to call it....there's not much room for maneuvering... 25km/hex scale problem I reckon.... I would suggest it's not a problem with 25km/hex so much as a problem with having battalion sized units (all those StuGs etc.) at this scale. quote: All I'll be doing is is switching from Army level formations to Corps-level....and giving the Corps HQs their correct names...co-operation levels are set to full cooperation for all German units if I remember right.. As Praepositus pointed out, even your correct corps HQ names are going to become invalid after the first couple of months of the scenario, as assignments change. quote: I just thought of a potential problem though....if I switch the Germans to Corps formations, does that also mean the Stavka units have to be Corp formations also? No.

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: need OOB help (3/27/2006 10:05:07 PM)
quote: As Praepositus pointed out, even your correct corps HQ names are going to become invalid after the first couple of months of the scenario, as assignments change. Wow, you guys weren't kidding....I had no idea Divisions were reassigned to various Corps so often... The very first AGN Reserve division I looked up on the excellent feldgrau.com site had three different Korps and two different Armee commands in just 3 months! Ah well....now I understand why the original designers did it the way they did... Fumbled around with the editor for the first time last night, and all I gotta say is that I have newfound respect for you scenario designers....[&o] It must take a year and a day just to put in the OOB!

Praepositus -> RE: need OOB help (3/28/2006 8:32:30 AM)
Juggalo- Because of the limitations with the game system regarding organizations, large scale scenarios involving large units or large periods of time or both are difficult to recreate historically. I think this might be your problem. Any scenario for Op Barbarossa is bound to be abstract, because even though it's possible to establish which Korps and Armee the 5th Infanterie Division was in for the campaign, it is almost impossible to recreate this using the game's structure. I agree with Golden Delicious with the bottlenecking effect being caused by too many units. One of the many difficult things to do is recreate the correct scale in a scenario. You can have either too many units which clog the game, or too few leaving flank and rear open. Maybe you could cut down on superfluous units. After all, if your main forces are divisions, how important to the game is it really to have the 40 pz abt in the game? Regarding the "feel" of the game and your units not keeping up to historical standards: Try increasing the movement rate of your force. You can increase it up to 150% of normal, which really helps. Some say it's not historical, but I've found in large scenarios that it's the only way I can use to keep up with the historical forces. Other ways are to plan your attacks better so that you can have more rounds of combat. I think www.tdg.nu has an article or two about that on their site. I applaud your effort to be as historically accurate as possible; I've always believed in accuracy over playability (I'm definitely in the minority on that, though). But remember it's just a computer sim with all the inherent inaccuracies, and if you really want accuracy your best bet is to get a good set of miniatures rules and do it yourself. Which brings up a good question for the group: I wonder if anyone would agree with me that the computer games, although pretty to look at, are not as accurate as boardgames or miniatures? ASL, Third Reich, any of the Clash of Arms games involving the Napoleonic wars, all seem to me to be more real than even Talonsoft's efforts. Praepositus

sstevens06 -> RE: need OOB help (3/28/2006 3:45:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Praepositus ... Which brings up a good question for the group: I wonder if anyone would agree with me that the computer games, although pretty to look at, are not as accurate as boardgames or miniatures? ASL, Third Reich, any of the Clash of Arms games involving the Napoleonic wars, all seem to me to be more real than even Talonsoft's efforts. Praepositus I too slave at the altar of historical accuracy.[:(] Can't agree with your statement above though. A well-designed computer wargame can simulate at a much more detailed and granular level than any boardgame or miniature could and still be playable. Look at ACoW for example: combat results are calculated from 'the bottom up' between individual pieces of equipment (albeit abstractly), even in large-scale scenarios with units representing brigades or divisions. Then there are terrain, supply, proficiency, readiness, weather, supporting arms, and many other factors which play into each and every combat resolution - I can't imagine simulating anywhere near that level of detail in a boardgame. If anything abstraction would tend to be greater in non-computer wargames. Another thing to consider is that purpose-built wargames (i.e., those covering specific campaigns or battles) can be crafted to achieve greater levels of realism that more generalized simulation 'toolkits' designed to cover a much wider range of conflicts (like ACoW).

Curtis Lemay -> RE: need OOB help (3/28/2006 6:36:00 PM)
I'm at a loss as to what could be done in a paper and cardboard boardgame that couldn't be done better in a computerized simulation (other than have the dog pee on it).

golden delicious -> RE: need OOB help (3/28/2006 8:26:05 PM)
Likewise with Sstevens and Curtis Lemay. Whilst the level of realism in computer wargames is extremely variable, the same can be said of manual wargames. As Bob points out, there is no part of simulation you can do in manual games but not in computer games. The reverse is far from true- the addition of the sheer power of a computer allows you to add many layers of complexity to the simulation without seriously increasing the load on the player. Further, in my view existing computer wargames have barely scratched the surface of what could be done to increase realism.

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: need OOB help (3/28/2006 11:49:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Praepositus Juggalo- Because of the limitations with the game system regarding organizations, large scale scenarios involving large units or large periods of time or both are difficult to recreate historically. I think this might be your problem. Any scenario for Op Barbarossa is bound to be abstract, because even though it's possible to establish which Korps and Armee the 5th Infanterie Division was in for the campaign, it is almost impossible to recreate this using the game's structure. Yeah, I understand that now... It'd be real nice to be able to reassign Divs to a cooperative Korps HQ during the course of the game.....apparently this happend quite frequently! quote: I agree with Golden Delicious with the bottlenecking effect being caused by too many units. One of the many difficult things to do is recreate the correct scale in a scenario. You can have either too many units which clog the game, or too few leaving flank and rear open. Maybe you could cut down on superfluous units. After all, if your main forces are divisions, how important to the game is it really to have the 40 pz abt in the game? Regarding the "feel" of the game and your units not keeping up to historical standards: Try increasing the movement rate of your force. You can increase it up to 150% of normal, which really helps. Some say it's not historical, but I've found in large scenarios that it's the only way I can use to keep up with the historical forces. Other ways are to plan your attacks better so that you can have more rounds of combat. I think www.tdg.nu has an article or two about that on their site. I think it's my play style versus anything else....I need to learn to break holes in the defense and exploit with the fast Panzer and motorised units... quote: I applaud your effort to be as historically accurate as possible; I've always believed in accuracy over playability (I'm definitely in the minority on that, though). But remember it's just a computer sim with all the inherent inaccuracies, and if you really want accuracy your best bet is to get a good set of miniatures rules and do it yourself. Who has time for that??[:D] quote: Which brings up a good question for the group: I wonder if anyone would agree with me that the computer games, although pretty to look at, are not as accurate as boardgames or miniatures? ASL, Third Reich, any of the Clash of Arms games involving the Napoleonic wars, all seem to me to be more real than even Talonsoft's efforts. Praepositus I've never played boardgames, (except Axis and Allies) or miniatures... But it's my opinion that TOAW could become the de facto turn-based wargame with just a bit more work....Matrix was VERY smart to snatch this title! ChadG

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.5917969