Directive 21 playtesters thread (Full Version)

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



Message

larryfulkerson -> Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/16/2008 8:20:30 PM)

So um......I thought maybe it might be a good idea for all the Directive 21 playtesters to have some good place to post their findings / problemos so that we could compare notes and help each other through tough places. I've only just started my playtest this morning so I don't have anything juicy to post / add. Well, there is this one thing....I decided to do an AAR of my playtesting just so others might get a taste of playing FITE against a Soviet PO. The AAR starts here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1936198

I found some excellent discussion of the unit movement rates in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1934046

Here's the list of potential D21 playtesters:

Tony Luke
Sker
Panama Red
Silvanski
Menschenfresser
Singleton Mosby
Cesteman
Ernest Van Horn
Rick Kesler
Nelson Audy
Larry Fulkerson

lemme know if I've overlooked somebody or if anybody wants to be added to the list.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/17/2008 9:15:21 AM)

Thanks Mr. Fulkerson,

Ernest van Horn and Rick Kesler are also devoting their time to playtesting.


So as not to hog up your AAR space, I'll answer your questions here. Let me know if you'd rather I respond there in the future.

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.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/17/2008 9:31:51 AM)

Axis Bautrupp Rail Repair units with '0' movement points.

In referance to post #18 of your AAR, I'll post this explanation:

You only have to put the rail repair units in embarked status on turn 1 and then simply move them along the rail lines each turn. During the bookkeeping phase your rail repair crews will automatically repair the rail line for you (yes, even in embarked status). As stated in the scenario briefing - 'Rail Repair will tend to occur automatically nearest 'Bautrupp' units at a maximim rate of 28 per turn.'

In the game engine, this 'auto' repair has been adjusted to simulate the historical German east front rail repair issues. So not all rail repair crews are 100% efficient, and some lines will take longer than others to get repaired.

If you use the '.' (period, dot) button on the keyboard at the start of each turn (after turn 1), you can easily phase thru each of the bautrupp units to advance them to the desired location. Move, . , move, . , etc. In 10 seconds your rail repair chore for the entire east front is complete. This leaves you much more time to try and figure out how to get to Moscow in 15 turns!

Among other things, I need to credit Zort/Buzz with the idea of creating rail repair units that are restricted to rail movement. Thanks Buzz, this idea has contributed greatly to the easier management of this huge scenario.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/17/2008 9:46:48 AM)

Movement Rates:

The movement rates for some Axis units were thought to need a slight adjustment. Victor Hauser was kind enough to provide some basic guidelines and based on that information, the following adjustments were made:

Standard German infantry divisions were reduced from 19 to 17.

Many of the Panzer Division units were increased from 27 to 32.

Security type divisions were reduced from 23 to 18.

These are general numbers and variances will occur.


I don't know at this point if any adjustments will be made to the Soviet side. They have some complicated issues that need to be considered.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/17/2008 3:07:51 PM)

Thanks muchly for the answers.  That solves some of my wondering about some things.  



BriteLite -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/17/2008 8:30:41 PM)

I have followed the Directive21 threads with great interest. Is the scenario available online for download? I would like to get a copy.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/17/2008 11:28:12 PM)

I sent it to your email address just now.  Get it yet?  Wanna be a playtester?  Just sign on the dotted line:

.................................................

EDIT: I've posted the 28MAR09 version on Media Fire so you can download it from there easily. The URL is:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?3dyy5tjrg1y

Let us know how your game goes, okay?



will5869 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/18/2008 1:49:49 AM)

I to have been following this and wold like a copy of it if possiable.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/18/2008 8:02:27 AM)

Maximum Round Per Battle:

Different things can cause more rounds to be burned than atticipated. With the MRPB set to the default of 99, any one battle/combat may possibly run the turn out. Initially I had reset the MRPB to 5, but after reading some of Veers' thoughts on the MRPB setting of 3 for EA (thanks Veers!), I decided to lower it to 3 also. I know, EA is a different scale, but the complexity and multiple fronts make it similar. MRPB is also a big part of the playtest, along with the Attrition Divider setting of 6. If we develope issues with either of these settings, we can adjust them.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/18/2008 8:06:30 AM)

Bridge Blowing:

Elmer has been ordered by Stavka not to destroy any of the bridges that are vital in moving troops forward to assist in defeating the Nazi invaders!

Technically though, I don't know that there is a way to make the PO blow bridges. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.



Silvanski -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/18/2008 10:23:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Bridge Blowing:
I don't know that there is a way to make the PO blow bridges. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.


Formations on "defend" orders will be more likely to blow bridges. Either Ralph or Jamiam told me, and I've noticed it when setting the PO for the Gotterdammerung 1944-1945 mod



vahauser -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/18/2008 10:39:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Maximum Round Per Battle:

Different things can cause more rounds to be burned than atticipated. With the MRPB set to the default of 99, any one battle/combat may possibly run the turn out. Initially I had reset the MRPB to 5, but after reading some of Veers' thoughts on the MRPB setting of 3 for EA (thanks Veers!), I decided to lower it to 3 also. I know, EA is a different scale, but the complexity and multiple fronts make it similar. MRPB is also a big part of the playtest, along with the Attrition Divider setting of 6. If we develope issues with either of these settings, we can adjust them.


I like the MRPB set at 3. I'm undecided on the AD=6, though. My gut tells me an AD=6 is too bloody. But that's what a playtest is for.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/18/2008 6:14:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: will5869
I to have been following this and wold like a copy of it if possiable.


I just sent it to you. Get it yet? Lemme know if you don't.



Menschenfresser -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/18/2008 7:58:26 PM)

Finished Turn 1:
I'm really going to have to play differently. A normal Soviet player would run. Over the first few turns, there's little to worry about as the Axis. However, the PO has moved several corps right into several sensitive stacks and pushed me back. I like that. So far, no complaints. I like the unified German divisions. Less micromanagement when moving east and allows me to focus an entire division on one hex if I want.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/18/2008 8:00:18 PM)

quote:

Formations on "defend" orders will be more likely to blow bridges.


We have about 50 formations on 'defend' orders, including those defending the frontier, so we'll have to wait for Stalin to recind those counterattack orders!



Panama Red -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/20/2008 5:32:10 PM)

Menschenfresser:
Most people do not know that the Soviets constantly attacked the Germans during Operation Barbarossa as they (Soviets) were being pushed back. The Soviet propaganda only advertized their successful offensives that the West knows about, not all the ones that failed.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/20/2008 6:10:40 PM)

I'm having to rethink my early turns Soviet FITE policy ( the run-away defense ) as the PO is severly curtailing my Axis rapid rush to the east.  If the losses weren't so terribly severe it might be a good thing for a human opponent to constantly push a few units into the face of the Axis onslaught in order to be able to build a more substantial defensive line(s) further to the east.  This Directive 21 scenario is opening my eyes to several of the traditional FITE ideas that have been floating about for years now.   And for the better I think.



Sker -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (10/20/2008 6:45:31 PM)

I played just a couple of turns so far and I have never played FITE on a PBEM so I probably have a different background from whom watch the situation.
For the moment Elmer behaved as I expected attacking me with everything he could and slowing down my advance. But I think that this way he wiull probably run out of units sooner or later cause msot of the units he puts in the fight were destoyed this turn or are about to be destroyed later in the game.
We will see how the game will go on but the risk is to have few bloody turns and then an easy Axis victory.
I think this is the main factor on wich focus on in the playtest of the first turns.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Artillery Poll (10/20/2008 7:27:04 PM)

So um......I've gotten into the habit of putting my arty in "rest" when the supply gets down into the 39% or less range.  I'm not sure but I think the attack strength decreases whenever the supply stays low for too long, say three turns or so.  So in order to avoid the loss of attack strength I've adopted a policy of resting low supply units.  What say the rest of you?  I've noticed that Karri E. sometimes runs his Panzer units even while they are cherry red and that seems dangerous to me.  But then, I always loose when he plays me.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Artillery Poll (10/21/2008 5:30:04 AM)

I like to have some artillery back from the front getting green. When others get red they can be rotated.

Combat units in the red seem to evaporate easier than those in higher supply. So I try to rotate those out also.



cesteman -> RE: Artillery Poll (10/21/2008 8:12:05 AM)

yep, I agree...



vahauser -> RE: Artillery Poll (10/21/2008 1:06:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I like to have some artillery back from the front getting green. When others get red they can be rotated.



Yes, this is another cheesy reason I don't like those damned divisional -- oops, I almost forgot. I promised not to complain about this.



morganbj -> RE: Artillery Poll (10/21/2008 3:56:54 PM)

I'd like to join the fray, too.

morganb AT uhcl DOT edu

How's it goin' Larry?  Good to see the AAR's again.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Artillery Poll (10/21/2008 9:00:24 PM)

quote:

... another cheesy reason I don't like those damned divisional ...


I was referring to artillery units. The HQ units are different. They stay up at the front, adjacent to their attached units, providing bonuses and combat support, as intended.



cesteman -> RE: Artillery Poll (10/21/2008 9:41:21 PM)

SPZABT653 do you have any problem with testers taking this on H2H? Thanks.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Artillery Poll (10/21/2008 11:03:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan
I'd like to join the fray, too.
morganb AT uhcl DOT edu
How's it goin' Larry?  Good to see the AAR's again.


Hey BJ.....I sent it to you....did you get it yet? thanks for the kind words. I'll try to do a better job on the AAR's from now on. LOL



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Artillery Poll (10/22/2008 4:10:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman

SPZABT653 do you have any problem with testers taking this on H2H? Thanks.


I'm not a doctor or physician, but I would suggest that taking this on anything other than beer and nicotine could be harmful.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Artillery Poll (10/22/2008 4:30:10 AM)

Hey sPzAbt653:

I've been giving your scenario to whoever asks for it. Is that a problemo? I can stop immediately if it is. And, while we're talking about your scenario.....how does a person tell which version of the scenario he/she has? I mean if the playtesting reveals something that needs adjustment and a new(er) version is produced how can a person tell from looking at the scenario which a person has ( to know whether or not to download / procure the newer scenario )?

I guess I'm suggesting some kind of versioning verbage in the scenario description or something.


[image]local://upfiles/16287/BA3B046CE60C4619AA7C4B9F3A16B986.gif[/image]



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Artillery Poll (10/22/2008 5:15:52 AM)

Hey Mr. Fulkerson,

You have free distribution rights, no worries. We don't have different versions. We have only made some minor adjustments that do not affect play. The playtesting is to prove that we don't need any major adjustments. Once the playtest is done, then we will post a 'final' version (subject to revision!).

And, I'll take this opportunity to thank all those investing their time in this.



OTZ -> RE: Artillery Poll (10/24/2008 2:31:59 AM)

If possible, would someone be so kind as to forward a copy of the latest version to me? I'd be interested in giving it a whirl! 

Cheers!



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875