quote:

Replacement of 130 for IL-2 (IL-10 added in) provides almost exactly the # of historical units produced:

Turn 1-47: 44 per turn- 2068 (replacements x.34 starting turn 1)
Turn 48-77: 88 per turn - 2640 (replacements x2.0 strating turn 48)
Turn 78-351: 132 per turn - 36036 (replacements x1.5 starting turn 78)
Turn 352-end: 199 per turn- 10291 (replacements x 1.5 staring turn 352)
Total 51291 (my research numbers yielded 52K and 48K so I'm all right with this)

quote:

The point is that 304, as in the original design, is extravagantly excessive.

quote:

I'd rather use the time on this thread in assisting Elmer with his duel against a human opponent.

quote:

Seems he doesn't care about interdiction

quote:

SS wiking has an authorized strength of 99 StuGs

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Seems he doesn't care about interdiction

You shouldn't experience any serious interdiction until '43. Probably none at all for the first 3 turns, and not much at all until after turn 10.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

As far as the initial Soviet reactions, there were several ways to go, and I decided to try for the historical. Generally, Armies had no communication from Stavka for the first two weeks, and up until Case Blue there were no orders to withdraw or defend, only to assemble and attack in order to push the Axis back to where they came from. In the specific case of Minsk, the 13th Army was first ordered to the area to defend the city, then was ordered to assist the West Front in breaking out from the Bialystok encirclement. German movements outpaced these orders and the 13th Army wasn't able to do either. It seems from the playtests that it pretty much works that way, too.

quote:

You misunderstood me - i meant he (Elmer) is moving his units no matter how strong german interdiction is.

quote:

Poor terrain outside the road there,

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
Since Directive 21 is just a game (and a game based on a hypothetical premise to begin with), then I'm in favor of whatever it takes to make Elmer more formidable, including artificially and "ahistorically" boosting Elmer's capabilities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
Since Directive 21 is just a game (and a game based on a hypothetical premise to begin with), then I'm in favor of whatever it takes to make Elmer more formidable, including artificially and "ahistorically" boosting Elmer's capabilities.

Elmer should actually play better after the next patch (I hope anyway.) It's also possible to boost his advantage on the options screen if he's too easy. It won't make him play more intelligently, but it will give him a boost in replacements, morale, and several other areas. I don't think it directly impacts combats, although it does make early turn ending less likely for him.

There's a lso a global handicap in the scenario that could be set by an event to help him as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Guderian made it thru that rough terrain and made it to Bobruisk (124,177) on June 28th (end of turn 2, turn 3 starts on June 29th). It's impossible to do that in this scenario. Even if there were no Soviet units, it's about 44 hexes along the most direct road path, and each would cost 2 mp's to enter. I don't know if that is a good or bad thing, or if Guderian had a majik pony!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
Since Directive 21 is just a game (and a game based on a hypothetical premise to begin with), then I'm in favor of whatever it takes to make Elmer more formidable, including artificially and "ahistorically" boosting Elmer's capabilities.

Elmer should actually play better after the next patch (I hope anyway.) It's also possible to boost his advantage on the options screen if he's too easy. It won't make him play more intelligently, but it will give him a boost in replacements, morale, and several other areas. I don't think it directly impacts combats, although it does make early turn ending less likely for him.

There's a lso a global handicap in the scenario that could be set by an event to help him as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar
Btw, games started with the current version can be continued with the next patch?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
Since Directive 21 is just a game (and a game based on a hypothetical premise to begin with), then I'm in favor of whatever it takes to make Elmer more formidable, including artificially and "ahistorically" boosting Elmer's capabilities.

Elmer should actually play better after the next patch (I hope anyway.) It's also possible to boost his advantage on the options screen if he's too easy. It won't make him play more intelligently, but it will give him a boost in replacements, morale, and several other areas. I don't think it directly impacts combats, although it does make early turn ending less likely for him.

There's a lso a global handicap in the scenario that could be set by an event to help him as well.

Ralph,

I agree with you completely (I'm aware of the +1, +2 handicaps available to Elmer).

However, my complaint is that some people want to "historicize" (is that even a word?) a generic non-historical scenario. And that is what I was really talking about. My position is that it is wasting time and effort (away from larger issues like play balance and programming Elmer) to mess around with "historical" TOEs, etc., since Directive 21 is all generic units anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

As one of the "historicize" fraction I can understand the sentiment, indeed it is true that a large amount of generisation is inevitable given the scope and length of the scenario. However I don't see why one shouldn't also look at history when striving for balance (though balanced in what way, the Germans take Moscow 3 times out of 5?) I f.e. agree with the sentiment that the Germans initially seem overpowered, however one could also look to "historically" weakening the Germans instead of arbitrarily strengthening the Soviets. F.e. the Pz Divs are about 30% overstrength in terms of Infantry and Support Weapon firepower. Now just cutting them down to size would probably go a long way towards (or even overshoot) the objective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

As one of the "historicize" fraction I can understand the sentiment, indeed it is true that a large amount of generisation is inevitable given the scope and length of the scenario. However I don't see why one shouldn't also look at history when striving for balance (though balanced in what way, the Germans take Moscow 3 times out of 5?) I f.e. agree with the sentiment that the Germans initially seem overpowered, however one could also look to "historically" weakening the Germans instead of arbitrarily strengthening the Soviets. F.e. the Pz Divs are about 30% overstrength in terms of Infantry and Support Weapon firepower. Now just cutting them down to size would probably go a long way towards (or even overshoot) the objective.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've had this discussion on the Steel Panthers forum. . .

The unit strengths don't bother me. Why not? Because they are just as messed up on the Soviet side. Don't misunderstand me. My claim is that Norm's original algorithms for calculating the combat value of equipment is seriously flawed. So I don't care what the unit strengths in Directive 21 are, since they are built upon a flawed foundation so it doesn't matter what they are. There are far better ways to adjust the play balance in Directive 21 than fiddling around with units strengths.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
Unit proficiencies, supply, movement rates, etc., are all superior ways of adjusting the play balance in Directive 21 (in addition to refining Elmer's programmed responses).

I personally think that only 3 changes would greatly modify the play balance in Directive 21. In order of importance:
#1. Improving Elmer's programmed responses.
#2. Prohibiting human players from voluntarily moving and/or attacking with units in 'Red' supply status.
#3. Doing away with the ant units on the human side (all these divisional HQs and individual regiments, etc.).

Those three changes are the 'Big Three', the way I see it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

As one of the "historicize" fraction I can understand the sentiment, indeed it is true that a large amount of generisation is inevitable given the scope and length of the scenario. However I don't see why one shouldn't also look at history when striving for balance (though balanced in what way, the Germans take Moscow 3 times out of 5?) I f.e. agree with the sentiment that the Germans initially seem overpowered, however one could also look to "historically" weakening the Germans instead of arbitrarily strengthening the Soviets. F.e. the Pz Divs are about 30% overstrength in terms of Infantry and Support Weapon firepower. Now just cutting them down to size would probably go a long way towards (or even overshoot) the objective.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've had this discussion on the Steel Panthers forum. . .

The unit strengths don't bother me. Why not? Because they are just as messed up on the Soviet side. Don't misunderstand me. My claim is that Norm's original algorithms for calculating the combat value of equipment is seriously flawed. So I don't care what the unit strengths in Directive 21 are, since they are built upon a flawed foundation so it doesn't matter what they are. There are far better ways to adjust the play balance in Directive 21 than fiddling around with units strengths.

I agree the combat model is not perfect and I see your point. However futzing around with TOE's does give the possibility to get the hierarchies right. A "normal" German Inf division will win over a "normal" Russian Division. Divisions with a lot of Infantry but few support weapons will still win sometimes but will suffer much heavier losses (proportionally). A big infantry division with few AT assets will get overrun by even small armoured units etc. etc.etc.

It's not an end to itself, but a useful starting place.

Where the model IMO really breaks down is in how losses are calculated and this is where I agree that historicity becomes virtually useless. What use is sticking to historical production numbers if the loss rates are so far off in TOAW that it's meaningless?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
Unit proficiencies, supply, movement rates, etc., are all superior ways of adjusting the play balance in Directive 21 (in addition to refining Elmer's programmed responses).

I personally think that only 3 changes would greatly modify the play balance in Directive 21. In order of importance:
#1. Improving Elmer's programmed responses.
#2. Prohibiting human players from voluntarily moving and/or attacking with units in 'Red' supply status.
#3. Doing away with the ant units on the human side (all these divisional HQs and individual regiments, etc.).

Those three changes are the 'Big Three', the way I see it.

I agree, but #1 and 2 is not something the designer can change.

I do see the point in Divisional HQ's with the artillery and some Army level ants are necessary (like for example PzJr) to help create concentrations. The problem with Hex sizes this small is that a lot of artillery will have a range of 2 hexes and more. If these guns are integrated into the units themselves, a lot of supply will go down the drain every time supporting fire is provided (which will be often).

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
Point #3 is a HUGE problem worth addressing by the scenario designer. Way back months ago when the playtest of Directive 21 first started and the first threads were formed, I made my position clear regarding allowing the human player to have lots of ants like divisional HQs and panzer regiments. I'm especially opposed to the divisional HQs. Elmer has his divisional artillery organic to his divisions. So should the human player. Further, allowing the human player to stand out of harm's way with his divisional artillery safely behind the front line is a huge advantage for the human. Further, if you want to talk about "historical realism", divisional artillery almost never operated 10km behind the front. Like 99.9% of the time = almost never. The reasons it was called divisional artillery were: 1) it was organic to the division; and 2) it historically operated usually within 5km or so of the front line (i.e., within the same 10km hex as the rest of the division). Further, the divisional artillery always consumed the bulk of its division's supply. Always. So, detaching the divisional artillery into separate units gives the human an enormous supply advantage that absolutely never existed historically.

quote:

shields the players arty from harm in retreats

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

shields the players arty from harm in retreats

I also can't get the field pieces to get stuck in the mud, or freeze in the ice. The idea of reducing replacement numbers is a remedy, and the 105 and 150 howitzers that make up the bulk of the divisional artillery are on the list of items to monitor. For these items I'd like to see some end files, but that might be a bit much to ask for. In lieu of those, I'll go with whatever we end up with after a reasonable time period.

Along those lines we have already reduced the number of trucks, horses and 251/1's that the Axis receive as replacements. Returns from the playtesters for the period of the first 4-6 months of the campaign show that the Axis suffer no transport difficulties in the scenario. Further reductions are probably warranted, but we have to be careful that the Axis don't end up with hundreds of units with a movement allowance of 1 half way thru the scenario.

The Panzer Divisions and Artillery are an advantage to the Human Player, as they were in the campaign. To reduce the effectiveness of these items is to neuter the Axis force. Elmer has plenty of artillery units with 2-3 hex ranges, and he uses them to great effect.

No worries about us maintaining our focus on making Elmer the best he can be. It's always been the #1 priority. The more looks we can get at in-game situations, the more it helps. Other issues have mostly been cooked many times over the years, but they usually end up tasting the same. However, every now and then we get something very good. Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

shields the players arty from harm in retreats

I also can't get the field pieces to get stuck in the mud, or freeze in the ice. The idea of reducing replacement numbers is a remedy, and the 105 and 150 howitzers that make up the bulk of the divisional artillery are on the list of items to monitor. For these items I'd like to see some end files, but that might be a bit much to ask for. In lieu of those, I'll go with whatever we end up with after a reasonable time period.

Along those lines we have already reduced the number of trucks, horses and 251/1's that the Axis receive as replacements. Returns from the playtesters for the period of the first 4-6 months of the campaign show that the Axis suffer no transport difficulties in the scenario. Further reductions are probably warranted, but we have to be careful that the Axis don't end up with hundreds of units with a movement allowance of 1 half way thru the scenario.

The Panzer Divisions and Artillery are an advantage to the Human Player, as they were in the campaign. To reduce the effectiveness of these items is to neuter the Axis force. Elmer has plenty of artillery units with 2-3 hex ranges, and he uses them to great effect.

No worries about us maintaining our focus on making Elmer the best he can be. It's always been the #1 priority. The more looks we can get at in-game situations, the more it helps. Other issues have mostly been cooked many times over the years, but they usually end up tasting the same. However, every now and then we get something very good. Thanks.

Here is another alternative to consider (or perhaps in addition to the above).

Step 1: fold all the 105mm (and other 1-hex range) divisional artillery into the divisions
Step 2: fold all the 150mm (and other 2-hex range) divisonal artillery into the corps HQs
Step 3: remove all the divisional HQs

This accomplishes a several good things. 1) It removes a lot of map clutter by getting rid of lots of units. 2) It reduces player abuses. 3) It removes divisional HQs from the supply equation (which is a good thing) and places supply focus on corps HQs (which is more appropriate given the scale of the game). 4) It places the bulk of the divisional artillery more historically "in harm's way" during combat. 5) It streamlines the game by making overall Axis force management issues simpler (thus potentially speeding play).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

On another issue which bothered me also in FitE etc - the Mud Season's cease fire. I see no reason for a imo totally unrealistic if not surrealistic cease fire as enough design tools exist to simulate the effects:

- drastically reducing the supply radius (the german more than the soviet)
- reducing force supply (the german more than the soviet)
- a slight shock, in 41 this would mean the Germans go down to 105, later in the war then below 100, let's say -10%. The soviet side too, but less drastically.
- force pestilence, maybe 1 or 2%
- maybe fix the german supply units by a formation orders event
- additionally a random begining and end of the mud season to prevent any gameyness

Any thoughts or comments about this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Both gun types have a 2 hex range, though there are equivalent equiptment types with 1 hex range (in the case of of the 105mm one would have to go with the Russian 107mm gun).

I don't think folding Art into Korps HQ's alone will work since IMO you are missing one important factor. You seem to assume that the default state of a German Division will be as one unit. While I haven't played long enough to find out myself, I strongly suspect this will not be the case in the second half of the war. What I think will happen is that after the initial phase is over, splitting up the division into 2-3 subunits will become the norm since this is the only way to deal with the length of frontage and/or construct a defense with any depth. Also the Germans will probably need to do this in 42 already in order to form concentrations IF they go for a southern strategy in 41 (anybody done this yet?). If this is in fact the case, then having heavily reinforced Korps HQ's will not be do much good, since they cant cover enough frontage by themselves.

A possible alternative I see is deleting the Div HQ's, and splitting up the longer ranged Art between the Korps HQ and new artificial Art Br (f.e. 1 independant Art unit for every 3? Divisions). Doesn't reduce the unit count quite as much, but provides the flexibility the Germans IMO need to have a chance in the later part of the game.

I agree that the unit count is (too) high, but IMO this is an inevitable side effect of the chosen hex size and I don't see any solutions that don't have severe side effects.