RE: soviet spawning behind my lines (Full Version)

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



Message

BigDuke66 -> RE: soviet spawning behind my lines (12/3/2009 10:57:40 PM)

@Curtis Lemay
Do you know when we can expect 3.4?
The last I heard was "Another one went out to the beta testers" from 5th October.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: soviet spawning behind my lines (12/3/2009 11:24:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

@sPzAbt653
Could we get a pic of your losses?




[image]local://upfiles/24850/8AE1E89E9D1441C6A910A5970794F963.jpg[/image]



sPzAbt653 -> RE: losses (12/3/2009 11:49:12 PM)

Soviet Inventory and Replacements:

[image]local://upfiles/24850/5C03062CE31A4F46A1C22F5557819863.jpg[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: losses (12/4/2009 2:46:29 AM)

Hey Steve & Rick:

Somehow a Soviet pontoon unit got into a flooded marsh hex and nobody can attack it. Do I have your permission to use the Soviet turn to disband it or something? Maybe I can move one or more of my units out of the way and use the Soviet turn to move it to other terrain so I can kill it. What do you suggest?

EDIT: I'm not sure but it may have started the game in that position.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/4E8CAE2AF6BF4BC0BFEED6A09B9E0D1A.gif[/image]




cesteman -> RE: losses (12/4/2009 2:54:21 AM)

I'd sure like to see some bridge busting from the AI. I'm on turn 4 and advancing pretty well right now.



larryfulkerson -> RE: losses (12/4/2009 3:14:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman
I'd sure like to see some bridge busting from the AI.

I've never found any evidence that Elmer destroys bridges and I'd like to see it too.
quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman
I'm on turn 4 and advancing pretty well right now.

Pictures, we need to see some pictures. Thanks for your post though.



BigDuke66 -> RE: losses (12/4/2009 3:51:12 AM)

@sPzAbt653
Thanks.
Is it normal that some items like Il-2 or Yak-1 or infantry in general have so many on hand?

Luftwaffe looks pretty mauled how is you air superiority?



cesteman -> RE: losses (12/4/2009 5:27:23 AM)

I think the soviets were able to produce the YAK pretty easily during WWII but I could be wrong.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: 7th Pontoon (12/4/2009 8:34:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Hey Steve & Rick:

Somehow a Soviet pontoon unit got into a flooded marsh hex and nobody can attack it. Do I have your permission to use the Soviet turn to disband it or something? Maybe I can move one or more of my units out of the way and use the Soviet turn to move it to other terrain so I can kill it. What do you suggest?

EDIT: I'm not sure but it may have started the game in that position.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/4E8CAE2AF6BF4BC0BFEED6A09B9E0D1A.gif[/image]




Becasue of the terrain in that area, it is easy for the Axis to cut off the Soviet units to the west and south, so we stuck that pontoon unit there so that wouldn't happen so easily. I waited until the winter when the hex froze so the unit could be eliminated. It's in garrison mode so it can't move. Also, once you notice it goes into the red, a few bombardments will eliminate it. Sorry for the pain in the butt, but sometimes we have to do things to assist Elmer.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: On Hand (12/4/2009 9:26:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman

I think the soviets were able to produce the YAK pretty easily during WWII but I could be wrong.


'On Hand' numbers get whacky sometimes, I think because a lot of the 'eliminated' equipment is returned to that 'on hand' category.

I ran a test on trucks and found that 75-80% of those lost go back into the 'on hand'. So you can do all the research and have the production numbers correct in a scenario, but the rate of what is returned to the 'on hand' could be inaccurate (and is not adjustable). So far the only solution I have is to check the inventory to see what is going on, and to make adjustments to the replacement rate. This can't be easily done because different playing styles cause different casualties. But in general, when we check save files and see that no one is experiencing a shortage of trucks on the Axis side, we can knock down the per turn rate.

If anyone sees some numbers that look goofy, let us know and we can take a look to see if some adjustment might be necessary.

Thanks!



Silvanski -> RE: losses (12/4/2009 9:32:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman

I think the soviets were able to produce the YAK pretty easily during WWII but I could be wrong.

"Production of the Yak-1 ended in July 1944 with somewhere around 8,700 built..." Wikipedia

"Production of the Yak-1 series was phased out in the summer of 1944. By that time, some 8,666 of them had been built...." Vectorsite



Karri -> RE: soviet spawning behind my lines (12/4/2009 11:17:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

How much are you holding back in this?



Hey Karri, if you're asking me, I don't understand the question. If you are asking someone else, maybe I don't need to understand?


I'm asking you. I want to know how much you are 'handicapping' yourself when playing against the AI. Or do you throw in all your skill and exploit in every way you can?



TPOO -> RE: losses (12/4/2009 3:18:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman
I'd sure like to see some bridge busting from the AI.

I've never found any evidence that Elmer destroys bridges and I'd like to see it too.
quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman
I'm on turn 4 and advancing pretty well right now.

Pictures, we need to see some pictures. Thanks for your post though.


Elmer will not blow any bridges unless he perceives that he is in real jeopardy. Elmer must perceive his overall general bias as retreat or flee for him to start blowing bridges. Elmer does blow bridges in this scenario but it requires the Axis player to be in a very strong AP strength advantage to Elmer's.



cesteman -> RE: losses (12/4/2009 6:32:31 PM)

Hmmm.... Interesting. Still, it would slow me down a lot if he'd just blow a few...



sPzAbt653 -> RE: soviet spawning behind my lines (12/4/2009 10:01:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

How much are you holding back in this?



Hey Karri, if you're asking me, I don't understand the question. If you are asking someone else, maybe I don't need to understand?


I'm asking you. I want to know how much you are 'handicapping' yourself when playing against the AI. Or do you throw in all your skill and exploit in every way you can?


I try my best. The only handicap I think would be that Adolph isn't in charge, I am. So I'm not going to conduct the campaign in the historical fashion. That, in my opinion, would be silly. Other than that, I don't think it's wise to give Elmer any breaks, because later in the scenario he is very strong, and the Axis are at the manpower disadvantage.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: losses (12/4/2009 10:11:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman

Hmmm.... Interesting. Still, it would slow me down a lot if he'd just blow a few...


Not that it's an excuse, just that I don't see where blown bridges slow me down at all. It's easy to cross a blown bridge, and easy to repair them also. I don't see how it would slow a player down a lot.

In Panzer Leader, Guderian claimed that the lack of suitable bridging equipment was a bigger hindrance than lack of fuel. But he still made far better progress than we can in this scenario.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: 6-7-42 (12/4/2009 10:19:17 PM)

End of turn 100. Elmer has mounted a counterattack northeast of Moscow, and has managed to push thru a thin supply corridor. I'm not overly concerned, but usually Elmer's counterattacks slowly grow as more units pile into the fray. I've thrown a good screen to the east, and reached the outskirts of Grozny, but to the north there are only a few scattered units reconning the area.

[image]local://upfiles/24850/0A43FC3472DF48C3AF7DF966A969786C.jpg[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: 6-7-42 (12/4/2009 11:23:04 PM)

Hey Steve:  great graphics.  I'm watching your progress with sincere interest and hope to be able to do something like that in my game.  I'm a huge fan. 

By the way, over on GameSquad there was a question about the map for D21 and I seem to remember you telling me that it was done from scratch by somebody and I don't remember his name.  Riddle me his name again will you. 



cesteman -> RE: 6-7-42 (12/5/2009 2:35:42 AM)

I was thinking on terms of movement costs....



sPzAbt653 -> RE: 6-7-42 (12/5/2009 4:09:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Hey Steve:  great graphics.  I'm watching your progress with sincere interest and hope to be able to do something like that in my game.  I'm a huge fan. 

By the way, over on GameSquad there was a question about the map for D21 and I seem to remember you telling me that it was done from scratch by somebody and I don't remember his name.  Riddle me his name again will you. 



I thought I gave proper accolades to Rick when he did the map, but I guess not. So I'll have another poke at it. Way back when this project started, it fairly quickly came to a halt, as the designer of the original map did not grant me permission to use it. I had no intention of making this map myself (I had previously done a 100 x 100 map of the Ardennes, and never wanted to go thru making a map again). I was close to posting a big apology to everyone involved for not being able to finish what I started. That's when Rick 'TPOO' stepped up with his map. Silvanski had previously hooked me and Rick up on working on making the PO better than what I had originally. Since then we've made changes to just about everything else, too. So a big thanks to Silvanski, and Rick, and to all those contributing time and ideas. [&o]



sPzAbt653 -> RE: 6-7-42 (12/5/2009 4:15:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman

I was thinking on terms of movement costs....


Ok, but you can still move one of the many engineers to repair the bridge, and if repair doesn't happen, the presence of engineers makes the cost to cross less. So I just don't see where it would slow me down a lot.

I've read some referances to neither side having much trouble crossing any of the rivers on the map, bridges or not. So maybe that is why I tend not to worry about this aspect much.



larryfulkerson -> RE: 6-7-42 (12/5/2009 4:51:33 AM)

Hey Steve & Rick and all the rest of you guys who are interested in D21. Here's a screenshot I cut and pasted together to see how many people have downloaded the scenario and the various documents I have published. I wish the numbers were darker so you could see them better.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/18EA9441D4804D6A96586A1D4688BA1E.gif[/image]



cesteman -> RE: 6-7-42 (12/5/2009 7:35:55 AM)

What if I don't have any engineer units near by? My point.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: 6-7-42 (12/5/2009 3:57:51 PM)

You have some nice downloads there, Mr. Fulkerson!

quote:

What if I don't have any engineer units near by? My point.


Understood. It makes it therefore important to keep engineers near the main points of advance. Of course, since Elmer isn't blowing bridges, it doesn't matter much.



cesteman -> RE: 6-7-42 (12/5/2009 8:04:01 PM)

Very true.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Il-2 and Yak-1 (12/6/2009 12:26:52 AM)

Hey BigDuke, our Aircraft Production Manager (Rick) has looked into the Il-2 and Yak-1 and has come up with the following adjustments:

In 1941 the Soviets produced 1332 Yak-1 and around 8800 for the entire war. In the D21 OOB there are 390 assigned at the start of the scenario (historical) and 1 unit comes in with 96 on turn 21. The production 1st turn is now turn 10, there will be 110 on hand at the start and the production turn is extended to turn 300(historical) and the start production number on turn 1 is 70. If all historical objectives are taken the Soviets will produce 8800 Yak-1, that includes the number assigned and on hand. Since there are only 6 units in 1941 that have this plane in its inventory in D21 there will probably be no noticeable effect except for there will not be several thousand on hand in 1941.

In 1941 the Soviets produced 1290 IL-2 and around 36,000 for the entire war. In the D21 OOB there are 265 assigned at the start of the scenario (historical) and 6 units come in between turn 17 and 21 with 756 for a total of 1021. There will now be 270 IL-2 on hand at the start to equal the 1941 production. The start turn will be 57 and the turn 1 production number will be 235. Even though historically there were very few of these active in December 1941 because of 90% losses and only producing 1 plane per day, because of the game engine there will still be IL-2 in the game. If all historical objectives are taken the Soviets will produce 36,000 IL-2 in D21.


Thanks !




BigDuke66 -> RE: Il-2 and Yak-1 (12/6/2009 3:21:54 AM)

Well those numbers just looked a bit weird and so I asked about them, I didn't had a clue that something could be wrong.
Good that it was useful to improved the scenario.

Do you plan to bring in more country specific equipment besides the rifle squads?



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Il-2 and Yak-1 (12/6/2009 4:30:36 AM)

quote:

Do you plan to bring in more country specific equipment besides the rifle squads?


Not at this time. The replacement system is kind of odd, and I'm not really sure even how it works. There is a great document floating around that explains it, but I've read it several times and tried some experiments on my own, only to not be enlightened much.

If some specific equipment seems important, we can take a look at it.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: 6-21-42 (12/7/2009 3:16:20 PM)

Turn 105. After about 4 turns of counterattacking from inside the encirclement, the Soviets have run out of gas. Not much developed outside the encirclement from the north or east. This is probably due to my screens at the river crossings in those areas, so I'm glad I made those moves. There are several units deep and on their own though, so I hope to be able to send reinforcements to them so those river crossings can be continually blocked.

Now the Moscow pocket needs to be eliminated so that the next phase can start as quickly as possible. Leningrad.

[image]local://upfiles/24850/FC6D8FD83E8B4ADD9CEEE06C4EB084D0.jpg[/image]



BigDuke66 -> RE: 6-21-42 (12/10/2009 3:05:54 AM)

@sPzAbt653
Just stumbled about something.
In an German AAR the player mentions that he tested encirclements and the losses that those units take when they are destroyed.
He tested it in FITE and now I would like to now if this is correct:
That the amount of destroyed equipment depends on the strength of the encircling troops.
If he uses only battalions up to 60% seem to slip the encirclement but if he uses regiments only around 5% escape.

I wonder if this really depends on the size(bat., reg., div., etc.) of the unit or the combat strength or maybe even something else.
Do you or anyone else know it?



Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.798828