RE: 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

wmorris -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/7/2009 12:56:02 AM)

partially duplicate message deleted




wmorris -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/7/2009 1:02:15 AM)

Thanks, gents.

I got the files from Mr. Fulkerson yesterday and loaded these; all OK. Today I saw your email and replaced the appropriate files. Now I get a message that I am playing with the wrong .eqp files, but the scenario loads and runs OK thereafter.

Is this a prob or do I just have a jealous .sce file?




larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/7/2009 1:11:22 AM)

Does your file structure look like this picture below ( with "Directive 21" directory inside "graphics" and the two files inside the directive 21 directory? Is everything spelled correctly?

[image]local://upfiles/16287/A9A01CB2D5E54F3AA52EA7EB42079E94.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/7/2009 1:13:33 AM)

If everything is working correctly you should see the new equipment at the bottom of the inventory and replacements screen like below in the picture:

[image]local://upfiles/16287/55B3E51E0DF24C58AB86D202AACA7B9C.gif[/image]



wmorris -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/7/2009 1:21:00 AM)

Thats the trick. Changed stuff typed "Directive_21.eqp" to "Directive 21" and its all good.

Thanks. Now off to look at the insides of the design. woowoo.



wmorris -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/7/2009 10:30:22 PM)

You gentlemen are having trouble with the Red Air force right off the bat, I imagine. The replacement rates in the original FITE give the USSR 3 to 4x the number of aircraft actually built during the war, and this is without the increases to production (the "gear ups"). I have greatly decreased the USSR aircraft production numbers in my FITE mod.

The later war antitank capability of infantry on the Axis side has also gotten a lot of discussion in the threads. I was leaning toward the transition of squads originally, but now I like your concept in D21 of using AT teams. This is attractive because it actually goes along more with the paper TOE of infantry for '44 to sub two "projector" platoons in the AT companies for AT guns, leaving just 3 7.5cm guns organic to the regiments. It also provides a little bit of additional infantry to the formations which will have their squad strength waning, which was the intention of the rewrite of the '43-44 KstN's: more firepower with less personnel. It also works well with the minors; giving them AT teams later in the war (thinking mostly about the Finns here) reflects the transfers of Panzerfausts and 'schrecks from the Germans, and therefore the replacement cost comes at the German's expense. I prefer this to designing a "Rifle AT- Sqd Finn" (although I have finally been successful with the ACOW editor!).

Im not in agreement with distributing the german tanks among the KG assignements, though; Klotzen, nicht kleckern. Still, the IDEA of KG distribution is great, I just favor a different distribution, at least early in the war. I'm also clinging to separate German infantry regiments, though the proficiency argument is sobering.

Your map mod is visually easier on the eyes, I cant imagine the work involved.

I have so much time invested in my FITE mod that I'm sticking with it, but Im getting a lot of ideas from looking at D21.

Back to work. I have been putting off my mod of all those Auf and Krad Battalions...



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/8/2009 12:25:45 AM)

quote:

The replacement rates in the original FITE give the USSR 3 to 4x the number of aircraft actually built during the war


Some of them represent several types of aircraft not represented in the scenario. But even at that the 'on hand' numbers grow like crazy. We knocked the rates down a little recently, and we also have the Soviet Air Shock not reaching 100 until turn 178.

I came up with an early and late version for the recon elements this week, but before I got into modifying the replacements and events, I checked the unit strengths and combat numbers. They were sadly close enough to each other to not make a differance. As Stefan, Doc and Kristen had already been thru this, I decided to leave it as one unit. I did make a few adjustments based on what I had done, and what you had posted here earlier. Here's what I ended up with:

[image]local://upfiles/24850/F209A2AE7DA54722BBD98233B0F5533A.jpg[/image]



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/8/2009 12:38:42 AM)

quote:

Klotzen, nicht kleckern


I tried several different variations of the KG organisation in another scenario I am working on, and if one KG is heavy in tanks, it makes it weaker against most targets except those also heavy in tanks. So when I came back to making changes for D21, I went right to three basically even KG's. I understand all the objections to this idea, but from the standpoint of how the units actually function with respect to combat in the scenario, I believe this works best.

That said, I am still not convinced that it is the proper combination of realism and fun. This is why I left the SS formations with my second choice as to how these units should be organised, to see what everybody else thinks. If most of the time those units are being broken down, that's not good. It's just annoying that with the SS units, the recon and pioneer elements don't fit.



SMK-at-work -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/8/2009 2:47:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wmorris

You gentlemen are having trouble with the Red Air force right off the bat, I imagine. The replacement rates in the original FITE give the USSR 3 to 4x the number of aircraft actually built during the war, and this is without the increases to production (the "gear ups"). I have greatly decreased the USSR aircraft production numbers in my FITE mod.



I'm pretty sure the production rates are set so that the Sov's produce the right number if the historical cities are lost aren't they?

The Sov's DID have a massive number of a/c, but lacked some sophistication in deploying them - air intercept across most of the Eastern front was a matter of patrolling and luck rather than radar and direction....for both sides. The Sov's did get some portable radar from the allies late on, and I think the germans deployed some, but C^3 isn't a factor in the air war as perhaps it needs to be in a game of this scale?





wmorris -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/8/2009 4:44:21 AM)

quote:

I tried several different variations of the KG organisation in another scenario I am working on, and if one KG is heavy in tanks, it makes it weaker against most targets except those also heavy in tanks. So when I came back to making changes for D21, I went right to three basically even KG's. I understand all the objections to this idea, but from the standpoint of how the units actually function with respect to combat in the scenario, I believe this works best.


Thinking back to gameplay experience, I think you are right, especially in '41-'42. I still prefer tank concentration in one KG and support it as needed with other arms. I agree that in game terms it is (sadly) probably a matter of taste.

I too have been fooling around with mods to the Auf and and our concepts would roughly agree (and be otherwise undistinguishable in game terms) except that I note that attachment of assault guns was usual, so my Auf transition includes some of the AT Bn's equipment (StuGs and 75 ATG). A common late war usage was for rearguards to draw the bad guys onto Stug/88 ambushments, so I redistribute a couple of the division's 88's as well. I think of this unit as the base of the fourth divisional KG, a recce/screen/economy of force unit. This also has organizational validity since the Auf Bn had a relatively large command/comms capability for a battalion.

quote:

I'm pretty sure the production rates are set so that the Sov's produce the right number if the historical cities are lost aren't they?


I have not rigorously crunched the numbers on this, but... The USSR player's air production is initially low and gets kicked down further from city losses. Even this level of production, continued to the end of the war, would produce nearly the historically produced number of aircraft. Not long afterward, the two early gear up will put him ahead of historical production with 300+ turns left to go. IMO it results in much larger than historical aircraft production fairly early in the war, and will increase even more with city recovery and the final gear up.

I also took into account the breakout of various types. I counted the Il-10 production as Il-2 in game terms, but all La-5 got counted as La-5FN in compensation. I think I folded in everything but the Pe-8's but allowed a few more Il-4 as compensation for these. I dont believe I left unaccounted any reasonably major combat type. And hey, the Germans have no HE 177's or FW-200's...

I prefer limiting the production of aircraft to jiggering shock, etc.



SMK-at-work -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/8/2009 7:46:26 AM)

If production is correct and the Sov's are too strong then "jiggering shock" is the right approach IMO - I suspect that few people have a good understanding of just how badly outnumbered the LW was in Russia after 1942.

As long as you're getting figures along these lines then production is "accurate" - 35,000 IL-2's + some IL-10's means an average production of 90 per turn, 63,000 or so fighters means 150 or so fighters/turn (total all types), 21,000 other bombers = 50/turn.



wmorris -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/8/2009 7:20:21 PM)

quote:

As long as you're getting figures along these lines then production is "accurate" - 35,000 IL-2's + some IL-10's means an average production of 90 per turn, 63,000 or so fighters means 150 or so fighters/turn (total all types), 21,000 other bombers = 50/turn.


Yes.

EX: For IL-2+ IL-10, using my present rate of 120, this will mean that in some early war turns there will be production of 30-ish per turn (maybe even falling into the 20's or teens with city losses), 100-ish after the early "gear ups", and 160+ in the last quarter of the game (using 150, 200, and 150 as the three replacement increases). If you use the original game # of 304 airframes per turn, you will make well over 100,000 airframes during the war.

My revision is based on a compromise of sources that put combined IL-2/IL-10 production at about 51K. that would require an average of about 125/turn. So my 120 might be a shade low, but I dont think I would go above 130.

The low early war # seems correct to me; I recall an episode where Stalin personally got on the phone (or teletype, I forget) to bully some manager into increasing IL-2 production to what seemed to me a very modest number.

I think that an attempt to get production numbers and therefore unit strengths right is preferable to using shock, assuming that proficiencies and combat sim are accurate (wink). I think this will result in the Russians being swept away initially, and then able to mount some challenge in the air locally late in '41.




MechFO -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 12:00:05 AM)

Looks good. For what year is this? 42-43?

Why is the Sdkfz 251/16 in the TOE. This is the flamethrower variant. Is this supposed to represent something else?






sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 4:07:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Looks good. For what year is this? 42-43?

Why is the Sdkfz 251/16 in the TOE. This is the flamethrower variant. Is this supposed to represent something else?





Turn 132 is October 1942, if that's what you are asking.

I would guess that the 251/16 is included in order to represent all the various infantry support vehicles that were used by the Germans.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 4:17:36 AM)

Does anybody have any info or links about these railroad artillery units? I'd like to organise them a little differently, but I haven't been able to find a list of them anywhere.

[image]local://upfiles/24850/D3EBB12E59D44B14A7F5C2C0CC7DAA05.jpg[/image]



wmorris -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 4:22:34 AM)

I dont think the 251/16 version was authorized in large numbers and I doubt that many units ever had as many as authorized, even the Pion battalions where you would expect to see more of them. I think that using the 251/16 may be an attempt to give support weapons with less AT capability than the 251/9, for whatever reason (or to standardize, as 653 has indicated).

The 251/9 was the version with the short 7.5cm gun originally on the early Pz Mk IV. This vehicle was included in some numbers in the later war AufKl battalion TOE and may be more correct, although they also were seldom available in the numbers authorized.



Silvanski -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 4:48:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Does anybody have any info or links about these railroad artillery units? I'd like to organise them a little differently, but I haven't been able to find a list of them anywhere.

[image]local://upfiles/24850/D3EBB12E59D44B14A7F5C2C0CC7DAA05.jpg[/image]


About Dora. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/lab/1167/edora.html

About German railway artillery http://www.one35th.com/model/k5/k5_hist03.htm



wmorris -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 5:25:03 AM)

Back to the aircraft production numbers-

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 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)

This does not take into account any city losses, nor the '42 increase in production of 15% when the Moscow militia goes back to work. Im wondering if this more or less equals out, but I think I will increase the replacement number to about 135. Note that this is still less than half of the original FITE replacement number of 304. The production of fighters is also overstated- some very badly so, some not, due to interaction between model start/stop dates and the dates of change in production multipliers. No wonder the sky is black with Russki airplanes by '42.

Dont shock it, fix the numbers. Bubi will get tired.



Telumar -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 6:23:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Does anybody have any info or links about these railroad artillery units? I'd like to organise them a little differently, but I haven't been able to find a list of them anywhere.

[image]local://upfiles/24850/D3EBB12E59D44B14A7F5C2C0CC7DAA05.jpg[/image]


Do you speak deutsch?

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/eisenbahngeschutze.htm



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 1:12:47 PM)

quote:

About German railway artillery http://www.one35th.com/model/k5/k5_hist03.htm


NICE! Thank you very much!



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 1:15:52 PM)

quote:

Do you speak deutsch?

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/eisenbahngeschutze.htm


Niene. But if you could tell me what the two charts represent, that might be a big help, as they have easy numbers that us Amis can understand!

Danke



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 1:24:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wmorris

Back to the aircraft production numbers-

This does not take into account any city losses


But don't you have to factor in the city losses? They are there and they will happen. The FitE numbers were based on this, and doing some quick reckoning, it brings them into line with the numbers you have reported.



Telumar -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 9:08:47 PM)

Well. there's technical info (ranges, shell weight) and organisational info in the text, but it seems it is not complete. Nevertheless:

In Service: 1941 (Ostfront):
Eisenbahn-Artillerie-Batterie 701(2 Guns), 2./Eisenbahn-Artillerie-Abteilung 725 (1 Gun, AG South)
Eisenbahn-Artillerie-Batterien 710, 712, 713, 765 (each 2 guns, AG Center)
all these units were equipped with some version of the 28cm K5

[image]http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6852/unbenannt3wp8.jpg[/image]
EDIT: I messed up cell format.. Aug-18 should read 8 - 18

On the lexikon-der wehrmacht site, the first table shows production numbers per year, the second table shows production of ammunition per gun type and year.

A copy of the latest directive 21 version to cariundel at yahoo de would be appreciated. :) Keep it going, been following this thread from the very beginning.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 11:01:38 PM)

quote:

there's technical info (ranges, shell weight)


The technical stuuf isn't as important as trying to match the battery #'s with the guns attached, and then to try and find out where they were and when. So this info looks pretty good.

quote:

A copy of the latest directive 21 version


File sent.

Thanks!



wmorris -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 11:05:10 PM)

quote:

But don't you have to factor in the city losses? They are there and they will happen. The FitE numbers were based on this, and doing some quick reckoning, it brings them into line with the numbers you have reported.


Yes, but how many do you assume....and how much is this offset by the city workers production increase? This is what Im back and forth about.

Also have to keep in mind that fully 20% of Russian production FOR THE ENTIRE GAME occurs in the last 53 turns, and I dont think this unreasonable.



MechFO -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 11:06:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Well. there's technical info (ranges, shell weight) and organisational info in the text, but it seems it is not complete. Nevertheless:

In Service: 1941 (Ostfront):
Eisenbahn-Artillerie-Batterie 701(2 Guns), 2./Eisenbahn-Artillerie-Abteilung 725 (1 Gun, AG South)
Eisenbahn-Artillerie-Batterien 710, 712, 713, 765 (each 2 guns, AG Center)
all these units were equipped with some version of the 28cm K5

[image]http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6852/unbenannt3wp8.jpg[/image]
EDIT: I messed up cell format.. Aug-18 should read 8 - 18

On the lexikon-der wehrmacht site, the first table shows production numbers per year, the second table shows production of ammunition per gun type and year.

A copy of the latest directive 21 version to cariundel at yahoo de would be appreciated. :) Keep it going, been following this thread from the very beginning.



Some errata (my commments)

15cm : all produced pre war, 4 active in 1940 (no information on the others but probably in reserve)
17cm : 6 produced pre war, 3 each in 717, 718
20cm: 8 total; 4 each in 42 and 43 (no indication in which units they served)
24cm, both models: 9 total, 2 each in 664,674,721,722 (doesn't specify which model in which unit, 1 in reserve?)
28cm, all Bruno models: 12 , 2 each in 689, 690, 694, 695 and 696 (doesn't specify which model in which unit or what happened to the other 2 produced)
28cm, T7,K5: available beginning Barbarossa 2 each in 710, 712, 713, 765, 1 each in 701 and 725 (according to OKH 22 produced by 28.09.1944; 3? prewar, 2 1939, 3 1940, 2 1941, 8 1942, 2 1943; 14 others ordered)
38cm: one each in service 09.1942; 12.1942; 10.1943; 12.1943 (2 each in 698 and 686)



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/9/2009 11:59:39 PM)

quote:

Some errata (my commments)


More good stuff, thanks!



MechFO -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/10/2009 1:40:52 AM)

Based on what criteria are Rifle or Hvy Rifle Squads given? I ask because the Romanians gave every Squad a 60 mortar in 1942, in addition to the normal Squad LMG's this doesn't look very different from German Squads firepower wise. I assume the lower overall proficiency of Romanian units is covered by the proficiency setting.

Also what do MMG's present? Are these supposed to be the integral Squad LMG's, listed separately?



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/10/2009 5:31:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Based on what criteria are Rifle or Hvy Rifle Squads given? I ask because the Romanians gave every Squad a 60 mortar in 1942, in addition to the normal Squad LMG's this doesn't look very different from German Squads firepower wise. I assume the lower overall proficiency of Romanian units is covered by the proficiency setting.



Well, we could change everybody to Rifle Squads and readjust all the proficiencies.

quote:

Also what do MMG's present? Are these supposed to be the integral Squad LMG's, listed separately?


There is a real nice WWII Equipment database that includes all the various weapons. I'd love to use it, but it's really for a time when a new scenario is being created, not for refitting an existing one.



MechFO -> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread (2/10/2009 10:31:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Based on what criteria are Rifle or Hvy Rifle Squads given? I ask because the Romanians gave every Squad a 60 mortar in 1942, in addition to the normal Squad LMG's this doesn't look very different from German Squads firepower wise. I assume the lower overall proficiency of Romanian units is covered by the proficiency setting.



Well, we could change everybody to Rifle Squads and readjust all the proficiencies.


I think having a differentiation is sensible. The Soviets seemed to be a step a behind in Squad Weapons until 44/45 and Mech/Tank Corps already have Assault Squads so I think the present set up makes sense.

However I do think one could justify giving the Rumanian Regular Divisions (Inf and Arm) Hvy Rifle Squads, since they had considerable fire power at Squad level from late 41/early 42 onward. The alternative is to give them massive amounts of 60mm mortars which I think is more distorting.

Rumanian Reserve and Mountain Divisions are a different matter. There Rifle Squads seem to be appropriate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
quote:

Also what do MMG's present? Are these supposed to be the integral Squad LMG's, listed separately?


There is a real nice WWII Equipment database that includes all the various weapons. I'd love to use it, but it's really for a time when a new scenario is being created, not for refitting an existing one.


I'm not advocating changing it, just asking what they represent in Real World terms. They show up all over the place and I was wondering how they were counted.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.015625