RE: Operation Barbarossa (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Opponents Wanted



Message

Jay Doubleyou -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (5/20/2009 8:26:26 PM)

It took me a few days to find the time to finish the turn.
It's in your mailbox now Rufus.



RufusTFirefly -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (5/20/2009 9:24:16 PM)

Jep, got it. [:)]

Edit: Axis AGN turn 9 done and sent to Ccr and jjdenver.



TheArchduke -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (5/20/2009 9:51:45 PM)

For those interested, I have been quite update-heavy with Barbarossa and I think I reached a new milestone. Check it out.



RufusTFirefly -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (5/27/2009 8:39:38 PM)

Axis AGN turn 10 done and send to Ccr and jjdenver.

@TheArchduke: Great. Thanks.



hatemf90 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (5/27/2009 9:21:18 PM)

I actually would like to try the newst version, any one else interested?



Ccr -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (5/27/2009 11:13:42 PM)

Turn to AGS
Smolensk falls.



RufusTFirefly -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (5/28/2009 7:45:58 PM)

Jep, as TheArchduke said it would be a "milestone" I am really curious about it. Hm,... is he working somewhere in an advertising company [:D]



TheArchduke -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/2/2009 5:58:16 PM)

Who has the turn?

Yeah, I am probably changing the dynamic a bit. Forward cities like Minsk, Riga, Kiev and Odessa get a higher production (25k) instead of the siberian cities. That changes back in Sept/Oct/Nov , but if they are lost too early, the Soviets are at an disadvantage. Right now, at least from my testgames with Boron, total withdrawal as the Soviet Union is a very viable tactic, but feels gamey somehow.



RufusTFirefly -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/2/2009 6:16:42 PM)

Have done Axis turn of AGN today and send the turn to AGC and ANS. jjdenver (AGS) wants to quit. Cannt tell you whether we will get someone else soon or continue with two Axis players.



jjdenver -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/2/2009 8:13:39 PM)

I can still do my turn. Just send it to me when AGC is done. However I'd like to find a replacement for me since I know that soon we will be seeing the mega-fighter stacks and I hate playing with those.

I'd be interested in trying the new version as long as we can agree on some house rules to spread fighters out for the air war. That's my only problem w/ the game.



TheArchduke -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/3/2009 7:08:45 AM)

I wouldn´t mind a house rule there, but I do not know which would help us?



RufusTFirefly -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/3/2009 9:26:16 AM)

I am as well interested in trying the new version. So if there is another group forming to start a game of new version,count me in please.

A house-rule makes sense. So I agree, we should do so. Any idea about the rule (a limited number of air units per airfield, perhaps)?



TheArchduke -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/3/2009 10:05:38 AM)

I will work on something today.

There are numerous things I consider:

- Counterartillery
- Some sort of nerf for aircraft
- Soviet production slowly moves east with events.

Any input is welcome.



jjdenver -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/3/2009 1:47:15 PM)

These are the house rules that I'm using in another game of GPW:

1) Limit on tech advances: 1941: German tech2. 1942: Soviet tech2 German tech3. 1943: Soviet tech3 German tech3. 1944 Soviet tech4 German tech4.
2) Air basing: No more than 5 FTR's at a single base, and 5 bombers at any base.
3) Air mission limit: No more than 25 FTR's and 15 bombers can fly on a single attack mission.
4) Air build cap: No more than 100 FTR's can exist on either German or Soviet side. No more than 50 bombers can exist on either side also. In 1943 the Soviet limit increases to 125 FTR's. If you find yourself over the limit at start you can't build any more of the type until you have losses that put you below the threshold.

The caps in (4) would probably need to be raised to something like 150/75 and 175/75 since Op Barb has more air SFT's than GPW does.

If another game is started with similar house rules I'd be in for that one.

As for this game I'd be happy to continue if we adopt similar house rules. If not I've found a replacement so the game can go on fine. Archduke, Rufus, CCR, Jay - what do you guys want to do?



TheArchduke -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/3/2009 4:11:34 PM)

Thanks for the input, jjdenver, is appreciated.

I would love to be able to implent a bit of an aircraft restriction into the game, but alas, AT doesn´t allow me to do so, or does it?



RufusTFirefly -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/3/2009 5:46:13 PM)

The house rules seem fine to me. Completely agree.

In the running game it is necessary to find a way to deal with the fact that tech level of fighters is already higher than tech2. And we need at least one turn to change from size of fighter groups and placement in few bases to small groups distributed in more bases.



jjdenver -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/3/2009 6:43:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheArchduke
Thanks for the input, jjdenver, is appreciated.
I would love to be able to implent a bit of an aircraft restriction into the game, but alas, AT doesn´t allow me to do so, or does it?


Hi AD - I don't think you can do much. However there might be some way in event engine to check every turn for more than 10 planes or 5 planes at an airfield and if found reduce their readiness to 30 so they can only fly away?

However what I was suggesting was a house rule that the players would just agree to honor.

As for RufusTFirefly's question about how we'd implement it in this game I'd suggest any tech advances already purchased are exempted from the tech build restrictions - just no new ones can be purchased in contravention of the house rules about tech. Also the air stacking and mission rules could wait 1 turn to be implemented to give players a chance to re-organize their air units.

The other option would be to just restart with same players using your new version.

I'm ok with anything - you 4 guys just have to weigh in with what you want to do. If you choose to go on w/o house rules then I have a kind offer to replace me from another player. If we do house rules I'll continue on. If we restart with house rules I'd love that also. I'm ok with whatever. :)



Jay Doubleyou -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/3/2009 8:47:47 PM)

Imo the houserule would greatly benefit Russia and limit Germany to the same extend. (if i correctly interpret your rules that is)

If you can only station 5 fighters on a single base, that means germany can fly missions with maximum of 5 fighters. If the Russians have 2 airbases within interceptrange then the Luftwaffe is intercepted by 10 fighters. We all know what the results will be.
So playing with the houserules you suggest Luftwaffe will soon find itself without a chance.



Ccr -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/3/2009 10:15:59 PM)

Have done AGC. AGS still to move.

I think implementing houserules midway through this game wouldn't be good. I'd like to play on as is. Please PM me the email of the new AGS player if the other current players are happy with this.

Starting another, additional, game with the updated scenario and house rules (once they have been firmed up) would be an interesting option.



jjdenver -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/3/2009 10:26:47 PM)

I've PM'ed the replacement's email to CCR. He can take over AGS.

Jay if you feel that the rules would benefit the defender, can you think of any alternative house rules for a separate game?

After thinking about it some more I'm not quite certain the defender will necessarily benefit. Since the attacker can fly in 25 attacking planes, that's 5 airfields worth. The attacker could pick away at the outer edges of defender fighter cover and win many battles. I really think that perhaps the max number of fighters in a strike should be smaller - perhaps only 10 or 15. This would force more even air battles against the defender and prevent the attacker from gaining 15 vs 5 or 20 vs 5 or 25 vs 5 FTR v FTR combats.

Thx



hatemf90 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/5/2009 2:21:18 PM)

Hi all,

Turn sent to sov.



Jay Doubleyou -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/6/2009 11:04:49 AM)

I agree with you jj. After I replied in this thread I saw it has been discussed in several other threads. It comes down to: the player that builds the most airbases can/will have the largest fighterconcentration in the area. He can then choose to attack on the outside, but the defending player in his turn (where he is/can be the attacker the same applies).

Implementing some houserules for fighters is better then having none (especially in scenarios with huge production like Op Barbarossa).
In our current op barb game that would mean a large reorganisation for both sides and that's not easily done. So I agree with Charles to continue like we started.

Edit: Axis turn received.





Jay Doubleyou -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/13/2009 8:41:34 PM)

Anyone heard of Archduke? Send him the turn about a week ago, but has not heard a thing.



TheArchduke -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/14/2009 9:10:35 PM)

Sorry, I had an unexpected absence. Will work on it asap!



TheArchduke -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/16/2009 7:44:11 AM)

Ukraine and South Fronts are done, back to STAVKA which will send the file onwards.



Ccr -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/24/2009 10:24:37 PM)

Anyone know where we are with this now?



TheArchduke -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/24/2009 10:31:09 PM)

Well, the turn should be at STAVKA..



TheArchduke -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (6/29/2009 2:29:26 PM)

Got word from Jan, he will be gone for 2 more weeks, so I will handle the whole russian for now.



Ccr -> RE: Operation Barbarossa (7/10/2009 3:23:14 PM)

Turn back to the Sovs

AGC or AGN will play AGS until AGS is back in action!




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625