RE: Directive 21 turn 5

RE: Directive 21 turn 5 (Full Version)

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

Message

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 5 (12/30/2009 9:31:10 AM)
I got another early turn ending so there was only 1 round of combat in turn 5 but I did clean out Riga, and I'm sneaking up on Minsk and have surrounded most of the Stalin line and have moved east to the last river between me and Odessa. Turn 5's AAR can be found here: http://www.filedropper.com/d2122dec2009turn5

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 6 (12/31/2009 10:42:51 PM)
I captured Minsk, sterilized part of the Stalin Line, burst out from Riga headed north and east, and generally destroyed some more Soviet stuff. Turn 6's AAR can be found here: http://www.filedropper.com/d2122dec2009turn6 Here's the minimap moves movie from turns 2 thru 6: [image]local://upfiles/16287/417AF29845804C4AB0E6654708D028D2.gif[/image]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 7 (1/2/2010 1:02:03 AM)
The mop up at Minsk is finished and the Stalin Line is gone and I'm on the move in the north. Turn 7's AAR can be found here: http://www.filedropper.com/d2122dec2009turn7

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 8 (1/5/2010 9:16:53 AM)
Axis turn 8 was a small dissappointment....I only got one round of combat before an early turn ending. But some progress was made and the advance is on schedule. Turn 8's AAR can be found here: http://www.filedropper.com/d2122dec2009turn8

Silvanski -> RE: Directive 21 turn 8 (1/11/2010 6:10:44 PM)
A question for Larry: How do do you go about handling the German divisions. D21 is unique in having many tiny Werhmacht formations consisting of a HQ (with supporting arty) and the proper combat division. Do you send HQ's to other divisions to assist, i.e. does it happen that let's say a particular HQ ends up many hexes away from it's infantry unit? Or do you prefer to keep 'em together?

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 8 (1/11/2010 6:16:50 PM)
So um....I prefer to keep the HQ unit with it's associated infantry unit but let's face it, HQ units have arty and arty is arty. If I need some more arty somewhere really quickly I'm not beyond moving more HQ units in there reguardless of who belongs to it. I've had opponents who had a large gang of HQ units acting as arty whenever and wherever he needed a breakthrough. I guess you can play it either way. It just seems more realistic to keep the associated units together. This from the same guy who uses OKH as if it was just another HQ unit in his games instead of leaving it in Berlin for the duration of the game. LOL.

Silvanski -> RE: Directive 21 turn 8 (1/11/2010 7:07:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson...This from the same guy who uses OKH as if it was just another HQ unit in his games instead of leaving it in Berlin for the duration of the game. LOL. In that case we need an event whereby destruction of OKH constitutes an immediate defeat [:D]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 9 (2/19/2010 3:23:44 AM)
Dave hasn't sent me his moves yet.....Randy sent me the wrong file....so I have a few minutes to work on D21. I decided to switch to the style of AAR that I'm using for the FITE game Dave and I are playing. Anybody object? Here's a sample ( the turn 9 AAR, unfinished yet ) : http://www.mediafire.com/?eg20lmdzwk2

Abnormalmind -> RE: Directive 21 turn 9 (2/19/2010 6:57:10 AM)
Looks good Larry. Nice format!

Panama -> RE: Directive 21 turn 8 (2/19/2010 3:51:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson So um....I prefer to keep the HQ unit with it's associated infantry unit but let's face it, HQ units have arty and arty is arty. If I need some more arty somewhere really quickly I'm not beyond moving more HQ units in there reguardless of who belongs to it. I've had opponents who had a large gang of HQ units acting as arty whenever and wherever he needed a breakthrough. I guess you can play it either way. It just seems more realistic to keep the associated units together. This from the same guy who uses OKH as if it was just another HQ unit in his games instead of leaving it in Berlin for the duration of the game. LOL. It's not your fault the artillery happens to be in the HQ unit. [;)]

Randy Collins -> RE: Directive 21 turn 8 (2/25/2010 1:05:09 AM)
I agree with Panama's comments. The arty should be spread out into the units that would have the support. The HQ unit should serve purely an HQ function. I do it also, but it just does not seem right.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 8 (2/25/2010 3:32:49 AM)
I'm not sure why but I seem to prefer to have the Arty units in a dedicated arty unit 'counter'. That gives me more flexibility to move just the arty to where it needs to go rather than having to move an HQ unit that happens to have arty in it. Or a ground fighting unit that has organic arty. Sometimes it's really cool to establish an artillery park so you can support all the units within range in a circle around the park. Like in 'Nam. They were called Firebases and there were a lot of them. They had a small ground unit dedicated to the defense of the firebase but sometimes they got overrun. It was a hairy existance for those who lived there...sometimes for days ( weeks ? ) at a time. I'm not sure how long they loitered because I wasn't there so I donno.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 turn 8 (2/25/2010 1:25:38 PM)
quote: prefer to have the Arty units in a dedicated arty unit 'counter' I agree with this, but do we really want three counters for each division in this scenario? I don't see where it would solve any issues that people have, and it would reduce playability. A divisions equipment can't all be fit into one counter, there has to be at least two. No matter how you look at it, I don't see any way to prevent a player loading up a bunch of artillery in one location (in any scenario for that matter). [image]local://upfiles/24850/2E6362737BFB4B77A7E3CA742378C4DA.jpg[/image]

Panama -> RE: Directive 21 turn 8 (2/25/2010 2:00:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 quote: prefer to have the Arty units in a dedicated arty unit 'counter' I agree with this, but do we really want three counters for each division in this scenario? I don't see where it would solve any issues that people have, and it would reduce playability. A divisions equipment can't all be fit into one counter, there has to be at least two. No matter how you look at it, I don't see any way to prevent a player loading up a bunch of artillery in one location (in any scenario for that matter). It's not uncommon for divisional/corp/army assets, especially artillery, to be pulled together for awhile. But in this game they get put together from all over the map. I'm as guilty of that as anyone else. But when the artillery is with the HQ then that get's mashed together too. That is as wrong as it gets. Blaming it on a scenario or the game is like saying it was the gun's fault it was used in a robbery. If the artillery is separate at least it would keep HQ where it belongs...maybe. [:D]

Da_Huge_D -> RE: Directive 21 turn 8 (2/25/2010 3:40:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 quote: prefer to have the Arty units in a dedicated arty unit 'counter' I agree with this, but do we really want three counters for each division in this scenario? I don't see where it would solve any issues that people have, and it would reduce playability. A divisions equipment can't all be fit into one counter, there has to be at least two. No matter how you look at it, I don't see any way to prevent a player loading up a bunch of artillery in one location (in any scenario for that matter). It's not uncommon for divisional/corp/army assets, especially artillery, to be pulled together for awhile. But in this game they get put together from all over the map. I'm as guilty of that as anyone else. But when the artillery is with the HQ then that get's mashed together too. That is as wrong as it gets. Blaming it on a scenario or the game is like saying it was the gun's fault it was used in a robbery. If the artillery is separate at least it would keep HQ where it belongs...maybe. [:D] That's why i would like to see HQ hierarchy system like HOI 3 in TOAW. Would be asskick! [8D] Edit: That would solve all those problems etc. + Its more realistic (while i am fan of realism. LOL)

SMK-at-work -> RE: Directive 21 turn 8 (3/1/2010 10:03:10 AM)
Doesn't D21 have the 105's in the div units, and the 150's in the Korps HQ? Or am I thinking of a suggestion someone made?

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 8 (3/1/2010 10:33:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work Doesn't D21 have the 105's in the div units, and the 150's in the Korps HQ? Or am I thinking of a suggestion someone made? You may be thinking of a suggestion somebody made since the Korps HQ units, or at least the one I picked as an example, doesn't have any howitzers. But the HQ units have both kinds. The infantry unit has some light guns. [image]local://upfiles/16287/95225CFBF8254A958B833398AC14D437.gif[/image]

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 turn 8 (3/1/2010 5:24:27 PM)
Yes, it was a suggestion, to put the corps artillery with ranges of 3 and 4 into the corps HQ units, in order to give the corps HQ's a purpose. I like the idea, but it is a lot of work for what seems little effect. Another reason it was suggested was to keep the player from massing artillery in one area, but it doesn't matter whether the artillery is in the HQ or separate, the same massing can still be done. MechFo has provided info that the stats for the 105how in the database are inaccurate, and the 105gun is more appropriate. We plan to switch the How with the Gun, if I can ever get the 3.4 working. [:(]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 9 (3/2/2010 8:03:15 PM)
Well, I finished the Axis turn 9 last night so I thought I'd publish the AAR for it. You can find it here: http://www.mediafire.com/file/nqjnmrzmwin/D21 22dec2009 turn 9.zip

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 9 (3/3/2010 12:15:40 AM)
It looks like a coastal battery but it has the equipment and name of an infantry division. ??? [image]local://upfiles/16287/BE23A0301AF9470C9A182605B3C8D7A9.gif[/image]

Lieste -> RE: Directive 21 turn 9 (3/3/2010 12:48:52 AM)
150mm fixed guns, 128mm guns and 'invalid movement' suggest it isn't 'exactly like an infantry division'.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 turn 9 (3/3/2010 2:46:53 AM)
Ok, you caught us being tricky. The 199th Division was a garrison unit stationed in Norway. Obviously if we included it as a regular infantry division, the player would use it in Murmansk (or somewhere else). But we wanted it to be stationed in Norway, so we stuck the equipment in a coast battery unit. [image]local://upfiles/24850/19D735F6B6984E5CB33A5DFE4DB509AC.jpg[/image]

Panama -> RE: Directive 21 turn 9 (3/3/2010 3:17:41 AM)
About the artillery/HQ thing. Why not have a separate artillery unit for each division, eliminate the division HQ and use only corp level HQ for supply. It would reduce the counter count (ha ha) and give the corp HQ a reason for living. Personally I'd give the corp HQ one command unit so if it gets killed the whole corp formation is screwed. Make em treat HQ like they should be. YARRR. [sm=tank2-39.gif]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 9 (3/3/2010 8:46:41 AM)
Dave is on vacation and I'm through with Randy's moves so I thought I'd work on D21 and actually finished turn 10. Here's the AAR: http://www.mediafire.com/file/zontdyewynv/D21 22dec2009 turn 10.zip

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 turn 9 (3/3/2010 10:37:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama About the artillery/HQ thing. Why not have a separate artillery unit for each division, eliminate the division HQ and use only corp level HQ for supply. It would reduce the counter count (ha ha) and give the corp HQ a reason for living. Personally I'd give the corp HQ one command unit so if it gets killed the whole corp formation is screwed. Make em treat HQ like they should be. YARRR. [sm=tank2-39.gif] Well, we don't need the counter count reduced, but eliminating the HQ unit and creating a separate artillery unit doesn't reduce the count anyway. That also wouldn't prevent the player from aggravating himself by piling up multiple artillery units in one area (don't like it? Save yourself the aggravation and don't do it). Giving the corp HQ command squads to increase their vulnerability would only affect a few corp artillery and engineer units, not any type of perceived corp formation as there really aren't any. If we were dealing with a scenario of smaller scale and time frame, a corp HQ could contain corp artillery and have several divisions attached to it, with the divisional artillery included in the division itself. Such is not the case. I'm all ears for suggestions to increase playablity and realism, but the way it is now is the way it works best for the scenario.

Panama -> RE: Directive 21 turn 9 (3/3/2010 12:12:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 quote: ORIGINAL: Panama About the artillery/HQ thing. Why not have a separate artillery unit for each division, eliminate the division HQ and use only corp level HQ for supply. It would reduce the counter count (ha ha) and give the corp HQ a reason for living. Personally I'd give the corp HQ one command unit so if it gets killed the whole corp formation is screwed. Make em treat HQ like they should be. YARRR. [sm=tank2-39.gif] Well, we don't need the counter count reduced, but eliminating the HQ unit and creating a separate artillery unit doesn't reduce the count anyway. That also wouldn't prevent the player from aggravating himself by piling up multiple artillery units in one area (don't like it? Save yourself the aggravation and don't do it). Giving the corp HQ command squads to increase their vulnerability would only affect a few corp artillery and engineer units, not any type of perceived corp formation as there really aren't any. If we were dealing with a scenario of smaller scale and time frame, a corp HQ could contain corp artillery and have several divisions attached to it, with the divisional artillery included in the division itself. Such is not the case. I'm all ears for suggestions to increase playablity and realism, but the way it is now is the way it works best for the scenario. Sorry, guess I wasn't clear enough. Corp formations would be made of course. Why else would you bother with a command unit? [;)] And I don't think that any of the major powers in WW2 were above stripping artillery from a unit. Just didn't do it in the scale some players do. Shouldn't prevent them from it though. Seeing the responses to the different ideas it seems no one really has a problem with people stripping command/control units from formations anyway so why bother to change it. [:D]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 11 (3/16/2010 1:56:42 AM)
I finished the Axis side of turn 11 and posted the AAR here: http://www.mediafire.com/file/dhjjjaiouti/D21 22dec2009 turn 11.zip Not much happened though.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 12 (3/17/2010 7:37:21 AM)
I finished turn 12 and published the AAR here : http://www.mediafire.com/file/zy0yzcyjngj/D21 22dec2009 turn 12.zip I don't remember a lot happening this turn though.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 13 (3/18/2010 8:50:51 AM)
I finished Axis turn 13 and posted the AAR here: http://www.mediafire.com/file/dkymmymzyz2/D21 22dec2009 turn 13.zip I'm having some modest success north of Leningrad. The peninsula is almost cleared of Soviet troops. I'm sneaking up on Smolensk.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Directive 21 turn 16 (4/10/2010 6:24:33 AM)
So um......I had some free time on my hands and thought I'd do some D21 work. Here's the AARs for those turns that I've finished so far: http://www.mediafire.com/file/rejmw12uy4z/D21 22dec2009 turn 14.zip http://www.mediafire.com/file/2mankunyiww/Directive 21 turn 15 AAR.zip http://www.mediafire.com/file/oja5mjfemu2/Directive 21 turn 16 AAR.zip

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.078125