RE: FITE opinions (Full Version)

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



Message

ColinWright -> RE: FITE opinions (1/5/2010 8:21:20 PM)

On this topic, Glantz has some illuminating material on the actual state of equipment of various Red Army units in the summer of 1941.

As to the 'method' by which new Red Army units were formed, I keep thinking about the account of the fate of the militia divisions raised in Moscow given in Braithwaite, Moscow 1941: a City and its People at War -- damned fine book.

1. Form irregular masses of what amount to urban levies. Equip them with a random but definitely inadequate stock of arms which they have no idea how to use.

2. Feed them to panzer divisions. A minority survive this experience with a hard, combat-worthy core.

3. Reform these cores as regular divisions. Some even went on to become Red Guard formations.

It leads me to the thought that it's a pity that my idea about an absolute cap on weapons in a division ran into Roadblock LeMay. If there was an absolute limit, one could have such units appear with four hundred 'civilian squads' and 0/216 rifle squads, etc. and then either get evaporated or slowly transmogrify into useful combat divisions.



Panama -> RE: FITE opinions (1/5/2010 8:58:45 PM)

If you included all the volunteer militia divisions, brigades and 'battalions' in the game you would have to expand the unit count by another 2000. You're talking about 4 million men and women. 2 million went into the militia divisions and brigades. Although they weren't militarily significant ( you only heard about them when they go over ran or absorbed into a regular division) they were numerous.

Then you have the Battalions. They would have made the taking of Leningrad or Moscow a block by block living hell that they would have fought in from their own bedroom windows with antiquated weapons and makeshift bombs. Every city block in both cities had their own 'Fighter Battalion' (Istrebitelnyi Battalion). [:D] [sm=00000106.gif]

It's crazy when you read about all the formations they put together. In 1941 the Soviest mobilized these plus the 5.5 million reservists. It's just nuts.



ColinWright -> RE: FITE opinions (1/5/2010 9:04:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

If you included all the volunteer militia divisions, brigades and 'battalions' in the game you would have to expand the unit count by another 2000. You're talking about 4 million men and women. 2 million went into the militia divisions and brigades. Although they weren't militarily significant ( you only heard about them when they go over ran or absorbed into a regular division) they were numerous.

Then you have the Battalions. They would have made the taking of Leningrad or Moscow a block by block living hell that they would have fought in from their own bedroom windows with antiquated weapons and makeshift bombs. Every city block in both cities had their own 'Fighter Battalion' (Istrebitelnyi Battalion). [:D] [sm=00000106.gif]

It's crazy when you read about all the formations they put together. In 1941 the Soviest mobilized these plus the 5.5 million reservists. It's just nuts.



The flip side of it is what I don't think receives enough emphasis.

The bulk of Russia's trained military personnel became casualties in 1941. Largely, the Russian army was formed in combat -- OJT, so to speak. This view is borne out by not just statistics, but also by the more detailed accounts I have read.



Karri -> RE: FITE opinions (1/5/2010 9:06:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Well,  I have a game going with following changes:


-Russian shock of 95 after winter offensive(event 14)
-turn 178 russian air shock 100(event 26)
-Russian shock until mud set to 95(event 361)
-turn 4 air shock to 80(event 362)
-turn 11 russian air shock to 85(event 363)
-turn 32 russian air shock 90(event 501)
-turn 57 russian air shock 95(event 502)

Object is to make the game playable beyond 1941.



This is one of the things that bothers me when trying to make this scenario playable. Units are made immobile and unable to react to even local circumstances. If Soviet infantry divisions are made less mobile in 1941 the result will be somewhat the same. Divisions had no problem acting on their own initiative. It was generaly when you got below division level initiative might become a problem. Instead, entire armies are made static by lowering shock. In my opinion I see nothing in unit histories that would justify this. Has no one tried to force the Soviet to stand and defend instead?

Will the unit max be increased in 3.4? This scenario sorely needs that.



As I said, object is to make game playable beyond 1941. If that means a few formations will be in shock, then so be it. Although, now that you mention it, perhaps it would be better to give the Germans a higher shock for longer.


But, it's a game and it follows the game's mechanics. It's not a history show. It doesn't even have a production system which complicates things further...all in all, it pushes the TOAWs engine to the very limits. All things considered it is the best scenario ever, and Matrix can thank Snefens and the others because this scenario has sold the game...well at least to a few players, no idea how much they have actually sold.


Which reminds me, while you're waiting for TOAW 4, WiE is worth a look and will probaply be everything that we want from FitE.

EDIT:
Oh yeah, I've made my modifications to the vanilla FitE.



Panama -> RE: FITE opinions (1/6/2010 4:04:05 AM)

I still think the recon is far too high for both sides. Zero would be best because with so much recon there can be no surprise as the Germans bump into the 19, 20, 21 and 22 Soviet Armies at Smolensk. They didn't even know they existed, thinking instead they had destroyed the Soviet military. There can be no Stalingrad. No Guderian brilliance as he sprung his trap on Popov that destroyed his armored task force and the 5th Tank Army. No Mansteinian miracles. There is simply too much information for both players to be able to do these things. It's sad, the scenario would be so much more fun and full of suspence. [:(]



pionier -> RE: FITE opinions (1/6/2010 9:07:09 AM)

Hello everyone,

I think in most cases you didn't get the point, Fite is a simulation of the war in the east on TOAW. While TOAW ist a operational simulation it can't fit the needs perfect for a scenario of this scale. To fix this problem some things are different.

In two years I played 4 games of fite,

1. german: endet in turn 17 while my opponment quit.
2. german: endet in turn 19 while my opponment quit.
3. soviet: in summer 2009 we stopped the game at turn 82 with the folling situation:

[image]http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4717/soviet.jpg[/image]

4. german: active, from end june to we played till Turn 77 and I'm about to start case blue, Situation:

[image]http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/3876/fitek.jpg[/image]

i write down an excel dokument with several more statistics, but this is the overall graphic:

[image]http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6681/fite2.jpg[/image]

My guesses:

  1. Agree to logical houserules with your opponment - it will fix almost all issues
  2. Don't read the aar of your opponment - it gives the soviet player to many informations
  3. Be careful and take you time to get it right. If you push the game you will end it earlyer then you thought because of mistakes.
  4. Get in your mind that you will loose as axis player, this scenario is supposed to be lost. YOUR TASK IS TO HOLD AS LONG AS YOU CAN as german player



ColinWright -> RE: FITE opinions (1/6/2010 10:35:58 AM)

I love #3.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: FITE opinions (1/6/2010 4:32:28 PM)

The one thing I would strongly recommend for this scenario is to bite the bullet and program the PO for both sides. Once that's done, you can then run PO vs. PO tests. That's a huge help in quickly getting a good approximation on balance issues. It enables you to then easily experiment with balancing factors like shock, proficiencies, and the Attrition Divider, etc.

Player vs. Player tests, can be more accurate - if the players have equal skill levels(rare). But, even then, they take forever. PO vs. PO tests can give you a rough answer in a few days.



golden delicious -> RE: FITE opinions (1/6/2010 4:46:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The one thing I would strongly recommend for this scenario is to bite the bullet and program the PO for both sides. Once that's done, you can then run PO vs. PO tests. That's a huge help in quickly getting a good approximation on balance issues.


I really doubt this would work in a scenario of this scale. The PO can never redeploy strategically to react to events 100 hexes away. So the PO could certainly play itself- but the results would be quite different to a PBM game.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: FITE opinions (1/7/2010 5:36:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I really doubt this would work in a scenario of this scale. The PO can never redeploy strategically to react to events 100 hexes away.


It wouldn't need to if it were playing its counterpart PO. That's not something the PO can exploit.

quote:

So the PO could certainly play itself- but the results would be quite different to a PBM game.


Sure. But its much quicker. And it has the advantage that both POs are equal skill. So crude approximations can be made quickly for the effect of various parameter changes. (And it checks out events and reinforcement schedules, too). Then only the fine points need to be sorted out via Human vs. Human tests. Clearly, this scenario seems to have some serious balance issues. Relying entirely on Human vs. Human tests will take years to sort them out. PO vs. PO tests are just a fundamental part of the design process that shouldn't be skipped.



golden delicious -> RE: FITE opinions (1/7/2010 11:25:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Sure. But its much quicker. And it has the advantage that both POs are equal skill. So crude approximations can be made quickly for the effect of various parameter changes. (And it checks out events and reinforcement schedules, too).


You're right about events etc.- but it doesn't test the meat of how the scenario actually plays.

Notably, there's no need to program the PO to test events. All the units can just sit there dumbly.

quote:

PO vs. PO tests are just a fundamental part of the design process that shouldn't be skipped.


I suppose you're right- for a scenario of this size. I've not seriously developed any scenarios of significant length which would need this kind of attention. One can quite easily skip through them to whatever feature you're concerned about.



ColinWright -> RE: FITE opinions (1/8/2010 12:27:40 AM)

I would say that if one intends to write a P.O. at all it would make sense to run P.O. vs P.O. tests -- after all, the P.O. is there anyway.

Otherwise? If it works for Curtis, great. However, I can't see P.O. vs. P.O. concluding the design process. Hot-seating has its limitations as well -- the designer has certain expectations, and his play will tend to fulfill them. I definitely had an experience with a designer who shall remain nameless where I kept promptly breaking what all his preliminary work indicated was a reasonably balanced scenario.

At least in the final stage, one just has to find two reasonably skillful and evenly matched humans. It's not all that hard. No doubt either Ben is significantly better than me, or I'm significantly better than Ben -- I couldn't guarantee which is the case, but I doubt if we have exactly the same ability. It's just statistically unlikely.

However, either way, whichever of us is worse will win if play balance is a significant issue. It's close enough for government work -- and I don't think there's a complete substitute for it.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: FITE opinions (1/8/2010 7:19:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

However, I can't see P.O. vs. P.O. concluding the design process.


I didn't say that. Rather it's a step in the process. The PO vs. PO tests can quickly make the cruder corrections. Then humans only have to refine the fine points.



ColinWright -> RE: FITE opinions (1/8/2010 7:30:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

However, I can't see P.O. vs. P.O. concluding the design process.


I didn't say that. Rather it's a step in the process. The PO vs. PO tests can quickly make the cruder corrections. Then humans only have to refine the fine points.


Oh well. I don't think we actually have an argument here. But I'm sure there'll be other opportunities.



Silvanski -> RE: FITE opinions (1/8/2010 7:42:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWrightI don't think we actually have an argument here. But I'm sure there'll be other opportunities.

This one cracked me up [:D]

PO vs PO will give a first impression, especislly in sectors where balance is totally out of whack



ColinWright -> RE: FITE opinions (1/8/2010 9:04:03 PM)

...



fogger -> RE: FITE opinions (1/14/2010 11:43:28 AM)

Is there anyway to show enemy controlled hex’s in your rear area? I have just moved some air units forward and saw 2 patch of area now some 150kms in my rear that are soviet controlled. [:@] There are no enemy units in the area and it would appear that I missed them when moving forward. Also how does one convert super rivers hexes other than sending engineer units all over the place? I have sent units either side of the hexes but this has had no effect.



Silvanski -> RE: FITE opinions (1/14/2010 11:59:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fogger

Is there anyway to show enemy controlled hex’s in your rear area?


Turn "No Borders" off



Menschenfresser -> RE: FITE opinions (1/14/2010 12:54:53 PM)

It is difficult for any of us to judge FitE. Perhaps only Larry has played the scenario enough times and against enough people. The rest of us have played it only a handful of times, most of which never saw T100.

I can't find it now, but I think Colin said in this thread that the scenario might benefit from a later start date. I agree. Even having it start with the 41 attempt on Moscow would improve it drastically. Sure it would take that 'I can do anything I want feel' that FitE with a Barbarossa start has, but cutting out early 41 would trim that part which stresses the TOAW engine.

Personally, I'm weary of the thought of wading through Barbarossa to get to the late game. If you want Barbarossa, and you want it historically better than FitE, dig up Daniel's DnO.



Karri -> RE: FITE opinions (1/14/2010 2:05:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Menschenfresser

It is difficult for any of us to judge FitE. Perhaps only Larry has played the scenario enough times and against enough people. The rest of us have played it only a handful of times, most of which never saw T100.

I can't find it now, but I think Colin said in this thread that the scenario might benefit from a later start date. I agree. Even having it start with the 41 attempt on Moscow would improve it drastically. Sure it would take that 'I can do anything I want feel' that FitE with a Barbarossa start has, but cutting out early 41 would trim that part which stresses the TOAW engine.

Personally, I'm weary of the thought of wading through Barbarossa to get to the late game. If you want Barbarossa, and you want it historically better than FitE, dig up Daniel's DnO.


A start in '42 at the start of Case Blau, with the other theathers becoming available gradually(exlusion zones, frozen, or whatever). Wouldn't have to spend 3-6 hours on the first turn either. A matter of research and some mroe research...



golden delicious -> RE: FITE opinions (1/14/2010 7:38:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

A start in '42 at the start of Case Blau, with the other theathers becoming available gradually(exlusion zones, frozen, or whatever).


If you did it right presumably you could make them available from the start. It's not like action in those areas would have been impossible.

Anyway, I think any scenario starting in early 1942 faces the same problem as a Barbarossa scenario (albeit on a small scale). The Germans had narrowly avoided disaster in the preceding winter and the Russians expected to be able to continue their success- hence offensives like Kharkov. A Russian player starting a 1942 scenario is going to put down a cast iron front instead of frittering troops away on ill-judged offensives.

...so start during the winter or earlier. The Russian has a genuine opportunity to do some serious damage to the German position, and it's up to him to judge how far is far enough. This introduces the possibility that he will overreach and be swept away.



ColinWright -> RE: FITE opinions (1/14/2010 8:32:28 PM)

This reminds me of something.

They were so disastrously unsuccessful that subsequent Soviet historians covered them up, but according to Glantz, Zhukov continued offensives against the Germans into the Summer of 1942. He kept hurling himself at Army Group Center.

In fact, a careful listing of Soviet offensive activity from June 22, 1941 on would probably show that the Soviets were usually mounting a major attack somewhere. I can think of only two periods where I think there was a pause: during the German drive on Moscow in late 1941 and while the Russians were waiting for the Germans to unleash Citadel in mid-1943.

Otherwise, the Russians were always mounting major offensives -- or trying to mount them. There seems to have been an imperative to that effect -- and it follows that trying to simulate the campaign without including that is going to be hard.

If one could come up with a workable mechanism for forcing the Russian player to replicate this behavior, then one could possibly have a scenario with historical forces capable of yielding historical results. Indeed, given that both pauses were followed by even more extensive offensive activity than before -- and indeed, were premised on the assumption that this would be the case -- one could allow the Russian to refrain from attacks, but the longer he refrains, the more attacks he has to mount in succeeding turns.

In other words, Stalin becomes external to the Russian player. He has to placate Stalin with continual attacks. Where he attacks, and what he does otherwise, is of course up to him.



dicke bertha -> RE: FITE opinions (1/14/2010 11:37:20 PM)

Howdy there Mensch, how right you are.

If TOAW is to survive, apart from fixing the silly supply mechanics, this topic touches on one aspect that for this non-programmer seems easy enough to implement, and if done, it would be of very great importance.

Why cannot player one or both players in unison decide to create a new (sub)scenario of the one they're presently playing, with their present status, and post it for others to use as a brand new scenario, albeit with a history.

For example, Mensch you and I had a great FitE going up until the first mud, when I abandoned you. Why not allw for other people, if they like the "new" starting parameters, to take on from there?

This alone would make a lot more FitE games go the full (albeit genetically modified) distance.

Ralph, anywhere near doable? Create a modified sce file from a .pbl or .SAL?



Menschenfresser -> RE: FITE opinions (1/15/2010 12:38:48 AM)

And howdy to you DB! Oddly enough this was partially doable with COW. IIRC, you could simply change the file extension from .sal to .sce. And COW would recognize the save game as a scenario. However, the events might have been screwed up in doing this. Not sure. This was 'fixed' in TOAW3 because of the possibilities for cheating.




parmenio -> RE: FITE opinions (1/15/2010 8:24:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Menschenfresser

And howdy to you DB! Oddly enough this was partially doable with COW. IIRC, you could simply change the file extension from .sal to .sce. And COW would recognize the save game as a scenario. However, the events might have been screwed up in doing this. Not sure. This was 'fixed' in TOAW3 because of the possibilities for cheating.


If memory serves, the "clock" was reset to Turn 1 when you did this.



Foggy -> RE: FITE opinions (1/15/2010 2:36:38 PM)

You do have to make some adjustments if you want the scen to reflect reality> For example - one of these days I'm going to hold the Stalin line[:D] I keep trying - so I don't hear many whines about retreating in the North w/the carnage going on in the South[8|]



golden delicious -> RE: FITE opinions (1/16/2010 1:57:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parmenio
If memory serves, the "clock" was reset to Turn 1 when you did this.


Yes but this wasn't too serious a problem. One needs to edit the calendar, the to-from turns in the replacement schedule, the arrival turns of units and the activation turns of events.

I use this feature of COW quite extensively for my Grand Strategy project. The absence of it for TOAW III is a nasty drawback.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: FITE opinions (1/16/2010 7:25:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: parmenio
If memory serves, the "clock" was reset to Turn 1 when you did this.


Yes but this wasn't too serious a problem. One needs to edit the calendar, the to-from turns in the replacement schedule, the arrival turns of units and the activation turns of events.

I use this feature of COW quite extensively for my Grand Strategy project. The absence of it for TOAW III is a nasty drawback.



Item 5 in the 3.2 part of the "What's New.rtf":

5. <Shift><Ctrl>F4 will create an OOB dump, for the active side only. This may allow a functionality for creating derivative scenarios based on various points within a played game, AAR writing, unit sorting, etc. Be creative!

So, if both players do this, the result could be combined to form the final situation - and you go from there.



dicke bertha -> RE: FITE opinions (1/16/2010 8:23:21 PM)

Ah, wasn't aware of that feature with ACOW, or with the v3.2 changes.

Now, would it be possible to automate the creation of a modified scenario (click-this-button or meny choice) for those players who really don't know about OOB dumps etc? Otherwise, seems you already need to be somewhat of a scenario designer to be able do this.

I really think this would be a change that could be of great importance.



golden delicious -> RE: FITE opinions (1/16/2010 9:02:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Item 5 in the 3.2 part of the "What's New.rtf":

5. <Shift><Ctrl>F4 will create an OOB dump, for the active side only. This may allow a functionality for creating derivative scenarios based on various points within a played game, AAR writing, unit sorting, etc. Be creative!

So, if both players do this, the result could be combined to form the final situation - and you go from there.


A world away from what you can do in COW. At present, I boot up the save and it's pretty much ready to go as a scenario for the following period.

I did try peicing together scenarios from dumped OOBs once or twice. Horrible. Required hours and hours of work just to get back to where I was at the start.

If you want to keep the "cheat prevention" that has hobbled TOAW III in this respect, you could just require both players to submit their passwords before the game would allow you to convert the save to a scenario. No need to code anything complicated.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.717773