RE: Armageddon 2015 T5 (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: Armageddon 2015 T5 (12/8/2010 7:13:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard
Larry,

Little Problem: what I'm getting from your DL's is a text file, with no opertunity to change by deleting the txt superscribtion, eh?

It will be gobbly gook until you treat it like a binary file. It's a binary file, not a text file. You gotta change the extension on the file name or else try to read it into TOAW with the original file name but search for all the ".txt" files instead of ".sal" files.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard
By the way, you might want to keep up on the GSforum run, eh? Mark has replyed to a question of mine, and reffered to Roger's 'Finland' problem as well.... http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?96814-Armageddon-2015&p=1337404#post1337404

Oh. Good catch. Thanks.

Here's the WP moves during turn 5:

[img]http://d.imagehost.org/0414/t5_moves.gif[/img]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 T5 (12/8/2010 7:15:44 AM)

Here's the WP losses so far:

[image]local://upfiles/16287/312EC9BC9C5349AB82F96C660D322B96.gif[/image]



1_Lzard -> RE: Armageddon 2015 T5 (12/8/2010 7:22:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
It will be gobbly gook until you treat it like a binary file. It's a binary file, not a text file. You gotta change the extension on the file name or else try to read it into TOAW with the original file name but search for all the ".txt" files instead of ".sal" files.


Unfortunatly, the suker comes as a text file, no way to DL it, just there to look at, eh?

No real problem, shouldn't be loading your thread with nonsence anyway, LOL!

[:D]
[:D]



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 T5 (12/9/2010 12:31:17 AM)

Many things to be upset about. Even though the indicator showed I had more than half of my turns left when I clicked the battle button, my turn ended, not allowing me to position for defense and reset air assignments. If the defender is able to set something on ignore losses that forces my turn to burn when I've carefully managed my battle planner to avoid a turn burn, this is not fun, fair or right with the way the game decides this.

I have nothing left for a counter-punch. I've lost 33 percent of all infantry and more than 50 percent of all tanks and aircraft in just five turns.

The game is so staggeringly unbalanced in favor of Russia or I am not even close to being a worthy opponent, and I'm sure it's the latter.

Berlin should fall within another turn or two and I will have to surrender. I have lost all reinforcements for this turn with the loss of Poland. Italy is very much in jeopardy. There appears to be no way to rebound.

I will be curious to see what happens with this scenario when we switch sides. I've worked very, very hard to learn all of the complexities of the game; read everything on the forums; read the manual twice; asked many questions; got lots of great help from Larry. I'm hoping it's an imbalance with this particular scenario because the investment of effort won't be very rewarding otherwise.

[image]local://upfiles/36595/E33BA66BAC284688B62BA516E824FDFE.jpg[/image]



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 T5 (12/9/2010 12:34:41 AM)

Some of the results seem so unbalanced. In one battle in eastern Europe, where I was dug in so securely that it was fortified, all 448 of my assault squad died in an attack from 800 assault units. They lost 4 men. I lost all 448. Artillery and air were not the wild cards deciding this either.



Odenathus -> RE: Armageddon 2015 T5 (12/9/2010 3:02:13 AM)

I do think that Larry is an exceptionally experienced and careful player, and it'll be interesting - if you do think it's worthwhile - seeing what happens if you do have time to switch sides. In my initial playtests with Bob we found that the Russians could be stopped too easily, too soon, so I extended the latter's air and land shock bonuses: maybe too much.

I see what you mean about the losses, but is the VP schedule actually showing a decisive Russian victory, or are you just anticipating what happens if and when he captures Berlin, and worse?

Or if only one of you feels like another crack at it I'd be happy to play either of you, either side. I don't micro-manage attacks, etc, just tend to get stuck in on the basis of the raw numbers and hope for the best.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 T5 (12/9/2010 3:55:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
I do think that Larry is an exceptionally experienced and careful player....

Why, thank you very much. You're too kind by half.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
In my initial playtests with Bob we found that the Russians could be stopped too easily, too soon, so I extended the latter's air and land shock bonuses: maybe too much.

Yes, I think maybe it's unbalanced with the Russians having all the fun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
I see what you mean about the losses, but is the VP schedule actually showing a decisive Russian victory, or are you just anticipating what happens if and when he captures Berlin, and worse?

I believe it said marginal draw the last time I saw the who-won meter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
Or if only one of you feels like another crack at it I'd be happy to play either of you, either side.

I'd be happy to entertain you in a game. I'd much rather see a game between you and Roger. Both alternatives are acceptable with me however, I'll send you my first move if you'd like. Or you can send me your first turn, either way is good.



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 T5 (12/9/2010 5:44:20 AM)

Larry and I are going to switch sides and see what happens. You're right that the official score was a draw, but it is does not feel like a fun experience for the NATO side. It's more like run and hide, look for places to pick off a few of his units, and have attrition 2x higher than his.

Another thing that I noticed, Mark, is that he has far more infantry assigned and even gets a higher rate of reinforcements. My losses were 2 to 1 in infantry; it seemed impossible to ever win the war of attrition in a defensive battle like this; his push into Poland is so obviously unbalanced that you're going to lose all of those reinforcements as NATO very early in the game.

It will be very interesting to see how things go with the switch in sides and me taking Russia. We'll post the AARs in this same spot so we can compare.



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 T5 (12/9/2010 5:53:39 AM)

Thanks for the offer, Mark. I'd love to play you. But making our moves each day is taking all the spare time I've got with Larry.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 T5 (12/9/2010 5:23:20 PM)

I sent you my turn 1 moves Mark dude. 12-09-2010 at 10:23 am Tucson AZ time.



Odenathus -> RE: Armageddon 2015 T5 (12/9/2010 7:37:01 PM)

Eeek! Can't load it, are you using the beta 3.4? I never upgraded, assuming that there would be a host of bugs to be ironed out?

Also, I've posted two corrected version on Games Squad, covering the bugs you've discovered so far.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 T5 (12/9/2010 10:00:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
Also, I've posted two corrected version on Games Squad, covering the bugs you've discovered so far.


quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
I'll go and get them.

The only postings of the scenario's is toward the start of your thread and that's where I got the version Roger and I are playing with already. So I guess I've already got the latest? Where did you post the newest versions if that's not it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
You want me to do my turn 1 moves over again using the new version of the scenario?

I can do my moves over again. It's no problemo at all.









Telumar -> RE: Armageddon 2015 T5 (12/9/2010 10:20:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Odenathus

Eeek! Can't load it, are you using the beta 3.4? I never upgraded, assuming that there would be a host of bugs to be ironed out?

Also, I've posted two corrected version on Games Squad, covering the bugs you've discovered so far.


Any change in unit colours..? [sm=scared0018.gif]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T1 (12/10/2010 12:43:33 PM)

So Roger is Warsaw Pact now and I'm the NATO dude. Just compiling all the losses took longer than I ever thought a scenario would ever take me. Mark must have gone through the entire equipment inventory and sought out all those things any of NATO's allies might possibly have and made a HUGE list of equipment for NATO. I imagine the WP side has the same problem. This game is a monster.....it's going to take a while to formulate a proper response to Roger's thrust. Meanwhile here's the losses so far ( start of NATO turn 1 )

[image]local://upfiles/16287/1DD8BB3DF65C493C849F69C3800D2E1F.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T1 (12/10/2010 12:55:40 PM)

Here's the front lines so far:

[image]local://upfiles/16287/6EF774134C4A458F8104F85A96CDD025.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T1 (12/10/2010 5:45:39 PM)

And another thing.......here we have an example of mixing apples and oranges. I don't dare place this aircraft unit on AS missions because all the A-10's will get shot down. This unit is only good for CS missions. I would rather the scenario designers separate out those pieces of equipment that aren't good for certain jobs so that they don't get asked to do impossible tasks.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/415A98956C81450E978F5D07B82E68BB.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T1 (12/10/2010 8:11:24 PM)

Hey Mark quick question:




[image]local://upfiles/16287/9E7B4FB7F80444B38BE1886D83E35F0F.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T1 (12/10/2010 9:20:11 PM)

Here's my turn 1 round 1 moves. I'll probably adjust in a minor way for style points but this is the framework of my front lines now:

[img]http://d.imagehost.org/0838/R1_moves.gif[/img]



Odenathus -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T1 (12/11/2010 1:01:13 AM)

It's not so much that he can't go shopping in his chopper, more that he can't take his battery of self propelled 155mms, his missile defence installation, and his 150 trucks with him. In the scale of this scenario, the brigade HQs for the airmobile units are integral to them. The larger, ground based HQs represent larger collections of assets, or significant units that aren't allocated out at brigade level.

But you're right about mixing those A-10s and Falcons: doesn't really work.



1_Lzard -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T1 (12/11/2010 1:33:21 AM)

"Also, I've posted two corrected version on Games Squad, covering the bugs you've discovered so far. " (Mark Stevens)

Where, Mark? Not seein' 'em in the 'scenarios' folder......





toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T2 (12/11/2010 5:26:01 AM)

I'll try to post an AAR in the morning, but I must say that I'm feeling much better after switching sides and becoming the Russian commandante. I'm not as incompetent as I was beginning to feel as the rookie against veteran Larry.

Larry has evaporated in more than a half-dozen locations in turn 2 and it's like shooting fish in a barrel on any of my other moves anywhere else on the map. I may even take Warsaw faster than he did and he'll lose those Polish units.

No offense to Mark, but the game feels so wildly unbalanced in favor of Russia, no matter which side you play. However, I think he has recognized that by giving the VP advantage to NATO and allowing you to hold out through attrition and possibly get a draw.

There might be a number of players who like the NATO challenge, seeing how many turns you can survive and trying to end with a draw. I personally like having a 50/50 shot from either side to pull out the win and having this swing back and forth from turn to turn where you're just not sure which side that will be.

The solution might be to have NATO in a more fortified line in Europe so that Russia can't open by slicing butter with a hot knife. Or that NATO reinforcements come onto the map at positions closer to the front line instead of from England. It takes too long to get them in position and they enter in lower numbers than Russia's reinforcements. Or maybe even protect the NATO capitals a little more so that Russia has to slow or plan a stronger offense.

Russia seems to have more ground troops and a greater number of replacements than NATO, making the imbalance worse as the game progresses.

On the other hand, because Elmer is not nearly as strong of an opponent as Larry, the game might be just fine as it is if you tackle NATO as the human and go against Elmer as Russia. You've actually got a shot of winning as NATO, not just a draw, because I've tried and have much different results.

I'm sure that's exactly the challenge for Mark when he designed the scenario. He had to test against Elmer and could probably beat Elmer from either side so it felt balanced.

I hope this is helpful. I certainly have not earned the right to speak with any authority on this since I am so new to the game. And I cannot even begin to imagine the amount of work that went into designing this.

I really like the concept and a scenario that tries to project a future and realistic possibility in warfare. I am amazed that this game can allow for such variables as the Civil War, Vietnam and the future.



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T3 (12/11/2010 5:23:32 PM)

My losses as Russia are very modest. NATO is losing 100 percent and evaporating in many positions -- just as I experienced in Game 1.

Here's what Russia looks like in key casualties after three turns:



[image]local://upfiles/36595/2D8A6A7F04A24BE884EA07A3CE502494.jpg[/image]



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T3 (12/11/2010 5:25:41 PM)

Couple of questions about why I cannot use ships from anchorage to anchorage that I control and then the other question where the green arrow shows an attempt to transport special forces by helicopter from an airport to a secure spot even when I am within the range of hexes.



[image]local://upfiles/36595/DA5F9648946C42FFA3DDD693A307D7F3.jpg[/image]



Odenathus -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T3 (12/11/2010 8:57:08 PM)

Thanks for the continuing input, I fear that you're right about the play balance: a test against the AI (and I did try a lot) just doesn't give you a true idea of a human player's capabilities, and I only had time for a few turns against Bob. I'm reluctant to change the actual number of units, even if some of them are only potential reserves as they're sort of accurateish, so I'm inclined to reduce the length of the Russian's air and land shock bonuses, and maybe lower still further the proficiencies of the aforementioned reserves, so that the Russians have to rely more on their starting regular forces for the initial penetrations. I can also tweak the VPs to make it so that the Russians need to cut really deeply into western Europe, or maybe take on a major neutral or two, rather than just nibble at the edges of NATO to achieve a victory.

I've been updating the scenarios on my initial posting on Games Squad as you've spotted problems: so I've fixed the Balts not surrendering and the DoWing some neutrals not working, and making a note in the 'Reasons for Editing' box. I need to separate out the US fighters and bombers mentioned in one of the posts above and,evidently, have a good tinker with the play balance. I don't think it can ever be a straight 50/50 fight from the start, since even without the potential Russian reserves, there's no way in reality that the Baltic States, Georgia, and probably even Poland can survive a massive Russian assault. It would be like having the first few months of 'Barbarossa' in Spring 1941 as a straight fight between Germany and the USSR: just wouldn't be right. And all commentaries that I've read on high-intensity modern war stress that neither side has the reserve stockpiles and industrial and economic capacity to fight for more than a few months at the absolute most - some say only 30 days would exhaust both sides' supplies, or it goes nuclear, with all that that implies.

I'm supposed to be trying a playtest with Larry once I've upgraded to 3.4, and now I fear that I'll have to further delay it - sorry Larry - while I tinker with the play balance.

Re the sea movement above, maybe the Briefing isn't clear, but you CAN move any units by normal sea transport from friendly anchorage to friendly anchorage: the limitation on using special forces/marines/amphibious units, etc, only applies to the turn in which the latter are used to seize an enemy port. If you mean why can't you helicopter the air assault unit over, it's because the game engine limits heliborne movement, too much so in my opinion.

Regards

Mark



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T3 (12/11/2010 11:12:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
I fear that you're right about the play balance: a test against the AI (and I did try a lot) just doesn't give you a true idea of a human player's capabilities....

Curt Chambers and I playtested his Campaign for South Vietnam 1965 by both of us playing each side several times before Curt declared it okie dokie as a finished scenario. I think something like this might be in order with Armageddon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
I've been updating the scenarios on my initial posting on Games Squad as you've spotted problems:

THAT's where they are. Okie dokie. Now I'll know where to get the very latest version(s). Thanks for clearing that up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
I'm supposed to be trying a playtest with Larry once I've upgraded to 3.4, and now I fear that I'll have to further delay it - sorry Larry - while I tinker with the play balance.

No problemo. I've got more than enough to do while these changes are made. Roger is showing me what he's learned so far and I must say I'm impressed with him. He's a quick learner and shows great potential already.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T3 (12/12/2010 3:29:50 AM)

And another thing....why does this unit have two crop circles? I tried re-painting the screen and it didn't go away.

EDIT: I suppose I need to tell you which unit it is and a little about what's in it.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/521B5413664845D58B5DBC606DFA56A9.gif[/image]



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T3 (12/12/2010 5:49:40 AM)

Back to my screenshot above showing the green arrow from where my helicopter and airborne infantry is and the destination on the island less than 10 hexes away:

The destination is within the stated range of the transport helicopter. But it won't let me drag the unit that far. I have no means to get any more troops to the island that I have secured.

To the left of the green arrow, at the anchorage, I have many other units stationed, including infantry, tanks and more. At no time am I ever given the option to board them on ships. Why not?

I'm frustrated that I'm missing a hidden rule or something. I appear to have plenty of transport points. I don't know that anyone controls the seas around here since we both have ships patrolling the waters. Am I missing something obvious about how to make a normal sea transport?

Why can't I get units to the secured anchorage in enemy territory? It's not like I'm trying an amphibious assault on a totally enemy-controlled area. I already seized the port and now want to build on the attack and can't figure out how to do it.

Help!?



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T3 (12/12/2010 6:06:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odenathus

Thanks for the continuing input, I fear that you're right about the play balance: a test against the AI (and I did try a lot) just doesn't give you a true idea of a human player's capabilities, and I only had time for a few turns against Bob. I'm reluctant to change the actual number of units, even if some of them are only potential reserves as they're sort of accurateish, so I'm inclined to reduce the length of the Russian's air and land shock bonuses, and maybe lower still further the proficiencies of the aforementioned reserves, so that the Russians have to rely more on their starting regular forces for the initial penetrations. I can also tweak the VPs to make it so that the Russians need to cut really deeply into western Europe, or maybe take on a major neutral or two, rather than just nibble at the edges of NATO to achieve a victory.

I've been updating the scenarios on my initial posting on Games Squad as you've spotted problems: so I've fixed the Balts not surrendering and the DoWing some neutrals not working, and making a note in the 'Reasons for Editing' box. I need to separate out the US fighters and bombers mentioned in one of the posts above and,evidently, have a good tinker with the play balance. I don't think it can ever be a straight 50/50 fight from the start, since even without the potential Russian reserves, there's no way in reality that the Baltic States, Georgia, and probably even Poland can survive a massive Russian assault. It would be like having the first few months of 'Barbarossa' in Spring 1941 as a straight fight between Germany and the USSR: just wouldn't be right. And all commentaries that I've read on high-intensity modern war stress that neither side has the reserve stockpiles and industrial and economic capacity to fight for more than a few months at the absolute most - some say only 30 days would exhaust both sides' supplies, or it goes nuclear, with all that that implies.

I'm supposed to be trying a playtest with Larry once I've upgraded to 3.4, and now I fear that I'll have to further delay it - sorry Larry - while I tinker with the play balance.

Re the sea movement above, maybe the Briefing isn't clear, but you CAN move any units by normal sea transport from friendly anchorage to friendly anchorage: the limitation on using special forces/marines/amphibious units, etc, only applies to the turn in which the latter are used to seize an enemy port. If you mean why can't you helicopter the air assault unit over, it's because the game engine limits heliborne movement, too much so in my opinion.

Regards

Mark


What would happen if Finland and Sweden were active territories and more of the NATO reinforcements came in that way? Would that spread Russia out a little more thinly?

I wouldn't make the distance that Russia has to cover in Europe that much farther. I would suggest making a stronger fortified front for NATO in Europe or at least make Russia have far heavier losses in trying to get Warsaw.

An equal reinforcement number also would make life tougher for Russia. Now, if I recall off the top of my head, Russia gets 500 infantry per turn and NATO 400. Why not even?

Or another minor tweak: Make Russia's reinforcements come from as far away as NATO's in Great Britain. Don't let them get to the front in Europe in less than two turns.

Just thoughts. I'm only a beginner.

I like your premise that NATO is spread thinly in the off-map world for other real events of 2015 -- still bogged down in Afghanistan and threatened in North Korea, etc. So Russia shouldn't have to push much farther to get its VP.

I think it has more to do with Russia gets way too strong of a push into Europe in the very first moves, especially Poland, and then gets an imbalance of reinforcements that are so close to the front in Europe that they can jump into play by the next turn.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T3 (12/12/2010 6:40:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan
Back to my screenshot above showing the green arrow from where my helicopter and airborne infantry is and the destination on the island less than 10 hexes away:

The destination is within the stated range of the transport helicopter. But it won't let me drag the unit that far. I have no means to get any more troops to the island that I have secured.

The four range of the heli-lifted unit doesn't come close to bridging the gap between where they are and where you're intending to go. The range of '4' starts *after* the unit gets loaded on the choppers. So you're going to need a ship somewhere between the mainland and the island so you can lift the unit part of the way then continue movement next turn. I guess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan
To the left of the green arrow, at the anchorage, I have many other units stationed, including infantry, tanks and more. At no time am I ever given the option to board them on ships. Why not?

Have you already moved the units you want to embark on ships? If so they won't get to embark. You cannot have moved a unit for it to use all it's movement points embarking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan
I'm frustrated that I'm missing a hidden rule or something. I appear to have plenty of transport points. I don't know that anyone controls the seas around here since we both have ships patrolling the waters. Am I missing something obvious about how to make a normal sea transport?

It IS frustrating to get a handle on all the 'hidden' rules all at once. I went through the same thing myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan
Why can't I get units to the secured anchorage in enemy territory? It's not like I'm trying an amphibious assault on a totally enemy-controlled area. I already seized the port and now want to build on the attack and can't figure out how to do it.


You gotta plan ahead on moves like this. First they have to use one turn just to get to the anchorage hex. Then next turn they can load the boats (assuming you have SEA transport points enough for all of them ). Then after they have loaded on the boats you can move them to just about anywhere they will go within their range. Once they get there sometimes they have movement points left to move away from the sea transport destination hex for a short distance. You might want to experiment with this kind of movement and practice it until it becomes your second hat.



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 G2T3 (12/13/2010 12:12:48 AM)

Thanks to Larry, he helped me figure out my rookie problems with transport. I needed to wait another turn. And sea transport is very limited so it's holding me back from a fully planned amphibious assault. But now I understand the rules.

I was confused with the helicopter as well. There's a difference between how far it can move and how far it can transport. If I stack transport helicopters, does not increase how far airborne units can move by helicopter?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.4375