RE: TGW scenario (Full Version)

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



Message

Meyer1 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/15/2015 5:54:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

what changed in the hex?


Added Badlands to it so that the 8th Pz will no longer be able to get in there. I could have left it as it was and added a road 'burr', but I doesn't like the look of burr's too much.



Hmmm, when I put the cursor over 62,28 I only see "marsh". Am I missing something?
Not that has any importance, don't mean to bother you.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/15/2015 8:10:33 AM)

Yeah, the game sometimes drops stuff out of that bottom line, but as you said it looks different, and in the editor it can be seen [as in the shot below].

[image]local://upfiles/24850/FC6CA176C6574BFA818B61B6A6EE12C1.jpg[/image]



Lobster -> RE: TGW scenario (8/15/2015 1:37:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

what changed in the hex?


Added Badlands to it so that the 8th Pz will no longer be able to get in there. I could have left it as it was and added a road 'burr', but I doesn't like the look of burr's too much.


This isn't your fault. You did a great job on this. The program has a flaw that could easily be fixed. It's not really a bug but an oversight that should be addressed.



Meyer1 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/15/2015 4:51:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Yeah, the game sometimes drops stuff out of that bottom line, but as you said it looks different, and in the editor it can be seen [as in the shot below].

[image]local://upfiles/24850/FC6CA176C6574BFA818B61B6A6EE12C1.jpg[/image]

Yes, just saw the same in the editor. I guess it's a way to simulate the lack of good OKH maps of Russia back then [:)]. Didn't know that the game FOW applied to this. Actually it's kind of nice.



Meyer1 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/15/2015 4:54:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

what changed in the hex?


Added Badlands to it so that the 8th Pz will no longer be able to get in there. I could have left it as it was and added a road 'burr', but I doesn't like the look of burr's too much.


This isn't your fault. You did a great job on this. The program has a flaw that could easily be fixed. It's not really a bug but an oversight that should be addressed.


Could be that the problem, and an easier solution, is that the editor shouldn't allow the designer to put a road on badlands hexes?



Lobster -> RE: TGW scenario (8/15/2015 8:34:07 PM)

Nah. The world is full of roads through what would be considered badlands in TOAW game terms. It's probably an oversight that was never taken care of.



Meyer1 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/25/2015 4:08:53 AM)

So..., after a restart, I'm in the middle of December, and no signs of winter whatsoever: weather zone 1 cold, zone 2 temperate, zone 3 warm. Mud session passed unnoticed too. I understand that weather simulation is difficult (there was an old thread that discussed this, but can't find it), or is something wrong with my game?.
Regardless the supply situation (still waiting to the "collapse" event to end [:@]), having a lot of fun[:)]



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/25/2015 5:27:51 AM)

The scenario is intended to mirror the classic Barbarossa 41. In that one, the only effect was reduced supply. Not that that is an excuse to make a poor design, but we added some slight changes in shock and then waited to see how it played out. It may seem strange when compared to how other scenarios handle it, but as long as it works fairly well we are probably happy. Always open to more thinking on it, though.

Weather events are kept to a simple minimum, so we can expand on those if desired. I suppose it would be nice to see some snow, at least in January and February.



Meyer1 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/25/2015 5:32:51 AM)

Well, actually I've never played another east front scenario all the way to the winter... so can't compare.
So, a designer choice, okay, actually is good news. Thank you.



Oberst_Klink -> RE: TGW scenario (8/25/2015 1:19:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The scenario is intended to mirror the classic Barbarossa 41. In that one, the only effect was reduced supply. Not that that is an excuse to make a poor design, but we added some slight changes in shock and then waited to see how it played out. It may seem strange when compared to how other scenarios handle it, but as long as it works fairly well we are probably happy. Always open to more thinking on it, though.

Weather events are kept to a simple minimum, so we can expand on those if desired. I suppose it would be nice to see some snow, at least in January and February.

Talking about D21 (I presume some call it TGW?!); what about the RR repair? We're struggling in our AAR as in just 12 hexes being repaired per half week/turn *max*... is there a newer or revised version in the planning, Stevo? ;)

Klink, Oberst



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/25/2015 1:56:59 PM)

Hey Klink [sm=00000436.gif]

D21 and TGW are two different birds. We've been ok with it [TGW] so far, but there is certainly room for changes.



Oberst_Klink -> RE: TGW scenario (8/26/2015 11:32:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Hey Klink [sm=00000436.gif]

D21 and TGW are two different birds. We've been ok with it [TGW] so far, but there is certainly room for changes.

There is a new version of it? Why wasn't it announced to me by courier? :)

Klink, Oberst



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/26/2015 12:52:44 PM)

See here - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3756761



Meyer1 -> RE: TGW scenario (9/9/2015 2:30:41 AM)

Winter is ending, did not take Leningrad nor Moscow, and faced a little crisis in the southern front (I screwed up by having the four Panzergruppen in the back refitting, waiting for the supply crisis to end... did not think it would last until march [:@]), but I survived.
Another Lw nitpick: Fw-190s appeared way too early, march 1942, instead of September 42, and in the wrong unit (StG2, which kept its Stukas all the way until reformed in the SG2, but that was in 1943).
190s first use in the eastern front was with fighter units, starting with JG51 in september 1942, as mentioned.



Meyer1 -> RE: TGW scenario (9/9/2015 2:48:59 AM)

Hmmm, can't believe I hadn't notice this before, but, to the best of my knowledge, the units "SKG-1" and "SKG-2" never existed, and even if they did, they wouldn't be equipped with Ju-87, that certainly wasn't a "schnell" bomber [:)].



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (9/9/2015 10:36:21 AM)

Ok, thanks for the info. Corrected StG.2 and SG.2 arrival dates. JG.51 appears to have switched back to the Me-109 after using the FW-190 for several months, so the early 109's leave and are replaced with late 109's in 10-42, leaving out the FW-190's for simplicities sake.

SKG-1 and SKG-2 must be something I messed up in translation. But lord knows what the are meant to be unless I go thru the entire LW again. [:@]

Of course, if you are so inclined, feel free to come up with a revised LW OOB and I'll be happy to incorporate it [:D]



Meyer1 -> RE: TGW scenario (9/9/2015 5:12:20 PM)

Maybe after finishing this game. I like surprises [:)]



Meyer1 -> RE: TGW scenario (9/11/2015 1:21:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


SKG-1 and SKG-2 must be something I messed up in translation. But lord knows what the are meant to be unless I go thru the entire LW again. [:@]




I think I may have discovered the origin of this mix-up, was looking at the Directive 21 OOB, and all the Stuka units are called "SKG", but besides that, in this case the OOB looks fine, keep in mid that I have not played a single turn on this one. But I will [:)]




sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (9/11/2015 3:10:24 AM)

Ahah !! Ok, well a mistake carried over, I guess. Thanks for looking into it more.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (9/14/2015 3:27:27 AM)

v1.10 is posted. Some LW changes, most Engineer Squads Replaced with Assault Squads.



Meyer1 -> RE: TGW scenario (9/14/2015 5:06:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

v1.10 is posted. Some LW changes, most Engineer Squads Replaced with Assault Squads.


Thanks for the update.



Silvanski -> RE: TGW scenario (9/20/2015 1:52:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Weather events are kept to a simple minimum, so we can expand on those if desired. I suppose it would be nice to see some snow, at least in January and February.


Am playing the version from the latest patch release.
There's no snow in the winter 1941/42 ... Snow comes for winter 42/43 ... We're now in May 1943 and there's still snow...



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (9/20/2015 3:25:40 AM)

Snow in May ... what the heck! Looks I should ask a weather expert for help with a schedule.

Thanks Silvain !!



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (9/20/2015 3:51:38 AM)

This is the extent of the Weather Events:

601 t17 Storms
602 t20 Cool Front
603 t26 Cool Front
604 t72 Cool Front
605 t78 Cool Front
606 t126 Cool Front
607 t131 Cool Front
608 t179 Cool Front
609 t181 Cool Front

I guess a few Warm Fronts might be helpful. [:(]



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (9/27/2015 2:28:14 AM)

v1.11 is posted - Expanded Weather, after consulting a weather expert [TPOO]. Thanks Rick and everybody else for providing the feedback !



governato -> RE: TGW scenario (9/29/2015 9:11:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

v1.11 is posted - Expanded Weather, after consulting a weather expert [TPOO]. Thanks Rick and everybody else for providing the feedback !



This is the set up I used in `Eastern Front'

the cold fronts need to be spaced a couple of turns apart to have effect in every weather zone, same for the warm front comes spring.
You need `cool weather' and three COLD fronts for super rivers to freeze in Winter (you want them to freeze all the way down to Stalingrad :))

You also probably need:

- a lot of `storm' events + heavy precipitation (in the Environment window) to get substantial snow coverage (one event every turn in Winter).
- 4 turns of `mud' in Fall and Spring (I use storms+shocks at ~ 40% for the side on the strategic offensive and 45% for the side on the defensive). No `cease fire' events.
- 60% shocks to the air force in Winter and `mud' turns.
- `refugee' events to simulate heavy rains also help as they decrease supply flowing along roads by increasing the MP cost to the railheads. You can have them travel West to East over a a few turn to simulate weather fronts. I use them a lot in Summer turns.

Hope it helps! [edited 9/29/15]


[image]local://upfiles/38323/F966BAA8F2A749CA8725CA5293D20E65.gif[/image]



Lobster -> RE: TGW scenario (9/30/2015 12:23:59 AM)

The environment, most especially the precipitation, is something that should be capable of being made variable by the scenario designer. For instance, if you want a historical East Front winter in 1941-1942 you should be able to set the precip to a higher level than in summer. But you can only set the environment once and it is static.

This is something about Norm's ideas for this game that I don't understand. He made a great game that could be made to model long periods of time. Even one of the scenarios that has been included in all of the Versions covers a period of years, the Korean War. Yet he didn't give scenario designers the ability to change the scenarios parameters over time. If a scenario was capable of only covering a handful of months I could understand, but that is not the case. But then I've always been an advocate of putting as many scenario parameters as possible under the scenario designers control and variable throughout a scenario.



governato -> RE: TGW scenario (9/30/2015 12:30:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

The environment, most especially the precipitation, is something that should be capable of being made variable by the scenario designer.



this is what the 'storm' event does. You can model rain seasons and cloud cover with it. So for 'EF' I have several such events during the Summer (+the refugees event trick to affect supply lines, really useful).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
But then I've always been an advocate of putting as many scenario parameters as possible under the scenario designers control and variable throughout a scenario.


I agree. I will be lobbying for this in future 4.X versions.



Lobster -> RE: TGW scenario (9/30/2015 2:07:20 AM)

Right, played with the storm event, cold fronts, warm fronts, precip levels, etc. The way the game addresses rain storms and mud also needs to be improved. I think Bob said eventually it will be looked at.

If you have any experience with John Tiller's Campaign series you'll see how he handles scenario parameters with his games. Something like that for TOAW would be nice.



Omert -> RE: TGW scenario (11/21/2015 8:01:14 AM)

a small question, why the replacement rate for German is so low, for example, only 3 PzKpfw IVD a week? compared with nearly 100 KVI and T34/76 a week for soviet, is it imbalance or German has some tactical options whose advantages could be exploited with the game engine?



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.203125