RE: TGW scenario (Full Version)

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



Message

sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (11/21/2015 9:05:27 AM)

There were 5,000 KV1's and 35,000 T34/76, and there were 229 Pz IV Ausf D's. Also many of the Ausf D's are in units at start while the Soviets start with few of these models [compared to the production run].



Omert -> RE: TGW scenario (11/21/2015 1:54:00 PM)

I see, as with such disadvantages, what should the German player do to tackle this serious problem to avoid disastrous encirclement implemented by Soviet's numerous tanks, especially in 1943 and 1944?



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (11/21/2015 4:23:06 PM)

43 & 44 - Don't keep your line overextended, pull back far enough so that your line is short enough to allow you to get those panzers out of their defensive positions and into reserve. Then be von Manstein and draw the Soviets out into the open then use some strong infantry div's to punch a hole and let the panzers pour thru and kessel them. If you keep the encirclement closed thru the Soviet turn, then annihilate the trapped Russkies with vicious well planned attacks.

It's so much fun !



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/6/2016 5:39:50 PM)

You can check each formation's status by selecting a unit and hitting 'F' on the keyboard. You can cross reference the status in the manual. In the case pictured below, the formation is set to activate on turn 500, which means that it will not activate because the scenario only has 203 turns. However, units in 'Static' mode will become active if an enemy unit moves next to them.

[image]local://upfiles/24850/5A92685EFF6B46A9B9386F7AEDAAF317.jpg[/image]



selfoe -> RE: TGW scenario (8/6/2016 8:28:03 PM)

quote:

next to


Thanks! This is really helpful.

May I also ask how many hexes in distance could be considered as "next to" ?







sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/6/2016 9:06:35 PM)

One [1]. As in 'adjacent', or 'next to'.



selfoe -> RE: TGW scenario (8/7/2016 7:22:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

One [1]. As in 'adjacent', or 'next to'.


Thanks again for your kindness. I have two more questions if you dont mind.

1. I am having trouble searching for the TGW v1.8. The one officially included is v1.11.

2. The replacement priority of almost all Soviet mech. corps (except 1st and 10th) are set to “None”. Is this intentionally given?

3. In this scenario soviet made about 1000 BT-7 tanks in the first 25 turns. However only three units can receive BT-7 replacements: two divisions under 1st mech corp (around 400/400 BT-7 at turn 1) and a cav (10/10 BT-7 initially). It is hard to understand why Soviet is making so many BT-7 tanks but not using them.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/7/2016 5:30:27 PM)

1. 1.8 was replaced by 1.9, then 1.10, and now you have the latest 1.11.

2. The early Mech Corps were junk and were all quickly destroyed or disbanded, none to be reformed. Later in 1942 they started forming new Mech Corps which were totally different from the early ones.

3. There are BT-7's in almost all of the Mech Corps, not just the 1st and 10th. TO&E's are all from Glantz.



selfoe -> RE: TGW scenario (8/7/2016 6:21:30 PM)

Thanks again! I am simulating on 1.11 version with my friend right now.

Yes, all the mech corps have BT-7. However all the junk corps had the "replacement priority" set to "None", which means that they are not going to absorb any BT-7 (as well as any other equips) from the inventory pool. The result is hundreds of BT-7 is sitting in the pool at turn 14, not going anywhere.



Lobster -> RE: TGW scenario (8/7/2016 6:50:42 PM)

Calling the Soviet early war mech corps junk is not entirely accurate. While they had much old equipment the personnel were not bad, just under trained. There were a couple of mech corp in the south that performed admirably given they didn't have enough equipment. Add to that the fact that Stalin was particularly hard on the Mech Corp officer ranks (they were the officers most highly regarded by Marshall Tukhachevsky, head of Soviet mech warfare) in the murderous prewar purges. In summaries by the Soviet General Staff there was not enough training, not enough supplies, not enough personnel, not enough officers, not enough NCOs, not enough equipment and not enough anything else. Not true across the board but often enough. Some tank divisions didn't even have tanks. Some motorized divisions had no trucks. Some had neither trucks nor tanks. In order to properly give these units combat numbers you would have to read the history of each one to see what they were worthy of. Some did get replacement btw. ;)



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/7/2016 8:26:00 PM)

quote:

hundreds of BT-7 is sitting in the pool at turn 14, not going anywhere.


I'll look into adding some slots for some other units.



Lobster -> RE: TGW scenario (8/7/2016 8:32:55 PM)

Here's a good book on the German South from the Soviet perspective. It really gives you a good idea of how bad things were for the Soviets in about every way imaginable. "The Bloody Triangle" by Victor Kamenir.



Meyer1 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/20/2016 4:26:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Here's a good book on the German South from the Soviet perspective. It really gives you a good idea of how bad things were for the Soviets in about every way imaginable. "The Bloody Triangle" by Victor Kamenir.
I've read it. If I recall correctly, was a short book, and not very documented, few notes, etc. But yeah, a useful one considering the lack of sources on that campaign.



Lobster -> RE: TGW scenario (8/20/2016 4:50:40 AM)

You sure you read it? 262 pages. 4 pages of sources. 6 indexed pages of notes. 11 pages of maps. OOBs. TOEs. Maybe you read something else. [:D]



Meyer1 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/20/2016 5:05:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You sure you read it? 262 pages. 4 pages of sources. 6 indexed pages of notes. 11 pages of maps. OOBs. TOEs. Maybe you read something else. [:D]


Yeah I did read it. Now looking at the amazon page, well, is no so short, but my memory failed me, now I see that what I have noted it is the complete lack of primary sources. Not uncommon on ww2 books, I guess that Zetterling and others spoiled me on that regard [:)]



skjnc -> RE: TGW scenario (8/28/2016 4:59:13 PM)

I'm checking out this scenario. Any idea why at the start of the scenario some organic artillery regiments attached to german corps commands have transport vehicles in excess that give them movement points much larger than the infantry divisions in the same formation? Is this historical? Or is it an artifact made to empower german's early push?



r6kunz -> RE: TGW scenario (8/28/2016 7:46:06 PM)

I have found that TOAW "trucks" are actually "truck sections"- not the TOE number. Maybe 5-10 trucks per section. So trucks cannot be added on a TOE basis, Maybe a dozen "trucks" per infantry division to give proper distances relative to armor...



Lobster -> RE: TGW scenario (8/28/2016 8:04:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

I have found that TOAW "trucks" are actually "truck sections"- not the TOE number. Maybe 5-10 trucks per section. So trucks cannot be added on a TOE basis, Maybe a dozen "trucks" per infantry division to give proper distances relative to armor...


That is not entirely true. If a truck has AT or AP abilities then for transport purposes it is a variable number of trucks and fits into your "truck sections" category. However, in combat it is only one truck, not a group. So if you have combat capable transport you would have to include all of the transport, not just enough to make a unit move a proper number of hexes. This includes Halftracks. To be extremely accurate, transport crews had weapons. They took part in combat, especially when they were encircled. To dismiss them as nothing, which is done in TOAW, is a mistake that will never be resolved because...well just because.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/29/2016 3:40:57 AM)

Mr. skjnc - there are no Artillery Regiments in the scenario. Only Pz Korp Artillery units contain more transport assets than authorized. This is to allow them to keep up with the fast units. As the scenario progresses these units will become slower.

Hope this answers the question.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/29/2016 3:43:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ
I have found that TOAW "trucks" are actually "truck sections"- not the TOE number. Maybe 5-10 trucks per section. So trucks cannot be added on a TOE basis, Maybe a dozen "trucks" per infantry division to give proper distances relative to armor...


Right on Rob ! I never count the number of transport assets when building units, I increase or decrease them to get a desired Movement Allowance.

Trucks also have a Defense Strength of 1, so adding a lot of them to a unit will increase its Defense Strength [usually not a good thing].



skjnc -> RE: TGW scenario (8/29/2016 7:30:54 AM)

Nah I mean those nebelwerfer MRL regiments and ArKo brigades in the infantry corps. For example, the '144.Arko' in 'IV AK' formation, which has 19 movement points compared to 11 for a typical infantry division.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/29/2016 12:32:37 PM)

Thanks for being more specific. So let's say, if the units were motorized at the beginning of Barbarossa, then their transport assets are arranged that way.



selfoe -> RE: TGW scenario (8/30/2016 6:48:52 PM)

Hi, I noticed that the soviet 64 rifle corp (at north Georgia) was set to be activated on turn 500. However, when I am playing this scenario, they are activated on T8. Is this set on purpose? Is this set through scenario events? Are there a list of events for TGW? Thanks again.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (8/31/2016 7:46:21 AM)

I have to admit that I am not sure why that corps would activate on turn 8. Three of its' units start on map, and an enemy unit would have to move next to them in order to activate the formation. That probably isn't the reason given their location. The other possibility is the 223rd RD, which arrives at Kharkov on t3. This unit is most likely triggering the formation to be released.

There is no list of events. There are some general notes in each of the OOB doc's that are in the zip file.



r6kunz -> RE: TGW scenario (9/1/2016 1:34:38 AM)

Hey Steve,
Could you shoot me a copy of the latest TGW scenario?

cheers
Rob K



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (9/1/2016 3:12:03 AM)

Hi Rob, its here :

http://www.dizium.net/TOAW



selfoe -> RE: TGW scenario (9/2/2016 5:43:56 AM)

Thanks. This is a very interesting design. When Axis is advancing, more and more soviet reserves are going to be released. Basically when axis is near Kharkov, one Soviet corp is triggered to be unfroze.

May I also ask if you made this "trigger" based on historical facts or general knowledge of Soviet army systems?



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TGW scenario (9/2/2016 1:48:26 PM)

It's based on the Soviets sending troops anywhere they could to block the German advance. Historical triggers don't work well when the Axis Human player has the option to make unhistorical advances. So hopefully the scenario ends up being historic even when it is unhistoric, in that wherever the Axis advance, Soviet units should be there.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875