RE: FITE 2 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

Lobster -> RE: FITE 2 (4/25/2021 1:50:53 AM)

I think the partisan supply problem is a bug. Seen it mentioned someplace else if I recall correctly.



gliz2 -> RE: FITE 2 (4/25/2021 8:09:44 AM)

Both were flamethrower tanks. They shouldn't be superior to normal T-34.
OT-34 was mass produced and commonly used. It suffered from limited flamethrower capacity (10-12 bursts) up till late '43 and was mostly used as infantry support.
KV-8 had only 45mm main gun which was less capable of T-34 76mm. It also was mostly used as an infantry support vehicle.
Flamethrower Tanks were used to take entrenched or fortified enemies. They were not used as "normal" tanks.


In '41 Germans had over 1000 tanks in reserve (mostly new Pz.III and Pz.IV). The German player should have option to release at least big portion of them.



Lobster -> RE: FITE 2 (4/25/2021 12:26:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Both were flamethrower tanks. They shouldn't be superior to normal T-34.
OT-34 was mass produced and commonly used. It suffered from limited flamethrower capacity (10-12 bursts) up till late '43 and was mostly used as infantry support.
KV-8 had only 45mm main gun which was less capable of T-34 76mm. It also was mostly used as an infantry support vehicle.
Flamethrower Tanks were used to take entrenched or fortified enemies. They were not used as "normal" tanks.


In '41 Germans had over 1000 tanks in reserve (mostly new Pz.III and Pz.IV). The German player should have option to release at least big portion of them.


Then why should the Soviet player not be allowed to retreat? If one side doesn't stick to history why should anyone?

BTW, those PzIII with 50mm guns would replace the Pz35/38 with 37mm guns. Would have made a difference for certain.



gliz2 -> RE: FITE 2 (4/25/2021 3:25:30 PM)

Did I write that the Germans should have the freedom in retreating?

However such changes would also result in different combat results, which would impact politics, which would change strategies...
Hence in such lengthy scenarios one should really be careful with following "historical events". I highly doubt should the Germans struggle with Russians already in summer that Hitler would be incline to declare war on USA. Maybe the Japan would not attack on Pearl Harbor or maybe they would attack later. Or maybe they would commit to proceed with all the waves of attack and destroy the crucial navy oil depot.

On the other hand should Leningrad or Moscow fall what consequences could it have to the politics? No one really knows.

Since the scenario is pretty much programmed historically (introduction or withdrawal of units) it suffers from the begging with "balance", which is towards Soviet player.



Lobster -> RE: FITE 2 (4/25/2021 3:53:55 PM)

Since you bring up Japan. Why not let Hitler include them in his plans? He didn't because he feared the Japanese could not keep the secret that was not really a secret anyway. The Japanese very well could have taken steps to mitigate the friction between them and the U.S. and take part in the gutting of the Soviet Union instead of attacking the U.S.



gliz2 -> RE: FITE 2 (4/25/2021 5:14:26 PM)

After the defeat in '39 and the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact the Japanese strategy doctrine was shifted towards South Strike Group. And by the '41 it was too late to change that for Japan which resulted in Japan and USRR renewing their neutrality pact in August 1941.
As far as I know Germans knew well enough about the renewal so I am not sure what was the politics behind the Hitler's declaration of war on USA. I think it was one of his lunacies.



Lobster -> RE: FITE 2 (4/25/2021 8:37:42 PM)

Not true. Could have changed their plans at the time of the German attack on the USSR. Pacts are not worth the paper they are written on.

Besides, I thought we were not concerned about historical constraints. [:D]



gliz2 -> RE: FITE 2 (4/26/2021 5:44:29 AM)

I noticed you like to discuss, strangely mostly you seem to discuss with yourself.
Changing a strategic direction is always possible but it does not happen in a day or a month. It takes time and sometimes it is not easy politically. If you do not understand how politics in Japan worked than you might claim that it was highly probable. But in reality it was highly unlikely (almost impossible).
The reason for this was that after the Mongolian incident the political influence in Tokio shifted heavily towards Southern Effort. And from early '40 whole planning and resourcing was dedicated towards SE and little to none to NE.
Historically Operation Torch started in Nov'42 but should the Germans be not at war with USA already in Dec'41 (quite likely) or not commit to Africa (possible) then it would not have occured on Nov'42.
Fall Blau occured because of the exact chain of events.
The more in the future the more unlikely that historical events would have happened.
And I am more about ahistorical background events rather than changing the strategies.
In my current FITE2 game with a buddy of mine we try to stick to the historical military doctrines. And all it does not require much of house rules or "chits".

PS. In good ol' days any future events could have been based on dice rolls. One could have never been sure how the things develop.



Lobster -> RE: FITE 2 (4/26/2021 1:20:12 PM)

[:D]
I notice you say one thing and then say the complete opposite contradicting yourself constantly. You say you don't like to stick to historical settings and then you argue that historical settings should be followed. Make up your mind. [8|]



gliz2 -> RE: FITE 2 (4/26/2021 2:31:07 PM)

I might have not been clear on my viewpoint.
On one hand we have a "historical" developments being served to players in form of events and of reinforcements. On this players have little to no influence.
On the other hand they are almost completely free of any doctrinal or political restrictions. Therefore they can for example send Romanian units to advance on Murmansk. Or can play no counterattacks (which normally would result in demotion for either side).

What I would like to see is more ahistorical events: things that in boardgames were decided by dice rolls like whether the Germany declare war on USA or whether they allow autonomy of Ukraine (there was an old PC game that had included such chance events and decisions). Or perhaps Germans would like to stick to PaK38 and not drop their production. Or perhaps commit more fighters for defending the Reich.
And so on and so on.
Same goes for Soviets. Maybe they would like to change their policies and offer autonomy to Ukraine. Or maybe they would like to invest bit more time in training.
Maybe the Operations should be determined by players not by preprogrammed historical events. E.g. should the attack on Pearl Harbor be postponed (there was an option of delaying it till Q1'42) then the winter offensive would be severely delayed or would not have happened.

My biggest gripe is with sticking to the history in terms of strategic developments. Also the absurdity of preprogrammed reinforcements or withdrawals.

As to the doctrinal freedom I am all in favour of it. But since the historical bias is overwhelming then allowing freedom of operations to Soviets predestines Germans to collapse during the Winter Offensive.



gliz2 -> RE: FITE 2 (4/29/2021 2:15:06 PM)

[image]https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5Nx4pIiyokw/YIXRGnEgfdI/AAAAAAAAZmM/Tvy7lJdjUqc1pQgCYxSPiq1v7pumI80HACLcBGAsYHQ/s1920/Desktop%2BScreenshot%2B2021.04.25%2B-%2B11.06.29.64.png[/image]

This is not possible in FITE2 is it?



FaneFlugt -> RE: FITE 2 (4/29/2021 4:13:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2


This is not possible in FITE2 is it?


What are we looking at?



Lobster -> RE: FITE 2 (4/29/2021 4:42:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

This is not possible in FITE2 is it?


Of course not. One week turns. [8|]
It took the Germans 100 hours to reach Dunaberg (26 June). The Soviets attacked that position on the 27 June. The Soviets can't possibly react like that in a game that has one week turns. The soonest they could react would be 29 June. [:D][:D][:D]

That's only one reason WitE2 is probably more your cup of tea. Very ahistorical with one week turns and combat as movement. [;)]

We all have our likes and dislikes. Would be a very boring world if we all liked the same thing. [:)]



gliz2 -> RE: FITE 2 (5/13/2021 9:01:39 AM)

Well you do not have enough MPs as Germans to reach Daugvapilis within 2 turns.
Means something is wrong in the setup.



golden delicious -> RE: FITE 2 (5/13/2021 9:03:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Well you do not have enough MPs as Germans to reach Daugvapilis within 2 turns.
Means something is wrong in the setup.


One could look at cutting hex conversion costs, or the cost of moving over improved road (if there is any in that area).



gliz2 -> RE: FITE 2 (5/13/2021 2:16:54 PM)

According to my measurements the Recon have 33%, Pz/Mech Div have 20% and Mot 10% too little MPs compared to what were Germans achieving during Barbarossa.



Lobster -> RE: FITE 2 (5/13/2021 2:48:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Well you do not have enough MPs as Germans to reach Daugvapilis within 2 turns.
Means something is wrong in the setup.


Attempting to make everything exactly historical is an exercise in futility. You can only come kind of close and outliers like getting to the Dvina in four days likely won't happen for several reasons.



gliz2 -> RE: FITE 2 (5/13/2021 4:59:12 PM)

@Lobster
Mate read the God darn post before replying

I am the first to dismiss "historical balancing".
However if a type of unit could in practice cover more ground, including some skirmishes, than the MPs limit and movement bias combined allowed than this is clearly wrong.

I do not want to reach the same objectives but I want to have the same capabilities.
Otherwise why not make Pz.IVs as though as Tigers?

Same with options. If there was a decision available to release winter equipment and hundred extra tanks to Eastern Front then why I am not allowed to do it?
Already I have to suffer absurdity of following the historical events like Pearl Harbour or Operation Overlord.



golden delicious -> RE: FITE 2 (5/13/2021 5:23:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

According to my measurements the Recon have 33%, Pz/Mech Div have 20% and Mot 10% too little MPs compared to what were Germans achieving during Barbarossa.


I'd suggest giving all German tanks a recon value. This should lead to realistic behaviour when it comes to slipping through gaps in the enemy line.



golden delicious -> RE: FITE 2 (5/13/2021 5:27:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2


Same with options. If there was a decision available to release winter equipment and hundred extra tanks to Eastern Front then why I am not allowed to do it?
Already I have to suffer absurdity of following the historical events like Pearl Harbour or Operation Overlord.


Not to mention massive, timed shock events.

Do you see the AAR in progress right now where the Russian player was storming his way into Poland, then had to stop because the Germans get a shock bonus on such-and-such a turn? He knew the exact date it was coming so he moved his most valuable pieces off into the rear area to wait out the effects.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: FITE 2 (5/13/2021 5:54:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

According to my measurements the Recon have 33%, Pz/Mech Div have 20% and Mot 10% too little MPs compared to what were Germans achieving during Barbarossa.


I'd suggest giving all German tanks a recon value. This should lead to realistic behaviour when it comes to slipping through gaps in the enemy line.

Note that I followed Ben's good advice on this with my Soviet Union 1941 scenarios.



governato -> RE: FITE 2 (5/13/2021 6:35:40 PM)

one could also

- decrease ZOC MP cost for the Germans for the first few turns (or for as long they enjoyed a C&C advantage at scales below the hex grid). It's easy to do that with events

- at the start add more trucks to Panzer divisions than the max allowed i the TOE (say 96/64) to model an unrepeatable speed advantage that fades with time as trucks get sent back to the pool.



Lobster -> RE: FITE 2 (5/13/2021 7:13:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Well you do not have enough MPs as Germans to reach Daugvapilis within 2 turns.
Means something is wrong in the setup.


Then change the scenario so they can reach whatever point you want in whatever time you want. If you don't like the scenario then change it. It's entirely in your hands. Larry has done that I don't know how many times.

You're complaining about not being able to achieve historical results and you say it's because something is wrong with the scenario. Read your own bloody posts mate.

If you don't like it change it. Simple as that.



gliz2 -> RE: FITE 2 (5/14/2021 5:49:48 AM)

@Lobster

How not having enough MPs is about historical results?
Not having enough MPs is about historical operational capabilities. If a tank division could do a 300km march in 3 days and in game this is not possible (that sort of move) than the operational capabilities are messed up.

Once again: I don't care about being able to reach Daugvapilis in 4 days in the scenario but I should have at least technical possiblity to do so (when moving my units on the roads and not meeting enemy units).

Also for some strange reason foot infantry can achieve on major roads 60% of daily movement of Pz units.



Lobster -> RE: FITE 2 (5/14/2021 11:51:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Once again: I don't care about being able to reach Daugvapilis in 4 days in the scenario but I should have at least technical possiblity to do so (when moving my units on the roads and not meeting enemy units).


Then change the scenario to your liking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2
Also for some strange reason foot infantry can achieve on major roads 60% of daily movement of Pz units.


Yes. Not sure why. Maybe something to do with operational friction. You don't typically drive down the lane like it's holiday time. Have to stop and rest, refuel, sleep. Have to preserve situational awareness. Worry about flanks. Keep contact with other formations. Stuff like that. But it's all assumption on my part. [;)]

On the other hand, if you want to race down the road like a certain German officer maybe you should have that option?



Zovs -> RE: FITE 2 (5/14/2021 12:00:23 PM)

You have to remember that TOAW is primarily a war game construction set. Norm originally created it to be a WW2 operational level construction kit. He expanded in in II and III to cover a century of warfare from 1900 to 2000s. Ralph took over for IV and based on Bob's opinions tried to make it more than what is was originally intended to be and added and expanded it to almost be trying to everything and not achieving that at all.

The TOAW system's sweet spot (and what it was originally designed for) is roughly 2 to 10 km per hex, 1 day to 1/2 week turns and battalion to regimental level operational combat with ranged artillery.

Due to thousands of amateurs game designers pushing the system and with the expansions of IV there is now thousands of scenarios out there from platoon level to army level from 0.25 km to 50 km from 1 hour turns to seasonal turns.

What that all means is that the TOAW system is primarily a war game construction set and not a specialized war game system so it will always lack specific things such as production, strategic political rules and specific time period items.

To play games that have those missing or items one has to go to other game systems. For example any Civil War or Napoleonic game systems are much better covered for example by the John Tiller games for those two eras and not TOAW. Likewise for highly detailed, historical and fun recreation of both the ETO and MTO in 1943-45 and the Eastern Front 1941-1945 your better off with War in the West and War in the East II. Also for production, political and divisional level combat in Europe I still stand by Decisions Games Computer War in Europe II. For tactical games (squad and or platoon level) your best best is the Steel Panthers (Shrapnel) series and the Campaign Series (JTS) and for modern tactical MBT (shrapnel). And lastly for modern combat operational combat I think the best out there is Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm Rising and Germany Reforged.

TOAW can't (and should not) try to compete with the more specialized gaming systems, it was never intended for that. What it was designed for it does best WW2 battalion to regimental combat from 1 day to 1/2 week at 2.5 to 10 km per hex type of warfare.



golden delicious -> RE: FITE 2 (5/14/2021 12:25:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

You have to remember that TOAW is primarily a war game construction set. Norm originally created it to be a WW2 operational level construction kit. He expanded in in II and III to cover a century of warfare from 1900 to 2000s.


Norm was involved in COW but not TOAW III.

Anyway, you make a good summary. It's human nature to use things other than the purpose for which they were intended; it's what got us where we are today. Who hasn't used their house keys to cut open the tape on a package, or used a screwdriver to pull a staple out of wood?

However, while there's absolutely no problem in going off the map like this, what is problematic is when 1) you call up the key manufacturer and suggest it really needs a sharper edge to cut the tape more easily and even worse 2) the key manufacturer enthusiastically agrees



Lobster -> RE: FITE 2 (5/14/2021 1:17:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
2) the key manufacturer enthusiastically agrees


[:D] Amen.



Teufeldk -> RE: FITE 2 (5/19/2021 12:25:45 PM)

I would just like to announce that FITE 2.0 probably is not seeing the light of day any time soon. Søren is very busy atm., so we cant really get it done. It will be made at some point though.

Just if anybody was sitting around waiting for it.

All the best
Kristian



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 8 [9]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875