Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/24/2009 2:50:28 PM   
Shazman

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 1/4/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

On another issue which bothered me also in FitE etc - the Mud Season's cease fire. I see no reason for a imo totally unrealistic if not surrealistic cease fire as enough design tools exist to simulate the effects:

- drastically reducing the supply radius (the german more than the soviet)
- reducing force supply (the german more than the soviet)
- a slight shock, in 41 this would mean the Germans go down to 105, later in the war then below 100, let's say -10%. The soviet side too, but less drastically.
- force pestilence, maybe 1 or 2%
- maybe fix the german supply units by a formation orders event
- additionally a random begining and end of the mud season to prevent any gameyness

Any thoughts or comments about this?


Yeah. Operations actually did cease during the Rasputitsa on both sides. So it's not unrealistic nor surreal, simply historic.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 301
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/24/2009 5:18:18 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

On another issue which bothered me also in FitE etc - the Mud Season's cease fire. I see no reason for a imo totally unrealistic if not surrealistic cease fire as enough design tools exist to simulate the effects:

- drastically reducing the supply radius (the german more than the soviet)
- reducing force supply (the german more than the soviet)
- a slight shock, in 41 this would mean the Germans go down to 105, later in the war then below 100, let's say -10%. The soviet side too, but less drastically.
- force pestilence, maybe 1 or 2%
- maybe fix the german supply units by a formation orders event
- additionally a random begining and end of the mud season to prevent any gameyness

Any thoughts or comments about this?


Yeah. Operations actually did cease during the Rasputitsa on both sides. So it's not unrealistic nor surreal, simply historic.



No - there were operations and movement. On 12 october Kaluga fell to XIII Korps while XII Corps reached the Oka river. These two Infantry Korps advanced between 70 - 80 km in five days. Rzhev fell to the Third Panzer Army on 13 October. One day later Kalinin fell to 1st Panzer Divison having advanced 75 km in five days. Soviet forces in that area were fleeing in disarray with the German Infantry on their heels. The second half of October saw SS Das Reich attack towards Borodino... all examples from Typhoon..

There was Mud - there were terrible road conditions, but not everywhere and not at the same time.

From 7-13 October the first snow fell, but in the southern area of Operation Typhoon where Guderian was operating. 9th Army operations further north were not affected. Rain from 27 October to 3 November generated more mud, also a rainy period in late November. But the effects were localized and never along the entire front or Hinterland at once.
The reason why the Soviets didn't execute operations during this period might be the staggering defeats they suffered during the first phase of Typhoon..

quote:

Um, all of these are in effect except for pestilence. And rather than mess with pestilence, we are most likely going to do away with cease-fires. Elmer doesn't handle them well, and humans handle them too well.


Good to know. Maybe add some storm events which will make the terrain muddier over time. Works fine in my Anzio scenario, the effect comes over time.
Pestilence is not a must, rather some kind of mechanical attrition would be desired which is essentially the same as pestilence but only affects motor vehicles. I once suggested this to Ralph and James and it's also on the community wishlist, maybe we'll see it in a future patch or version.

< Message edited by Telumar -- 2/24/2009 5:31:18 PM >

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to Shazman)
Post #: 302
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/24/2009 5:52:55 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Maybe add some storm events which will make the terrain muddier over time.


We have storms, too. Although I haven't seen where it will slow you down to a couple kilometers a day. It looks like it just adds a couple movement points to each hex. Maybe the wish list also has something about changing the movement bias by event. That might work.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 303
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/24/2009 8:20:33 PM   
Shazman

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 1/4/2009
Status: offline 		I could give example after example where operations were suspended because of the mud. In February 43 the Soviets were hoping for mud and the Germans were hoping for continured freeze so they could retake Kharkov. Mud was could and did make operations extremely difficult if not impossible. Otherwise why would one side hope for it and the other against it? It was a definate factor in East Front operations. It should be modeled in any East Front game as much as the snow is.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 304
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/25/2009 6:34:45 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

I could give example after example where operations were suspended because of the mud. In February 43 the Soviets were hoping for mud and the Germans were hoping for continured freeze so they could retake Kharkov. Mud was could and did make operations extremely difficult if not impossible. Otherwise why would one side hope for it and the other against it? It was a definate factor in East Front operations. It should be modeled in any East Front game as much as the snow is.


Yes it should be modeled. But not with a cease fire.

sPzAbt is right. Elmer can't handle such a situation anyway.

< Message edited by Telumar -- 2/25/2009 6:37:11 AM >

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to Shazman)
Post #: 305
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/25/2009 5:11:35 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Hey Mr. Fulkerson, I tried the same thing but I can't get ashore, Elmer has it too heavily defended!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 306
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/26/2009 12:30:45 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Try to sink that BB with your stack. nah.

friends don't let friends do things like that.


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 307
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/26/2009 3:15:25 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 6668
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline 		Interesting. Sorry for not reading through all 11 pages of notes. But when is Directive 21 expected to be released?

Also where might it be released at?

Just interested thank you.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 308
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/26/2009 9:27:55 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		I'd like to get as much playtesting in as possible in order to see that Elmer has as few holes in his operations as possible. For now, it's available at Mr. Fulkerson's download page, or I will send it to anyone that sends me an e-mail. If you are waiting for something that is 'finalised', I'd say that I have no idea when or where that will happen. If you don't mind playing a scenario that will most likely not be the same as what is finally 'released', then you can join the playtesting.

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 309
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/26/2009 10:15:14 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 6668
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline 		Thank you got the files. Will begin a solo play test soon.

Do I just post results back here?

Thanks and best regards~

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 310
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/26/2009 11:21:50 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Whatever suites you. Post here or send an e-mail. Please don't PM, they are annoying. Thanks!

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 311
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/27/2009 2:41:37 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		I've been messing around with the Poland 1939 scenario and I came across something interesting that might be useful in Directive 21.

This workaround has been used before, but I've forgotten much TOAW lore that I'm re-remembering. Anyway, in that scenario (which also uses 10km hexes and 1/2-week turns) the independent battalions are all represented by the ** squad symbol instead of the II battalion symbol. On the computer screen both symbols are similar in appearance (the squad symbol looks a little smaller but can easily be identified as a battalion if desired).

The cool thing about this is that the squads cannot be divided. Thus, in Directive 21 terms, if squad symbols are used for independent battalions (like the Brandenburger commando battalions), then they can't be further divided into even tinier ants. Something to think about.

[As an aside, I think that the castration of the Brandenburger commando battalions in the latest version of Directive 21 is an extremely poor decision. I'd rather see them as they should be (as real battalions instead of as silly 40-man platoons, which is what 10 recon rifle teams amount to) and use the squad symbol instead of the battalion symbol so they can't divide.]

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 312
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/27/2009 3:56:41 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
On the computer screen both symbols are similar in appearance (the squad symbol looks a little smaller but can easily be identified as a battalion if desired).


Ben edited the "Numbers.bmp" file so that they are identical in appearance. That's a necessary step in this trick.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 313
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/27/2009 6:43:37 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
On the computer screen both symbols are similar in appearance (the squad symbol looks a little smaller but can easily be identified as a battalion if desired).


Ben edited the "Numbers.bmp" file so that they are identical in appearance. That's a necessary step in this trick.


Where can I get that edited Numbers.bmp file?


_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 314
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/27/2009 6:57:44 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
On the computer screen both symbols are similar in appearance (the squad symbol looks a little smaller but can easily be identified as a battalion if desired).


Ben edited the "Numbers.bmp" file so that they are identical in appearance. That's a necessary step in this trick.


Where can I get that edited Numbers.bmp file?



In that scenario's graphic folder.

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 315
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/27/2009 8:15:03 PM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		FYI I found hte suggestion for limiting amphibs by sea zones from Zorts mod -

quote:

Sov's - max 1000 in Arctic, 2000 in Baltic, 2000 in Balck sea (total 5000).  Baltic reduces 1000 with loss of Riga, 1000 with loss of Tallinin (events reduce total by 2000)

Black Sea - 2000 reduces by 500 with loss of Odessa, 1000 with loss of Sevastopol, 500 with loss of a port who's name I don't recall - half way from Novorossisk to Turkey where the Fleet ended up being based after Novorossisk fell.

Arctic - 1000, 500 each Murmansk and Archangel.

Axis - 0 in the arctic.  dunno how much in the Baltic, but 500 in the Black Sea, increasing 500 when Sevastopol is captured and lose it again when recaptured, and lose 500 for Odessa also on the basis that they don't need it after that.


IIRC the only hassle is that TOAW doesn't allow for separate totals for each sea zone, so keeping the individual allocations had to be voluntary

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 2/27/2009 8:19:24 PM >

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 316
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/27/2009 8:37:35 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		I only posted the picture of Archangel to show that things like this won't happen in D21. There shouldn't be much amphibious movement at all. If anybody pulls something off, let us know and we'll look into it.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 317
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/27/2009 8:40:12 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		The Brandenburgers already have the squad symbol, and they represent the small detachments that infiltrated thru or dropped behind the Soviet lines. 10 squads is good in representing them.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 318
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/27/2009 11:49:18 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The Brandenburgers already have the squad symbol, and they represent the small detachments that infiltrated thru or dropped behind the Soviet lines. 10 squads is good in representing them.


At the start of Operation Barbarossa, the Lehr-Regiment Brandenburg z.b.V 800 consisted of 23 companies organized into 4 (perhaps 5) battalions of between 4-6 companies per battalion. The combat squads were heavily armed (automatic weapons, satchel charges, etc.) and typically consisted of 3 squads per platoon.

The original Directive 21 was far superior in terms of representing these elite special-forces commandos (evidently the US Navy SEALS have studied Brandenburger organization and tactics as well).

Thus, each Brandenburger battalion in Directive 21 should have somewhere around 36 to 54 heavily-armed commando squads (I'm guessing a mixture of SMG and Assault-Recon, and 45 squads per battalion seems like an historically justifiable number which allows for a platoon/company of heavy weapons to be attached per battalion as well) in addition to the heavy weapons that would be man or jeep transportable (like mortars, machineguns, antitank mines, etc.) that would normally be found at the battalion level.

EDIT: Representing these battalions as sections (the ** symbol instead of the II symbol) is a good idea, I think.


< Message edited by vahauser -- 2/27/2009 11:54:09 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 319
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/28/2009 8:25:57 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		I've spent some hours this weekend thinking about the Brandenburgers on the Eastern Front. A sample 'Generic' Brandenburger battalion is attached below.

The overall concept is to allow rapid infiltration ahead of the rest of the German Army. This is what the Brandenburgers were designed to do (especially to seize airfields, bridges, road junctions, etc.). Historically, they accomplished this usually by speedy overland movement. They did not conduct large airborne operations very often (if at all). Small airdrops on a scale probably not noticeable at the Directive 21 scale were conducted more often, although still pretty rare. Mainly, the Brandenburgers on the Eastern Front operated as fast special-operations ground troops (for example, it was Brandenburgers that raced ahead of von Manstein's 56th Panzer Corps to seize the crucial bridge across the Dvina River in late June, 1941).

Notes pertaining to the attached screenshot:
Proficiency = 90% (befitting some of the most highly-skilled elite troops in the German Army)
27x Recon Rifle Teams (not sure if these teams represent 4 or 10 men, but since they are called 'Teams' by TOAW then I'm guessing 4 men per team)
27x Jeeps (actually, these would be Kuebelwagons, but they are functionally equivalent to jeeps)
9x Assault Squads (these represent the heavy hitters in case stealth and surprise aren't enough to seize the objective. I originally thought about making all the squads/teams into Assault squads/teams, but now I think that that would be misrepresting them by showing them as a heavy combat force when actually they achieved most of their objectives using speed and surprise).
4x HMGs + 6x 50mm Mortars + 2x 81mm Mortars (represent the heavy weapons company)
21x Trucks (fully motorizes the battalion, giving the battalion the maximum speed of 33, which is absolutely historically justifiable)
[Addendum: I would severely limit all Axis airborne operations on the Eastern Front (not just Brandenburgers). After the heavy casualties suffered by 7th Fliegerdivision on Crete, Hitler opposed pretty much all airborne operations. After Crete, German airborne operations basically ceased. This should be reflected in Directive 21.]

Total strength of the battalion is about 400-600 men (depending on how TOAW determines the size of the recon teams).






EDIT: One final note: I would set the 'Replacement Priority' for the Brandenburgers to 'Very Low', which should make replacing these elite troops more difficult if they suffer losses.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by vahauser -- 2/28/2009 8:33:26 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 320
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 3/1/2009 12:20:48 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		The trouble with such an organisation is the effect that it has in TOAW - units like this just swan around behind enemy lines "forever" - never in supply but cutting rail, etc all the way back to the Urals and beyond - Elmer just can't answer them.  Somewhere on this thread I have a picture of one doing that.

So while the organisation my be fine historically it's not reasonable in TOAW vs Elmer.

That is hte reason they were cut back to foot movement a version or 2 ago - to stop human players using them excessively in an unhistorical manner

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 321
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 3/1/2009 12:33:25 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		SMK is correct on all points. And I think I still have to work on impeding the use of some of the other units in ways that hurt Elmer unrealistically. I really like the idea of adding some artillery to the corps HQ's. It slows them down and gives reason to keep them in good shape and in friendly territory. The problem is that with the corps HQ's being independant, you can just load them all up on a certain hex and blast away. Of course, that can be done now, so what's the difference?

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 322
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 3/1/2009 12:41:12 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Turn 160. After having swept the Moscow area clear just 20 turns ago, I didn't expect to have this much trouble so soon. I was holding along the blue line with infantry divisions all in excellent shape, and with a secondary line of Luftwaffe divisions every other hex, interspersed with whatever else could be used. Now I'll have to fall back to the red line and hope that this doesn't continue. If it does, I'll have to call off my offensive in the south and get back to cleaning up this area again.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 323
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 3/1/2009 12:50:38 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

The trouble with such an organisation is the effect that it has in TOAW - units like this just swan around behind enemy lines "forever" - never in supply but cutting rail, etc all the way back to the Urals and beyond - Elmer just can't answer them.  Somewhere on this thread I have a picture of one doing that.

So while the organisation my be fine historically it's not reasonable in TOAW vs Elmer.

That is hte reason they were cut back to foot movement a version or 2 ago - to stop human players using them excessively in an unhistorical manner



Well, then the only way to truly stop this abuse is to eliminate all ants. All Axis battalions and divisional HQs need to be done away with. Further, all Axis regiments should be folded into their divisions so they can't divide into battalions (which are then used as ants). Then, all that will be left are divisions and higher HQs. At that point, the human player will have to divide into regiments (or use Corps/Army HQs), and regiments aren't very good ants.

Seems to me that ants have ruined other games and now they are ruining Directive 21, too. This is not good news.




_____________________________


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 324
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 3/1/2009 5:13:17 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		Now that's using a sledgehammer...cough...to crush an ant!! :)

The Brandenburgers work pretty well with foot movement - each "ant" needs to be assessed in its own right IMO.


< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 3/1/2009 5:14:12 AM >

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 325
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 3/1/2009 12:07:59 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Both gun types have a 2 hex range, though there are equivalent equiptment types with 1 hex range (in the case of of the 105mm one would have to go with the Russian 107mm gun).

I don't think folding Art into Korps HQ's alone will work since IMO you are missing one important factor. You seem to assume that the default state of a German Division will be as one unit. While I haven't played long enough to find out myself, I strongly suspect this will not be the case in the second half of the war. What I think will happen is that after the initial phase is over, splitting up the division into 2-3 subunits will become the norm since this is the only way to deal with the length of frontage and/or construct a defense with any depth. Also the Germans will probably need to do this in 42 already in order to form concentrations IF they go for a southern strategy in 41 (anybody done this yet?). If this is in fact the case, then having heavily reinforced Korps HQ's will not be do much good, since they cant cover enough frontage by themselves.

A possible alternative I see is deleting the Div HQ's, and splitting up the longer ranged Art between the Korps HQ and new artificial Art Br (f.e. 1 independant Art unit for every 3? Divisions). Doesn't reduce the unit count quite as much, but provides the flexibility the Germans IMO need to have a chance in the later part of the game.

I agree that the unit count is (too) high, but IMO this is an inevitable side effect of the chosen hex size and I don't see any solutions that don't have severe side effects.



Okay, Norm gave the 105s a 2-hex range, but operationally they should only have a 1-hex range (they almost never operated more than about 5-6km from the front). And if the 105s are given to the divisions, then at least when the divisions must divide later in the game to cover wider frontages, then the breakdowns will at least have some organic 105s immediately available (and not dependent on other artillery units that might not be locally available).

[As an aside, I'm still bothered about all those security regiments, too. They should be all folded into divisions and required to divide just like the infantry divisions. Further, having those independent security regiments gives the human player a ready source of throw-away battalions to be used in soak-off attacks against strong Soviet positions (in other words, ANTs), which is a serious abuse. Further, giving all those independent security regiments a proficiency superior to German infantry regiments (which are only 64% proficiency when divided from their parent divisions) is just wrong. Please fold all those independent regiments (and most especially those inferior-quality SS infantry "Volksdeutsch" abominations) into their parent divisions.]



I agree about the SEC Regiments.

Re Artillery, I've noticed that the Divisions have 150mm How assigned which just have 1 hex range, this doesn't make much sense. As such one could either follow your suggestion and disburse them to the Divisions directly or else give the Div HQ's 150mm Guns.



(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 326
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 3/1/2009 4:48:09 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Now that's using a sledgehammer...cough...to crush an ant!! :)

The Brandenburgers work pretty well with foot movement - each "ant" needs to be assessed in its own right IMO.



There is no such thing as a harmless ant. They all have a cumulative effect that ruins games.

You say that the current Brandenburgers work okay now? I don't believe that. Their air-transport weight is so low now that players can drop all 5 in a single turn. At least with the TOE I provided above, players couldn't drop more than a couple in a single turn because they have a higher air-transport weight.

And all those panzer recon battalions can still do what you and sPzAbt653 complained about the Brandenburgers doing (namely, running around in the Soviet rear areas while at Red 0% cutting supplies, etc.).

And all those security regiments can be divided into their battalions to be used as throw-away "fort-line" busters.

And all those divisional HQs can pile into a few hexes (it is easy to get 6-12 divisional HQs in range of a single attack hex) to support a single attack. This is an abomination. Divisional artillery was never stripped away from divisions and massed into Grand-Batteries to support a single attack. This is about as opposite from history as it is possible to get. Only Corps and Army artillery should be separate. Divisional artillery should only be allowed to support its own division (plus any other units fighting in the same combat as that division).

Every ant is harmful to the game. And the cumulative effect of all those ants is catastrophic.


_____________________________


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 327
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 3/1/2009 9:54:21 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Feel free to take your bad attitude elsewhere.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 328
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 3/1/2009 11:59:40 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Feel free to take your bad attitude elsewhere.


Let me try a different approach. What would you like me to do to make your scenario batter?

EDIT: Or let me rephrase. What kind of attitude constitutes a "good attitude" in your opinion? I honestly want your scenario to be the best it can be.

< Message edited by vahauser -- 3/2/2009 12:07:36 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 329
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 3/2/2009 6:17:30 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		You can't airdrop the pz division recon units behind the soviet lines and then have them motorised move to Japan!

Are you aware that three's a 10 hex "house rule" for Airdrops?  No more than 10 hexes from the nearest axis unit - this plus the limits of foot movement make the Brandenburgers work well - and I see no reason why all the units can't be dropped in a singel turn either.

from your comments are you actually playing the game?  If not then I suggest you need to before you can make judgements like this.

And I'll repreat - there's no need to change the Brandenburgers because OTHER units are a problem

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 330
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.906