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

 
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 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Directive 21 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Directive 21 - 10/25/2008 9:09:44 AM   
vahauser


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I get about 10% cloud cover even with 'no precipitation.'


I agree. 10% clouds with 'No Precipitation' is about what I've experienced. Trouble is that Russia and the adjacent nations is a HUGE area. There should be little spots of rain in an area that big even in "good weather". Which is why I concluded that 'Occasional Precipitation' is preferable instead of 'No Precipitation'.

It's also true that sometimes when you start on 22 June 41 using 'Occasional Precipitation' you get rain and clouds covering the whole map, which almost never happens when using 'No Precipitation'. But when that happens, I just reload until I get infrequent clouds and rain. It doesn't take more than one or two reloads to get "good weather" when using 'Occasional Precipitation'. And thats acceptable to me.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 61
RE: Directive 21 - 10/27/2008 1:42:24 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 8573
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


Unit Proficiencies : These settings increase as the scenario progresses, so any at start setting really doesn't matter. By turn 100, most units will be up to 100%. We could set them all to 50%, but that would only mean that by turn 200 they would all be at 100%.


? I've never seen anything like that. You can get big jumps the first time a unit enters combat if it starts as 'inexperienced' rather than 'veteran' -- but after that it'll slow down.

This is based on my playing 'Fall Grau' -- which is a very long scenario, if not two hundred turns. No units rose markedly over the course of the scenario -- and certainly none went to 100%. The maximum increase was maybe 10% to about 85-90% -- which caused problems.

Of course, maybe this was changed for OPART III. I hope not.





I found it interesting that in a discussion about Fall Grau on this forum three years ago that you stated 'sure enough, some infantry division had made it to 97%.' This was from a thread titled 'The most frustrating feature of TOAW'. It's possible that I misquoted or took this out of context, but I don't think that is the case. I'm certainly not trying to disrespect you. I'm just defending a statement that I made that I knew to be true, and one that you contradicted.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 62
RE: Directive 21 - 10/27/2008 11:02:05 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


Unit Proficiencies : These settings increase as the scenario progresses, so any at start setting really doesn't matter. By turn 100, most units will be up to 100%. We could set them all to 50%, but that would only mean that by turn 200 they would all be at 100%.


? I've never seen anything like that. You can get big jumps the first time a unit enters combat if it starts as 'inexperienced' rather than 'veteran' -- but after that it'll slow down.

This is based on my playing 'Fall Grau' -- which is a very long scenario, if not two hundred turns. No units rose markedly over the course of the scenario -- and certainly none went to 100%. The maximum increase was maybe 10% to about 85-90% -- which caused problems.

Of course, maybe this was changed for OPART III. I hope not.





I found it interesting that in a discussion about Fall Grau on this forum three years ago that you stated 'sure enough, some infantry division had made it to 97%.' This was from a thread titled 'The most frustrating feature of TOAW'. It's possible that I misquoted or took this out of context, but I don't think that is the case. I'm certainly not trying to disrespect you. I'm just defending a statement that I made that I knew to be true, and one that you contradicted.


Okay -- so one division did make it to 97%.

Those divisions had started at around 85% -- and were set to 'inexperienced.' When units are set to 'inexperienced' they will take a big bounce -- up or down -- when they first enter combat. Like -- say -- from 85% to 97%. In that scenario, one had to learn to 'weed' the stacks and send everyone with high proficiency to a sector where they wouldn't be called upon to make attacks -- at least not low-odds attacks.

What will not happen is that all units will slowly and inevitably work their way up from 70% or whatever to 100% or anything like it. Never seen anything like that. If it had happened in Fall Grau, the scenario would have been unplayable.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 10/27/2008 11:05:44 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 63
RE: Directive 21 - 10/28/2008 2:28:08 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
My concern over the whole 'larger issue' of unit proficiencies is not where the unit will end up proficiency wise, but where the units begins.  I don't think many players are going to complete all 405 turns of Directive 21.  I think that most players will start a new game if they haven't defeated the PO by 1942 (or 1943 at the latest).

So, the most important consideration is the unit's starting proficiency.  And I stand by what I posted earlier in this thread: a large number of German units are overrated proficiency-wise when they enter play.



_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 64
RE: Directive 21 - 10/28/2008 5:38:11 PM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
Just an update on my testing. I also ran into the same problem as Larry with my RR units. I moved one of them too close to the front line and a lone Russian armor unit came along and forced him to disembark and retreat. I was forced to disband the unit as there's no point in leaving him there. Cheers!

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 65
RE: Directive 21 - 10/31/2008 2:19:20 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
Here is the next of my 'larger issues': The Waffen SS

The myth of the Waffen-SS has not diminished over the decades. And even though a handful of Waffen-SS formations proved to be capable of front-line combat, the majority were not. I believe that every single Waffen-SS formation in Directive 21 is erroneous, some very badly.

In addition, I recommend the following house rule regarding the Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front in Directive 21.
House Rule for Waffen-SS: All Waffen-SS units must be set to ‘Ignore Losses’ at all times.

1. SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler
Slightly overrated in Directive 21, I believe that LSSAH should have an 85% proficiency in its various versions instead of 90%.

2. SS Division Das Reich
Slightly overrated in Directive 21, I believe that DR should have an 85% proficiency in its various versions instead of 90%.

3. SS Division Totenkopf
Significantly overrated in Directive 21, I believe that TK should start the game at 75% proficiency since its officers and men were not fully combat-ready in June, 1941 (and, thus, inferior to the standard Wehrmacht combat unit in 1941). 80% in 1942, and 85% in 1943-45 seems about right. Hard to say whether the division should be ‘veteran’ or ‘untried’ at start in 1941. 75% ‘veteran’ seems best.

4. SS Division Polizei
Badly overrated in Directive 21, POL didn’t even gain an SS designation until 1942. Mainly used as occupation/anti-partisan troops (although it did see some front-line combat in 1941-42), this division is roughly equivalent to a Wehrmacht security division in terms of combat ability. I recommend a 70% initial proficiency (untried).

5. SS Division Wiking
Overrated in Directive 21, I recommend a starting proficiency of 80% in 1941, and 85% in 1942-45.

6. SS Division Nord
Perhaps the only Waffen-SS actually underrated in Directive 21, I recommend a starting proficiency of 70% (untried) in 1941, 75%-80% (veteran) in 1942-45.

7. SS Division Prinz Eugen
Badly overrated in Directive 21. Formed from a variety of ‘ethnic Germans’, it was used exclusively as occupation/anti-partisan troops. This division is roughly equivalent to a Wehrmacht security division in terms of combat ability. I recommend 70% proficiency (untried).

8. SS Division Florian Geyer
Significantly overrated in Directive 21, I believe that FG was inferior to the Wehrmacht’s 1st Kavalrie Division. I recommend 75% proficiency.

9. SS Division Hohenstaufen
Formed from conscripts, I don’t think HS is represented in Directive 21 at all even though it did fight on the Eastern Front (its first combat was at Tarnopol in April, 1944). I recommend 75% proficiency (untried).

10. SS Division Frundsberg
A nearly identical lineage with the 9th SS Division. Formed from conscripts, I don’t think FB is represented in Directive 21 even though it did fight on the Eastern Front (its first combat was at Tarnopol, alongside 9 SS Division, in April, 1944). I recommend 75% proficiency (untried).

11. SS Division Nordland
Formed from Scandinavians and ‘ethnic Germans’, I don’t think NL is represented in Directive 21 even though it did fight extensively on the Eastern Front (mainly with Army Group North). I recommend 75% proficiency (untried).

14. SS Division Ukrainische Nr. 1
Horribly overrated in Directive 21. Formed from Ukrainian volunteers, the unit was nearly wiped out the first time it faced the Soviets. After that, the remnants fought against partisans the rest of the war. I recommend 60% proficiency (untried).

15. SS Division Lettische Nr. 1
Badly overrated in Directive 21. Formed from Latvian volunteers. Roughly equivalent to the 14th SS Division. I recommend 60% proficiency (untried).

18. SS Division Horst Wessel
Formed from Hungarian ‘ethnic Germans’, I don’t think HW is represented in Directive 21 even though it did fight against the Soviets in Hungary in 1944-45. Roughly equivalent to the 14th and 15th SS Divisions. I recommend 60% proficiency (untried).

19. SS Division Lettische Nr. 2
Badly overrated in Directive 21. Formed from Latvian volunteers. Roughly equivalent to the 15th SS Division. I recommend 60% proficiency (untried).

20. SS Division Estnische Nr. 1
Badly overrated in Directive 21. Formed from Estonian volunteers. Roughly equivalent to the 15th SS Division. I recommend 60% proficiency (untried).

22. SS Division Maria Theresa
Badly overrated in Directive 21. Formed from Hungarian ‘ethnic Germans’ and originally drafted by the Hungarian Army (later transferred to the Waffen SS). Slightly inferior to the 8th SS Division (which contributed a cavalry regiment). I recommend 70% proficiency (untried).

29. SS Division RONA
Horribly overrated in Directive 21. Formed from Russian volunteers. Nothing more than an armed mob. One of the most infamous and criminal of all Nazi formations. Here is a quote from history: when Bunyachenko saw the men from RONA he shouted to the German liaison officer: "So that's what you're giving me, bandits, robbers and thieves! You'll let me have what you can no longer use!".
I recommend 55% proficiency (untried).

1. SS Brigade
Significantly overrated in Directive 21. This brigade is also misrepresented in Directive 21: the brigade was fully motorized and had no wagons. The brigade was also not fully formed or combat ready in June 1941. Spent most of its time in the rear fighting partisans. I recommend 70% proficiency (untried).

2. SS Brigade
Significantly overrated in Directive 21. This brigade is also misrepresented in Directive 21: the brigade was fully motorized and had no wagons. This brigade is roughly equivalent to 1st SS Brigade. Spent most of its time in the rear fighting partisans. I recommend 70% proficiency (untried).








_____________________________


(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 66
RE: Directive 21 - 10/31/2008 4:38:26 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
Comments on Vahauser's comments.  Not that I'd say I know enough to differ with any great authority.

I think he underrates SS Leibstandarte, which really was an excellent formation -- by 1941 as good as any in the Wehrmacht, if not better.

Totenkopf probably should be rated about the Heer average.  Manstein admitted that it already could achieve the same results as a Wehrmacht formation in 1941 -- albeit with higher losses.  Since an army officer writing after the war would hardly go out of his way to heap undeserved laurels on an SS formation, I find in this reason to assign whatever the standard value would be.  After all, after 1941, Totenkopf presumably improved.

SS Nord.  Totally unready and unequipped, this formation was sent into action at Himmler's insistence.  It broke and fled; some personnel turning up 80 miles in the rear.  30%?

SS Prinz Eugen.  Admittedly primarily an antipartisan unit and never very well equipped, it was nevertheless pretty formidable.  Fighting Tito wasn't exactly soft duty -- and I believe the division performed creditably when it faced the Red Army.

As a side note, proficiency doesn't directly equate to combat ability. If you want to significantly differentiate between units, you'll need a bigger range than between 70 and 85. Like maybe 50-85.




< Message edited by ColinWright -- 10/31/2008 4:44:53 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 67
RE: Directive 21 - 10/31/2008 7:06:36 AM   
vahauser


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

I realize that proficiency does not directly equate with combat ability, but it's pretty close. 

I expected that my proficiency recommendations would meet with some objections. 

However, the most important recommendation was my proposed House Rule requiring all SS units to be set to 'Ignore Losses'.  I figured that this would be the recommendation most objected to.

Anyway, on to specifics.

Nord.  Yeah it didn't perform well the very first time it went into combat (understatement).  However, the Americans at Kasserine broke and fled, too.  Yet, the Americans turned out okay.  Nord turned out okay, too.  The current Directive 21 rating is 60% (untried).  As poor as Nord was initially, it was not as bad overall as the late-war SS formations (which I recommend 60% (untried)).  Also, Nord was only a 'Kampfgruppe' at first, so the entire division did not suffer that initial ignominy, only a kampfgruppe did.  One possibility would be to completely revise Nord in Directive 21, providing only a Kampfgruppe in June, 1941 (as 60% untried), and then bring in the whole division in 1942 (as 70% (veteran)).  I thought it would be easier to simply let the division be a division as it currently starts in Directive 21 (mainly because if we start to go down this road with Nord, there are many units in Directive 21 that could equally qualify for substantial revision).  I recommended 70% (untried) as a compromise to avoid additional complications to Directive 21, and I still stand by that. 

Leibstandarte.  Leibstandarte was never the best division in the German Armed Forces.  It was one of the most notorius and well-known and well-equipped, though.  This division, more than any other, has perpetuated the SS Myth.  I’ve stated my view in a previous post in this thread, that only three divisions should receive a 90% proficiency (Panzer Lehr, Grossdeutschland, and 7th Flieger/1st Fallschirmjager).  [As an aside, I don’t think any Allied/Soviet divisions deserve a 90% rating (mainly due to their leaders), with the single possible exception of British 1st Airborne (which I would still probably rate as 85%).] The main reason that I oppose the 90% proficiency for any SS formation is due to their officers, who were chosen as much for their political reliability as for their combat ability (think Sepp Deitrich).  The officers who commanded the best Wehrmacht divisions were superior in combat ability (EDIT: Think Rommel commanding 7th Panzer, or Bayerlein commanding Panzer Lehr, or von Manteuffel commanding Grossdeutschland).  The best of the Wehrmacht was better than the best of the SS.  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that.  None.  Since 85% is better than the vast majority of all units in Directive 21, then I recommended 85%.  However, if you want to raise that to 86%-87% for LSSAH and DR, I would still complain, but not too much.

Prinz Eugen.  Fighting partisans in Yugoslavia was not easy, but it was easier than facing the Red Army in front-line combat.  You know that.  I cannot in good conscience recommend rating any anti-partisan unit better than a Wehrmacht security division.  And Wehrmacht security divisions are 70% in Directive 21.

Totenkopf.  The same applies here as with LSSAH and DR.  It should be remembered that if TK could obtain about the same results as a standard Wehrmacht division in 1941, that TK was more lavishly equipped and supplied.  Thus, if equipped and supplied by normal Wehrmacht standards, then TK is slightly inferior in combat effectiveness to a standard Wehrmacht division. Hence, my recommended 75% proficiency.  My proposed house rule pertaining to ‘Ignore Losses’ takes care of Manstein’s observation of higher losses by the SS on the Eastern Front (and this is corroborated by Guderian’s observations of DR).
 


< Message edited by vahauser -- 10/31/2008 7:13:41 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 68
RE: Directive 21 - 10/31/2008 4:57:10 PM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
I have been reading the posts here with interest. The whole point of this thread is to improve game play. While we can talk about various units and their abilities during testing, there will be many more issues that will come up after one or more players have finished game play. I think we should wait and see. Remember that the scenario designers are trying to give units the best abilities/ratings in the game to reflect positive action/results (i.e. quick advances) not what they actually were in real life. Different topics. Let's wait and see how these units hold up at the end of the scenario and then hammer home issues like how good they really should be.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 69
RE: Directive 21 - 10/31/2008 5:47:45 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

I realize that proficiency does not directly equate with combat ability, but it's pretty close. 



I think you're missing my point. Proficiency is only one of the elements that operate as a multiplier on combat strength. In other words, a unit with 60% proficiency is something like 95% as good as a unit with 80% proficiency, all other things being equal.

So if you want to differentiate significantly between 1941 German infantry and 1943 Italian infantry, you need to either (a) considerably widen how much you vary proficiency, or (b) cast your net over a larger area. Look at formation proficiency settings, equipment, supply proficiency etc. Setting one division at 65% and another at 75% but doing nothing else essentially says they're about the same.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 70
RE: Directive 21 - 10/31/2008 5:52:51 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,One possibility would be to completely revise Nord in Directive 21, providing only a Kampfgruppe in June, 1941 (as 60% untried), and then bring in the whole division in 1942 (as 70% (veteran)).


There you are. If you want the initial Nord to perform especially badly, either (a) you're going to need to give it a lot of passive equipment rather than rifle squads, or (b) you're going to need to hack that proficiency to a lot lower than 60%. I wasn't being facetious when I suggested 30%. A 60% proficiency unit is a perfectly competent combat unit. You might think about setting it to 'ignore losses' rather than 'limit losses' if you want it to press home an attack, but otherwise it's giving you 9/10's of what the best German infantry division will.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 71
RE: Directive 21 - 10/31/2008 5:57:18 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman

Remember that the scenario designers are trying to give units the best abilities/ratings in the game to reflect positive action/results (i.e. quick advances) not what they actually were in real life.


Philosophically, I've gotta disagree with that. If one just tries to brute-force historical results by adjusting unit power, you're probably missing what the real variables were, and you'll wind up simulating nothing much at all. See the disc 'France 1940' for a good example of that.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 72
RE: Directive 21 - 10/31/2008 6:08:02 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser


Prinz Eugen.  Fighting partisans in Yugoslavia was not easy, but it was easier than facing the Red Army in front-line combat.  You know that.



I can't resist pointing out that actually, I don't know that. Too young to take part in either campaign.

However, Prinz Eugen did establish a formidable record, and the fighting against the partisans certainly wasn't easy. Particularly in 1943-44, they were often at least as well equipped as Prinz Eugen, their advantages extending even to British air support from squadrons based along the Dalmatian coast. I suspect you may be too casually dismissing what was involved.

It is perhaps significant that the Germans regularly had to send first-line combat formations to Yugoslavia. It wasn't soft duty -- and your usual security divisions weren't up to it. As far as proficiency goes, I'd be inclined to set Prinz Eugen at whatever the Wehrmacht standard is.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 73
RE: Directive 21 - 10/31/2008 6:29:53 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

...I cannot in good conscience recommend rating any anti-partisan unit better than a Wehrmacht security division.  And Wehrmacht security divisions are 70% in Directive 21...


Looking at this again suggests I may be straining at a gnat and swallowing a log.

I can't see why Wehrmacht security divisions should be 70% in the first place -- and do they have regular rifle or light rifle squads? While I imagine they could defend themselves adequately, I doubt if they had the training -- much less the equipment -- to mount an attack against serious opposition.

I'd be inclined to suggest 50% and 'light rifle' rather than 'rifle squads.' Security units were often thrown into the breach to stem the Red Tide -- and sometimes performed adequately. However, no one ever suggested lining them up at Kursk and turning them loose as assault formations.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 74
RE: Directive 21 - 10/31/2008 8:01:46 PM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 75
RE: Directive 21 - 10/31/2008 9:50:21 PM   
vahauser


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,One possibility would be to completely revise Nord in Directive 21, providing only a Kampfgruppe in June, 1941 (as 60% untried), and then bring in the whole division in 1942 (as 70% (veteran)).


There you are. If you want the initial Nord to perform especially badly, either (a) you're going to need to give it a lot of passive equipment rather than rifle squads, or (b) you're going to need to hack that proficiency to a lot lower than 60%. I wasn't being facetious when I suggested 30%. A 60% proficiency unit is a perfectly competent combat unit. You might think about setting it to 'ignore losses' rather than 'limit losses' if you want it to press home an attack, but otherwise it's giving you 9/10's of what the best German infantry division will.



Colin,

What you are talking about is akin to proposing that Directive 21 scrap its existing proficiencies and start over from scratch. It's clear from your posts that you also believe (as I do) that proficiencies in Directive 21 is one of the 'larger issues'. We seem to differ in our approach to the issue, though.

I favor 'tweaking' and you seem to favor 'wholesale revision'.

Further, Directive 21 is based primarily on 'generic units'. Most units in Directive 21 are simply cut-and-paste copies of each other. Here again, you seem to want to scrap all of that in favor of unique units that are individually 'customized'. This is a very slippery slope that can lead to the very sort of nit-pickery that you and I are going through with Nord and Prinz Eugen. Here again, I favor tweaks and you favor reweaving the tapestry.

The suggestions you are making, in terms of completely re-working the foundations upon which Directive 21 is based, might take decades for a project this big. No thanks. I want to be able to play the damned thing sometime before I die.

And if that means making some 'generic compromises' (like Nord) along the way, then okay I can live with that.

All of my proposals and 'larger issues' are made within the existing framework of Directive 21. I do not want to scrap that exisiting framework and start all over again.

The existing framework sets German security troops to 70% and German standard combat units at 80%. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. All I'm saying is that's the way it is. It is what it is and I can live with it (regardless of whether I think its correct or not).

And within that framework, Nord should not be set lower than 70% and Prinz Eugen should not be set higher than 70%. Within the existing framework. To do otherwise would start to unravel the existing framework, which is not what I want to see happen.

The whole reason I brought up the 'larger issues' of unit proficiencies and the Waffen SS in the first place is because there are irregularities that don't fit the existing framework and I wanted to at least achieve consistency (namely, if we are going to have a framework, then let's be consistent that everything fits within that framework). But I don't want to scrap the framework and start over. I just want to make everything consistent and fit within it.


_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 76
RE: Directive 21 - 11/1/2008 2:04:42 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/1/2008 2:15:51 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 77
RE: Directive 21 - 11/1/2008 4:18:17 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 8573
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
On the Waffen SS units:

The 9th and 10th were only on the east front for a short time in 1944 before being trasferred to the west. I didn't see the point in putting the player thru their arrival, movement to the front, and placement in the front, only to have them withdraw in two turns. Similarly in 1945, when they would arrive for about the last 20 turns. Nothing wrong with it though, we've got room to place them there.

Some of the other units also played minor roles in the actual combat late in the scenario, typically under strength to the point of being very minor, but if anyone has information concerning a unit that they think should be included, it can be taken into consideration.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 78
RE: Directive 21 - 11/1/2008 11:39:51 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4755
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

On hand 22 June 1941:  13,118 wagons, 44,552 trucks, 9,360 halftracks.


Holy crap. As I recall, the Germans only had a handful of halftracked APCs in service at this point. Something like one company in three for the schutzen regiments of the panzer divisions- and none for anybody else.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 79
RE: Directive 21 - 11/1/2008 11:58:55 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4755
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As a side note, proficiency doesn't directly equate to combat ability. If you want to significantly differentiate between units, you'll need a bigger range than between 70 and 85. Like maybe 50-85.


My thought as well. Units at 80+ can stay where they are. For the rest, double the gap between their current proficiency and 80%. Consider moving some of the more recently formed of the combat infantry divisions to 75 to make things more interesting.

Also, don't use untried. A unit might very well be untried, but in TOAW you will end up with some rear area division jumping to 80% proficiency on random chance. Not the effect you intend.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 80
RE: Directive 21 - 11/2/2008 12:04:03 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4755
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Further, Directive 21 is based primarily on 'generic units'. Most units in Directive 21 are simply cut-and-paste copies of each other. Here again, you seem to want to scrap all of that in favor of unique units that are individually 'customized'. This is a very slippery slope that can lead to the very sort of nit-pickery that you and I are going through with Nord and Prinz Eugen. Here again, I favor tweaks and you favor reweaving the tapestry.


You can start with generic units and get a working scenario. Once you've got that, what's the harm in refining some of the smaller details, so long as it doesn't obscure the big picture.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 81
RE: Directive 21 - 11/2/2008 1:20:31 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


Also, don't use untried. A unit might very well be untried, but in TOAW you will end up with some rear area division jumping to 80% proficiency on random chance. Not the effect you intend.


Yeah -- although the setting has its uses. Like with the Home Guard in Seelowe. The odd one popping up at 64% is just what I want.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/3/2008 6:43:41 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 82
RE: Directive 21 - 11/2/2008 2:58:47 AM   
vahauser


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

You can start with generic units and get a working scenario. Once you've got that, what's the harm in refining some of the smaller details, so long as it doesn't obscure the big picture.


The devil is in the details. Here is my suggestion: You and Colin join the Directive 21 development team (if the current team has no objections). And I'll stay on as a playtester. How does that sound?


_____________________________


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 83
RE: Directive 21 - 11/2/2008 11:35:15 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4755
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

The devil is in the details. Here is my suggestion: You and Colin join the Directive 21 development team (if the current team has no objections). And I'll stay on as a playtester. How does that sound?


Sounds awful. I much prefer pontificating and throwing rocks from afar than actually doing constructive work on a scenario.

To be honest, it's not my area of expertise. I can't really say all that much specific to the Eastern Front, only make notes on scenario design in general.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 84
RE: Directive 21 - 11/3/2008 3:29:18 PM   
vahauser


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

The devil is in the details. Here is my suggestion: You and Colin join the Directive 21 development team (if the current team has no objections). And I'll stay on as a playtester. How does that sound?


Sounds awful. I much prefer pontificating and throwing rocks from afar than actually doing constructive work on a scenario.

To be honest, it's not my area of expertise. I can't really say all that much specific to the Eastern Front, only make notes on scenario design in general.


Well, here is the problem as I see it. You and Colin have both suggested some rather drastic revisions to Directive 21. But the trouble is that the current Directive 21 development team is not very large (2 people?). And if drastic changes are worth making, then the development team needs to be larger. And since you and Colin understand best what changes you and Colin want to see in Directive 21, then it stands to reason that you and Colin are the best candidates to add to the development team.

As it stands now, suggestions of drastic changes cannot be implemented (within a reasonable time frame) given the current size of the Directive 21 development team. Thus, suggestions for drastic changes probably cannot be practically implemented unless the size of the development team is increased to handle the increased workload.

This is why I haven't been suggesting anything drastic in regards to Directive 21, because I knew that such suggestions could not be practically implemented by the current development team without driving them insane.

And that's why I'd like to see you and Colin join the Directive 21 development team (if that is acceptable to the current development team).


_____________________________


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 85
RE: Directive 21 - 11/3/2008 6:46:17 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser


And that's why I'd like to see you and Colin join the Directive 21 development team (if that is acceptable to the current development team).



No time. However, you can certainly count on me to comment on anything I see posted. In any case, I'm very suspicious of the 'development team' concept when it comes to scenario development.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/3/2008 6:54:09 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 86
RE: Directive 21 - 11/3/2008 8:22:37 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4755
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

No time. However, you can certainly count on me to comment on anything I see posted. In any case, I'm very suspicious of the 'development team' concept when it comes to scenario development.


Quite. Tends to lead to raging arguments, logical inconsistencies and design compromises. You'd probably find that Colin and I disagree with a lot of the fundamental ideas of the existing team- and with each other. We'd have a tremendous whirlwind of an argument in lieu of actually designing anything.

So I'll keep plodding along with my own projects- whilst helping (read: pummeling) Colin in his playtest for Seelowe.


_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 87
RE: Directive 21 - 11/5/2008 7:14:02 AM   
cesteman


Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline
I feel like I'm reading a story about a marriage gone bad...

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 88
RE: Directive 21 - 11/5/2008 9:15:51 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cesteman

I feel like I'm reading a story about a marriage gone bad...


Dunno about Ben, but I've been an inveterate bachelor in this regard. This isn't to say that on the one hand, I haven't been happy to accept ideas and input from second parties, and that on the other hand, I haven't been happy (vide the current thread) to make comments on what others are doing.

However, the end product is always some one person's baby -- and he alone gets to say what it will or won't do.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 89
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Directive 21 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.191