Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (Full Version)

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



Message


gliz2 -> Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 7:42:29 AM)

There was a thread about the Time Stamps but it got out of hands. So here there will be just questions related to examples from FITE2 that I'm currently playing. Don't care wheter SO feels the game is this or that. I want to know why something did or did not happen.

Q1 TACKLED
At the begining of a Turn an Soviet occupied hex is in contact with 3 adjecent German hexes (so the 3 other adjecent hexes are unoccupied).
After the completion of encirclement the 3 earlier unoccupied hexes are now "owned" by German units but which cannot attack (all MPs exhausted).
Battle is executed and the result is that the Soviet units were anihilated because they could not have withdrawn. However the Soviets could have withdraw as there was a gap in German lines when the battle was concluded.
Without going into the whole battle results and so. Where exactly and when the battle took place? I fail to follow that.
My understanding is since the late arrived Germans were in the end fighting the reatriting Soviets the battle took place in all 4 hexes, right? Or is it random?

Q2 TACKLED
The winter of 1941/42 was one of the most extreme. However this was a weather anomaly as previous winter was also extremely cold. I have played around 20 times through 41/42 and it is always pretty much the same weather. Is this hard coded with the events?

Q3
There is already a thread about Ju-87D anti-shipping capabilities but just to make it clear: the values are 4 or 120, or is it possible to have any value between those two? And if so where is it coded [:(]

Q4
Is it possible that small units when overrun not to leave Battle Stamp?
I mean on 5km scale an overrun Military Police should be "swiped" by armoured regiment (unless strongly dug in).




Teufeldk -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 8:23:11 AM)

Q1:

I hope I understand you correctly.

The battle takes place when the last unit arrives to surround the Russians. That is probably in round 10 since you say they have no movement points left. So the units that are attacking are waiting to start there attack until round 10 when the encirclement is complete.

In the picture, you can see how it looks in the Combat Chart. The examples in you of mine.

The 41st MotGren Reg was ready to attack the Russian in round 3. But in fact, it could not start its attack until 71st MotGren Reg and 1st/5th MG abt. had arrived in round 10 to complete the encirclement. You can see that form the color of their cells. It is dark Grey meaning it is a wasted round. So the combat started in round 10 and lasted 1 round. Meaning that all involved units spent all their MPs in the combat.

To avoid this I would simply have to either not surround the Russians, or surround them with troops that could arrive there in round 3. As you can see in the chart, in 4 of the hexes the surrounding units did, in fact, arrive on round 3 (yellow BLK).
So this so sloppy (or greedy) play on my part.

I hope this makes sense.


Q2:
It is hard coded in FITE2.



[image]local://upfiles/49014/BB8E6502BFE6400C8F3181970F321E16.jpg[/image]




gliz2 -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 9:11:03 AM)

Kristian thanks for the quick reply.

Q1
You got it spot on. I have a follow up question. Even if the unit is not encircled but gets overrun will it get eliminated?
The reason for my question is I have expierenced some strange thing when executing battles. The Battle Planner will show that 9 or 10 rounds will get burned (because of late arriving units) and then after the battles are executed the Rounds get back to 3 or 4 (I once had a case where out of 10 battles 9 were later than the rounds counter reset after battle execution). I'm trying to get the logic behind it.
In my opinion it is not transparent enough. The Battle Planner only takes into account the units actively participating in the battle (so not the one out of MPs) am I correct?

Q2
That's a pitty then :/




Teufeldk -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 9:21:53 AM)

The time remaining of you turn is based on the median of the battles.

So if you have 5 battles that end on round 1,3,3,7,10 respectively then the median is 3, mean that the remaining time for the turn is 70 %. (Note that individual units can have less than 70 % of their movement left. For instance, the units in the example that fought until round 9 and 10 will have 10 % and 0% of their movement left, even though the remaining time for the turn is 70%)

Having high Shock seems to alter this a bit (I have experienced that too), and that could account for your example




gliz2 -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 11:35:37 AM)

Q1
Mediana of battle duration [&:]
I get the concept but not the logic. It's so messed up.
In practice a battle had taken time in future (acocrding to the battle rounds) yet the results are moved to "now". Try to explain it to the a logic-oriented guy[:D]




Teufeldk -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 12:14:48 PM)

Oh, I thought it was the concept that you needed help to understand.

My bad.




gliz2 -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 12:34:28 PM)

It's all good. Just hard to crack it on monster scenarios. It would be neat if the Battle Rounds counter already be showing the mediana.

On the Q2 I have a follow up question. Does the hard coding means that the weather is coded in the Scenario files and can only be changed before starting the game? Or is it possible to change the file in the middle of the game?
Anyhow, probably it would require changes in events.
Bit shame as the old V for Victory had a probability weather tables and not hardcoded ones.




Teufeldk -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 12:44:54 PM)

You can, of course, make the weather more random in TOAW, but you can't change it in mid game. You have to do it before you start.

In FITE2 we just wanted to make sure that the winter 41/42 gets as bad as it did historically. There are clearly both upsides and downsides to this decision (as there is to most decisions), but that is the road we took :)




gliz2 -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 1:41:24 PM)

Kristian any chance you could elaborate on this: "You can make the weather more random". Is there any tutorial on this?
I have just started my Campaign Studies on FITE2 and the lack of random events (like weather or reinforcements) has its downsides (I cannot pretend not to knowing what comes in winter, thus my decision will be influenced by that hard coded weather).

PS. Any chance on coding reinforcements randomly (e.g.they might be available earliest from T-X but no later then T-X plus 10 OR the particular reinforcements might or might not be available randomly-not based on reaching any parameters)? I know you cam make the reinforcements available based on parameters (like caoturing X by setup date).

<side note>
As I've played tons of boardgames I have always expected that at least the same flexibility will be available when they get digitalized. Back then many things were simply decided by roll of dices. So weather, reinforcements or availability of planes was quite random thing. I very much miss that [;)]

Many thanks,
Chris




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 2:38:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Q1
Mediana of battle duration [&:]
I get the concept but not the logic. It's so messed up.
In practice a battle had taken time in future (acocrding to the battle rounds) yet the results are moved to "now". Try to explain it to the a logic-oriented guy[:D]


Have you read this thread?:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4274372




Teufeldk -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 2:46:22 PM)

Some sort of randomness in reinforcement can be coded too.

You are more than welcome to change the weather and reinforcement. But to be honest I don't have time I want to use on such a project. We made the scenario the way we like it. But I totally acknowledge that some people see it differently, and wants other things.

So as I said you are more than welcome to try to make the changes.





Lobster -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 3:02:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

There was a thread about the Time Stamps but it got out of hands. So here there will be just questions related to examples from FITE2 that I'm currently playing. Don't care wheter SO feels the game is this or that. I want to know why something did or did not happen.

Q1 TACKLED
At the begining of a Turn an Soviet occupied hex is in contact with 3 adjecent German hexes (so the 3 other adjecent hexes are unoccupied).
After the completion of encirclement the 3 earlier unoccupied hexes are now "owned" by German units but which cannot attack (all MPs exhausted).
Battle is executed and the result is that the Soviet units were anihilated because they could not have withdrawn. However the Soviets could have withdraw as there was a gap in German lines when the battle was concluded.
Without going into the whole battle results and so. Where exactly and when the battle took place? I fail to follow that.
My understanding is since the late arrived Germans were in the end fighting the reatriting Soviets the battle took place in all 4 hexes, right? Or is it random?



Actually it works this way. If the Soviet unit is initially adjacent to three German units and three more German units occupy the other three hexes adjacent to the Soviet unit expending all of their movement points to do so, those three units are not obligated to take part in the combat. Since three German units began the turn adjacent to the Soviet unit they will likely consume, at the most, 20% of the turn (2 rounds). This being true, the three late arriving units were not there to block the Soviet unit at the time of the combat because it took them all 10 rounds to get there as evidenced by the usage of all of their movement points. Yet there they are. The following rule attempts to account for the late arriving units. It does so poorly in my opinion because not all units are 'ants' and not all units can rbc even an 'ant'. (It has been discussed ad nauseam in several threads.)

13.14.1. RBC Escape from blocked
retreat path

Surrounded defending units that are forced to retreat
from combat and have no other path of retreat will
get to attempt to breakout via RBCing any of the
surrounding enemy units. All qualifying defenders
get to attempt the RBCs until a path is cleared or
all have failed against all blockers. Note that this will
require the use of substantial forces in all possible
paths around the defender if that defender is to be
denied a retreat path. “Ants” won’t work.

If I'm playing a scenario I demand without discussion the 'house' rule that if a unit is completely surrounded by enemy units giving no path of retreat then all attacking units surrounding that unit must take part in the combat. This might sound draconian but I see no other way to square time and space considerations with the situation.

Obviously if you are playing against a programmed opponent this is only 50% effective. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2
Follow up:

Q1
Mediana of battle duration
I get the concept but not the logic. It's so messed up.
In practice a battle had taken time in future (acocrding to the battle rounds) yet the results are moved to "now". Try to explain it to the a logic-oriented guy


When we are talking about time we are not talking about one battle as though it were somehow quarantined from the rest of the map. If one battle takes six rounds and one battle takes two rounds why should every battle on the map be given a cost of six rounds? It defies logic. So to attempt to account for this the longest battle is set to the median of all battles on the map and so all battles on the map are set to this median. Since no battle exists in a vacuum something had to be done. Nothing is perfect. Especially in a game that is a couple of decades old +. [;)]

14. Your Entire Force Movement
Allowances Are Adjusted

After combat, all of your units will have their
remaining Movement Allowances adjusted to
reflect the Median Tactical Round needed to
resolve all Normal Attacks. Note that this omits
bombardments, unless the round only included
bombardments – then the round advances to the
median-length bombardment.
Example: If the Median Tactical Round was
Round 7, all of your units will have their Movement
Allowances limited to no more than 30% [(10-
7)*10%] of their full Movement Allowance.


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Q2 TACKLED
The winter of 1941/42 was one of the most extreme. However this was a weather anomaly as previous winter was also extremely cold. I have played around 20 times through 41/42 and it is always pretty much the same weather. Is this hard coded with the events?



You will have to learn to use the event editor. My sympathies.


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Q4
Is it possible that small units when overrun not to leave Battle Stamp?
I mean on 5km scale an overrun Military Police should be "swiped" by armoured regiment (unless strongly dug in).



This is a time and space situation. A unit could not simply stroll through a hex where a combat is taking place, rbc or not, as though nothing is happening there. A time and space cost must be paid to account for any combat action occurring in a hex. That's what BTS attempt to model, time and space. Everything on the map is supposed to be taking place simultaneously but it's a turn based game. [;)] So, because turn based games present time and space oddities the functions to account for those oddities will never be perfect and will never be able to exactly mirror real world time and space.




gliz2 -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 3:58:07 PM)

I was interested in the possibility of doing such things. Would not expect anybody actually doing it :)




gliz2 -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 4:26:14 PM)

@Bob,
thanks, I knew I read about it.

@Lobster
My point is that the Battle Stamps system is not consistent. There are always some rules that are far from perfect.

The below picture shows (what is in my opinion) big issue/flaw of the Battle Stamps system. It can be easily exploited.
So what I did:
Step 1: I took some deep unit to attack a Soviet front unit and to avoid spending the 6 rounds I made 3 one-rounded attacks. The result of course being 1 round burn (Move 2).
Step 2: I checked the costs of entering the hexes. The one where the Soviet was requires 16 MPs but the adjacent one just 2 MPs (Move 3 and Move 4).
Step 3: I moved the German unit to finish the poor Soviet unit (Move 5) disregarding penalty cost associated with the battle that took place later on.
In my opinion this is an example of earlier moving unit attacking enemy unit which that only was there much later in the turn. And this is what I mean it is not logical. Trust me guys I have learned some tricks with FITE2 on Battle Stamps. It just requires twice the time than normal but you can quite easily exploit the engines with this. In effect You can "ignore" the costs associated with battles freeing the front units by assaulting with later arriving units.

[image]local://upfiles/53646/88400B4CFA4146C5A61F0E0B2FC9F5A8.jpg[/image]




LLv34_Snefens -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 4:47:32 PM)

Coming back to random reinforcements, a side effect of doing them with events is that they won't show up in the "expected reinforcements" list, at least unless it is evaporated units start to reconstitue later. Whether this is a desired or undesired effect depends on what you are trying to achieve.
I've done a scenario where ALL reinforcements are random to an extent and so the "expected reinforcement" shows nothing.




gliz2 -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 5:04:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LLv34_Snefens

Coming back to random reinforcements, a side effect of doing them with events is that they won't show up in the "expected reinforcements" list, at least unless it is evaporated units start to reconstitue later. Whether this is a desired or undesired effect depends on what you are trying to achieve.
I've done a scenario where ALL reinforcements are random to an extent and so the "expected reinforcement" shows nothing.


Well it sounds like a dream come true Snefens. I'm totally agains seeing expected reinforcements in big scenarios :)




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 5:36:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

@Bob,
thanks, I knew I read about it.

@Lobster
My point is that the Battle Stamps system is not consistent. There are always some rules that are far from perfect.

The below picture shows (what is in my opinion) big issue/flaw of the Battle Stamps system. It can be easily exploited.
So what I did:
Step 1: I took some deep unit to attack a Soviet front unit and to avoid spending the 6 rounds I made 3 one-rounded attacks. The result of course being 1 round burn (Move 2).
Step 2: I checked the costs of entering the hexes. The one where the Soviet was requires 16 MPs but the adjacent one just 2 MPs (Move 3 and Move 4).
Step 3: I moved the German unit to finish the poor Soviet unit (Move 5) disregarding penalty cost associated with the battle that took place later on.
In my opinion this is an example of earlier moving unit attacking enemy unit which that only was there much later in the turn. And this is what I mean it is not logical. Trust me guys I have learned some tricks with FITE2 on Battle Stamps. It just requires twice the time than normal but you can quite easily exploit the engines with this. In effect You can "ignore" the costs associated with battles freeing the front units by assaulting with later arriving units.

[image]local://upfiles/53646/88400B4CFA4146C5A61F0E0B2FC9F5A8.jpg[/image]


OK. This was discussed in that article I referenced.

Yes, the BTS doesn't account for the ZOCs of the defenders in the BTS hex. But note that you have to have two empty hexes between defenders for this to be an issue. And all that is missing is the ZOC cost - usually a small cost. Try and imagine how difficult this would be for the game to account for. It's too small an issue to be worth the effort.




Lobster -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 7:44:47 PM)

FitE 2 should not be used as an example. The scenario author has given the Germans some very extensive movement and ZOC and shock benefits early on. It throws the whole thing off. To make a verifiable study you have to have default values all around.




gliz2 -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/5/2019 7:54:07 PM)

I will check it later in the game, don't you worry :)




Lobster -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/6/2019 3:27:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

@Bob,
thanks, I knew I read about it.

@Lobster
My point is that the Battle Stamps system is not consistent. There are always some rules that are far from perfect.

The below picture shows (what is in my opinion) big issue/flaw of the Battle Stamps system. It can be easily exploited.
So what I did:
Step 1: I took some deep unit to attack a Soviet front unit and to avoid spending the 6 rounds I made 3 one-rounded attacks. The result of course being 1 round burn (Move 2).
Step 2: I checked the costs of entering the hexes. The one where the Soviet was requires 16 MPs but the adjacent one just 2 MPs (Move 3 and Move 4).
Step 3: I moved the German unit to finish the poor Soviet unit (Move 5) disregarding penalty cost associated with the battle that took place later on.
In my opinion this is an example of earlier moving unit attacking enemy unit which that only was there much later in the turn. And this is what I mean it is not logical. Trust me guys I have learned some tricks with FITE2 on Battle Stamps. It just requires twice the time than normal but you can quite easily exploit the engines with this. In effect You can "ignore" the costs associated with battles freeing the front units by assaulting with later arriving units.

[image]local://upfiles/53646/88400B4CFA4146C5A61F0E0B2FC9F5A8.jpg[/image]


Is the 16 movement point cost in move 3 because there is too much equipment in the hex? In move 4 there is no equipment in the empty hexes. Furthermore, the Germans pay ZERO for Soviet ZOC and a reduced cost to enter hexes that are still Soviet controlled. So is this really a flaw or is it an intentional design imposed by the scenario designer coupled with an equipment density that adds movement costs for entering an already over packed hex?

19.1.1. Equipment Density
Up to nine units may be grouped in any particular
location, but in many cases this is a bad idea. Each
location has a specific allowed Equipment Density:
50 + 2 x Scenario physical scale2
Scale Allowed Density
2.5km/hex 68
5km/hex 100
10km/hex 250
15km/hex 500
20km/hex 850
25km/hex 1300
50km/hex 5050
Any location with more than the allowed number
of Vehicles or Horse Teams suffers from traffic
jams (increased movement costs to enter). Any
location with more than the allowed number of
“active defender” equipment suffers from increased
losses in the Event of combat.

This is why you need to use a generic scenario with no special considerations for anyone before you can declare something flawed or a big issue. I'm not sure of the density of the hex but you can display that if you want.

I've looked at this and the reason it costs 16 movement points to enter the hex the rbc took place is because of the distance you moved the unit to get to the hex for the rbc. If you had move a closer unit the cost to enter the hex would be only 2 movement points. In other words the unit didn't conduct the rbc until late in the turn. So of course there's a large penalty to be paid for entering the hex the rbc took place in because you couldn't have entered the hex before the rbc took place because the Soviet unit was still there. And again the Germans pay zero for entering a Soviet ZOC, zero for leaving a Soviet ZOC and a reduced cost for entering hexes still controlled by the Soviets.

The BTS worked as designed. It compensated for the time it took the German unit to get to the hex and conduct a rbc. Next time use a closer unit for the rbc if you want to reduce the cost to enter the BTS hex.

But the problem isn't the ZOC. It is the fact that the closer unit can now attack the Soviet even though the Soviet would not have been there until later in the day. This is a problem with ALL igougo games. It isn't a problem with the BTS. It's a problem caused by the imperfect igougo time and space. In TOAW there are many things that also plague other igougo simulations. Scaling of ZOC based on unit size is also something rarely if ever addressed.




gliz2 -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/6/2019 6:45:19 AM)

The 16 MPs cost is because of 6 rounds were burned in that hex when executing battles.
As you can see in Move 2 there was just one unit when executing battle. I have clicked too fast and the Red Geeman unit moved before screenshot. Still it paid 16MPs to enter the hex.
In this particular case it's not the weight.

Well the BTS worked as intended but the example shows it can be (with careful planning) "ignored". I mean I was able to destroy an enemy unit paying no extra cost AFTER it already was in a late battle. This is where the BTS system fails. And I quickly checked 2 other scenarios: Normandy'44 and Kharkov'43. Same thing. If you do it properly you will be able to repeat the abive. Maybe it's the mediana on battles execution that is causing this.

Thanks for the weight system explanation. I think THIS thread could be very helpful for FITE2 gamers and new players :)




Lobster -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/6/2019 2:10:30 PM)

Move 1 you moved a unit 16 hexes to rbc the Soviet unit. I did the same thing and was able to produce a rbc. The bts marker is put in the hex previously occupied by the Soviet unit. That bts marker represents that 16 hex move and the rbc that took place. So any unit entering that hex will be charged the time it took for that 16 hex move and the rbc that occurred. Are you saying that you were unable to produce a rbc and instead moved a unit 16 hexes and burned up 6 rounds to conduct a regular battle????? That would be extremely poor planning. [:)]

Personally I don't like this scenario because of the extreme measures taken to produce a 'historic' result. Things like this:

Axis Zoc cost:,0 for 3 turns then 50% of normal until turn 12, then 75% until Rasputitza
Axis movement bias: 150% at turn 1, then 125% at turn 2, returning to normal on turn 3.

And this:

The turn 18 Shock bonus will in TOAW4 have a movement bias of 90% for the Germans (A 10% reduction in movement points), as the Panzers run out of fuel, and need rest and refit. The penalty last for 1 turn and will appear with 1-2 turns delay, like the supply penalty.
The turn 24 Shock bonus will in TOAW4 have a movement bias of 50% for the Germans, as the Panzers run out of fuel, and need rest and refit. The penalty last for 1 turn and will appear with 1-2 turns delay, like the supply penalty.

Make me crazy. If I recall correctly the Germans paused not because of supply but because Hitler told them to. Regardless of how you conduct the campaign these things happen. The Soviet player shouldn't even get to touch the first echelon of non mech corps combat units the first turn since they could only react according to sealed orders and not orders from higher up because they had no communications. The PO should move them and only toward the west to their pre assigned areas.

But those are personal thoughts and it isn't my scenario. [;)]




gliz2 -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/6/2019 8:02:33 PM)

quote:

Are you saying that you were unable to produce a rbc and instead moved a unit 16 hexes and burned up 6 rounds to conduct a regular battle????? That would be extremely poor planning.


Lobster, seriously why the ad personam comments?

It was as explained and intended move to show that the BTS are flawed. I moved a unit 16 hexes (which takes time) had a battle (which ended in 6 round) and then attacked and killed the same unit in round 1 with another German unit at zero penalty.

It's just an exploit. Call it a cheat. Every game has it's exploits, none is perfect ;)




Lobster -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/6/2019 10:00:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

@Bob,
thanks, I knew I read about it.

@Lobster
My point is that the Battle Stamps system is not consistent. There are always some rules that are far from perfect.

The below picture shows (what is in my opinion) big issue/flaw of the Battle Stamps system. It can be easily exploited.
So what I did:
Step 1: I took some deep unit to attack a Soviet front unit and to avoid spending the 6 rounds I made 3 one-rounded attacks. The result of course being 1 round burn (Move 2).
Step 2: I checked the costs of entering the hexes. The one where the Soviet was requires 16 MPs but the adjacent one just 2 MPs (Move 3 and Move 4).
Step 3: I moved the German unit to finish the poor Soviet unit (Move 5) disregarding penalty cost associated with the battle that took place later on.
In my opinion this is an example of earlier moving unit attacking enemy unit which that only was there much later in the turn. And this is what I mean it is not logical. Trust me guys I have learned some tricks with FITE2 on Battle Stamps. It just requires twice the time than normal but you can quite easily exploit the engines with this. In effect You can "ignore" the costs associated with battles freeing the front units by assaulting with later arriving units.

[image]local://upfiles/53646/88400B4CFA4146C5A61F0E0B2FC9F5A8.jpg[/image]


OK. This was discussed in that article I referenced.

Yes, the BTS doesn't account for the ZOCs of the defenders in the BTS hex. But note that you have to have two empty hexes between defenders for this to be an issue. And all that is missing is the ZOC cost - usually a small cost. Try and imagine how difficult this would be for the game to account for. It's too small an issue to be worth the effort.


Bob, the Soviets have no ZOC at all. I'm not really sure what he is trying to prove with this.




Lobster -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/6/2019 10:11:26 PM)

If you are trying to say the bts should cover the once extent ZOC of the retreated Soviet unit (if it actually had one) then yes, that is correct. A cost should be paid but the programming time would most certainly be extensive don't you agree? So many possibilities to be covered. Probably should have used a scenario where the Soviets actually have a ZOC. Progress is sometimes in small measures. Given the small dev team I would say they've done a sterling job. Having had this game from initial release it has come a very long way.

Personally I would rather the time be spent on hex side rivers, doing away with the current way surrounded units are handled and inserting something more logical and fixing the scenario editor, not necessarily in that order.

Oh and scaled ZOC for unit size.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/6/2019 11:09:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Yes, the BTS doesn't account for the ZOCs of the defenders in the BTS hex. But note that you have to have two empty hexes between defenders for this to be an issue. And all that is missing is the ZOC cost - usually a small cost. Try and imagine how difficult this would be for the game to account for. It's too small an issue to be worth the effort.


Bob, the Soviets have no ZOC at all. I'm not really sure what he is trying to prove with this.


Regardless, this is an issue with the BTS. He's way over-blowing it, of course.




Lobster -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/7/2019 3:55:55 AM)

There are many more things I'd rather see done. That's for certain.




gliz2 -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/7/2019 3:39:57 PM)

In the first five days, Guderian's 2d Panzer Group and Hoth's 3d Panzer Group advanced 280 miles to surround Minsk.
Has anyone been able to achieve such results by the end of T2?
My best so far was barely 180 miles :(




gliz2 -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/7/2019 3:44:54 PM)

Guys I think you are missing the point.
It just an exploit like in any other game. You can kill unit and create a corridor with no (or very small penalties) even if the initial battle was expensive (and late). Let's just stop this as I will defo use it to exploit. So no need to dwell on it.

I would love to have scaled ZOCs and more options for engineers like building bridges and airfields.




Lobster -> RE: Questions on gameplay (FITE2 based) (2/8/2019 1:40:31 AM)

It's not nearly as bad as using HQ and artillery units as rear guards, using MPs as mobile exploitation troops, using highly mobile AA units as exploitation troops, the list goes on and on. What's your point? [;)]




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.859375E-02