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: Fire In the East scenario

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Fire In the East scenario Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/6/2011 12:07:22 AM   
rjh1971


Posts: 4691
Joined: 12/13/2005
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: online
Tomas where is the briefing document you refer to when pick up the settings? Or is it just the guide you posted here?

_____________________________


GG's AWD, GG's WBTS, GG's WitE Beta Tester
Beta Tester: Panzer Corps, Time of Fury, CtGW, DC CB, DC3 Barbarossa, SC WWII WiE, SC WWII WaW, SC WWI

(in reply to rjh1971)
Post #: 91
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/6/2011 9:04:10 AM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
It is the same document, although an older version. But off course it should have been included in the download.

I have attached the latest briefing as a zipdoc to this message. Should say though that the historical reinforcement lists are not filled up. They last up until around round 30.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Grymme -- 5/6/2011 9:05:35 AM >


_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to rjh1971)
Post #: 92
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/6/2011 12:36:03 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
Hey Grymme - you can't get PM's because your inbox is full so I sent you a couple of emails but no response - did you get them? Thx.

_____________________________


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 93
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/6/2011 2:51:26 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
JJdenver. Thanks for notifiying me on the inbox thing. I deleted some mails so now it should be possible to PM me again.

I am not sure if i got your email or not. Did you email mine or my wifes email. Safest is to email grymme @ hotmail . com

I do get a lot of email about AT, so sometimes i forget to answer, but if you try again ill make sure to answer.

_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 94
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/6/2011 5:32:05 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme
It is the same document, although an older version. But off course it should have been included in the download.
I have attached the latest briefing as a zipdoc to this message. Should say though that the historical reinforcement lists are not filled up. They last up until around round 30.


Will you plan to add historical reinforcements until end of war in a future release? I guess this means it' only playable for 30 turns?

Thanks

_____________________________


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 95
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/6/2011 6:08:51 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
JJdenver. The scenario uses a combination of historical reinforcements and normal production. Soviet production is at 50% for the first 15 rounds, then 75% up to round 30, then 100%. My opinion is that its playableall the way, its just not scripted.

From the briefing

4.2 Historical reinforcements


For the first ~30/35 rounds of the game the Axis and Soviet players will both get some historical reinforcements in addition to the normal production. After that the only formation of units is through the players production

Historical reinforcements generally appear in Konigsberg, Warszawa, Bucharest, Vologda, Penza & Engels. But units can appear in other locations also.

DESIGNER NOTE: Having historical production the first 30 or so rounds simulate the large mobilization of Soviet units, movement of german units from other theaters and mobilization of Axis minor units. Having historical units for the entire campaign would be very tedious to program and is made difficult by the fact that you would somehow simulate withdrawals from the theater as well. I do however not rule it out as something to program in in the future.

(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 96
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/9/2011 3:42:40 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
I'm playing a test game and got the card to turn a unit into SS. However when I select a unit - an infantry division or the Lehr regiment or a panzer regiment for example - the "Select" button is not active, only the "Cancel" button is active. So I'm not able to turn any units in SS. Any idea why this would be? Thanks.

_____________________________


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 97
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/9/2011 5:32:15 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
Hi JJ.

Its a slip in the briefing. SS units can only be formed from units who are in Berlin x0y134 if you are playing the entire side or AG Mitte, Hamburg x0y113 if you are playing AG Nord, and Vienna x1y183 if you are playing AG Sud.

Basicly units have to go home and rest and reform to become SS (or newly formed units).

Try this and if this doesnt fix it we have a bug. Thanks for catching it, will update the briefing.

_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to GrumpyMel)
Post #: 98
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/9/2011 6:58:13 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
Ok thanks. I also sent you an email about what seems to be an OOB bug. The SS mot/mech infantry units at start are all not motorized - they move like foot. They don't have enough trucks or halftracks or whatever they were supposed to have.

And a question also: Do the SFT types like Mech Inf 41 self-motorize? Or do they need trucks/halftracks to carry them?

Thx


_____________________________


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 99
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/9/2011 7:15:28 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
JJ.denver

Actually i just answered your question on the SS motorizes. This seem to be an error and will be included in the next patch.

Mech41 etc are not selfmotorized. The main difference between them and normal infantry is that their heavy weapons (mortars, at rifles and MGs are "built in" to the SFT, so they have slightly better statistics, and are more expensive.

So far for the next patch.
- Motorize SS units properly (they lack one halftrack or truck)
- Document SS creation limitations.

Actually that reminds me that there is another small SS issue that i have not been able to solve so far.
But is on the list There are SS (a people type), but then there are also a couple of SS specific SFTs (some infantry units). The starting units have the specific SFTs. But i have not been able to construct an event that convert regular Rifle to SS Rifle when an SS unit is created. So that means that the new SS units will be black and their people will be called SS but their SFTs will not be called SS Sfts. Mainly this is a graphic issue for me since i really liked the small SS insignia i painted into the specific SS Sfts. I thought about skipping the SS specific Sfts alltogether but i really liked the insignia so i kept them were i could.

So anyway thats a long description for a small issue. This is also on the list. But i still havent figured out an event that switches all of certain SFTs in a unit to a specific other SFT. I think the answer is in there, feel free to help me on the way.

_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 100
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/9/2011 8:00:15 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
Another couple of things I've noticed but I'm not sure if they are as you intended:

First I don't seem to be able to move SFT's by sea. For example there is a unit on an island north of Norway that I wanted to pull SFT's out of (or pull the entire unit off the island). But I can't figure out how to move the unit or individual SFT's at all. I think I could possibly sail the transport unit up from Germany but it moves very very slowly - it made it about 5 hexes on turn 1 (which represents a week)?

So I guess a second issue(?) is that naval units move extremely slowly.

A third possible issue is that Germany doesn't seem to have rail capacity to move units around. For example I wanted to rail the 900 Lehr regiment to Berlin to become SS. However I see no way to do that. Historically I'm quite sure the Wermacht could rail units around relatively quickly on their own rail gauge but this doesn't seem possible in the game. Perhaps some immobile rail-only units should be in each major Axis city to provide some rail capacity to pull units back from the front or send them east to the front?

A fourth possible issue is that on turn 1 I guess no rail at all is possible since all hexes that Germany occupies are considered captured from the previous turn(?) Is this intentional?

Thanks


_____________________________


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 101
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/9/2011 8:20:08 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
JJdenver.

I think its the last issue you mention. When you play all fronts as one regime then the Axis regime eats upp the other two regimes at the start of the first round. Since ATG doesnt allow strategic transfer in territory the first round in newly conquered territory it means you cannot use strategic movement until round 2. This is not intentional, but its an engine issue that cannot be worked around (as far as i know).

Each round is 4 days. Cargo ships move quite slow in coastal water (12AP cost) but faster in deep sea (8AP). How did you get one of them to only move 5 hexes? And which unit did you move? Another way for faster transport of small units is to use Auxilliary Ships. They move really fast in coastal water (4AP) but really slow in deep sea (20AP). This wouldnt help the Norway unit, but can be used in the coastal areas.

Btw. There can be advantages to have units on garrison in Norway, Greece etc (there are partisans). But the unit on the island in Norway i admit is pretty badly placed.

_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 102
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/9/2011 8:44:46 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
Hmm... looking into the issues you were talking about i did stumble on a rather lethal partisans bug.

i will look into the other issues, but this is a gamekiller. So i made a quick patch which i think people should apply. It also includes the "no partisan" scenario option that Edsan asked for. (It might be that this bug is not present in earlier versions, but it was present in v202)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ESVQ1OZB

EDIT. I do think i found one issue with the naval transport thing. It seems that Oslo & Copenhagen were not designated ports. So ships there could not provide NAVAL CAP. But i will deal with this tomorrow.

Will go to bed now, have six trials on schedule tomorrow so i need to get some sleep.

< Message edited by Grymme -- 5/9/2011 9:00:15 PM >


_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 103
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/9/2011 9:28:29 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
To see the naval movement problem try to move cargo ships out of Konigsberg toward Copenhagen. You can make 9 hexes not 5 I guess.
Also try to move Finnish naval units out of Turku toward Hango.  They only go 7 hexes.

(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 104
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/9/2011 10:39:44 PM   
rjh1971


Posts: 4691
Joined: 12/13/2005
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: online
Grymme your latest update v2.05 of your scenario is bundled with v2.03 of ATG. Any incompatible issues until v1.03 is released as beta when upgrading FitE? Don't think there should be, just asking since I got the warning in the game.

_____________________________


GG's AWD, GG's WBTS, GG's WitE Beta Tester
Beta Tester: Panzer Corps, Time of Fury, CtGW, DC CB, DC3 Barbarossa, SC WWII WiE, SC WWII WaW, SC WWI

(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 105
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/11/2011 7:39:17 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
rjh1971
I loaded the 205 scenario with an old version of ATG and i did not even get an error message. But i dont have the retail version of the game. I have not used any new features added in 103 compared to 102 so i do not think there should be an issue but honestly dont know. Thats more the things Vic knows.

JJdenver. Then it seems the naval units move as intended, with the exception of the issues with Copenhagen & Oslo not being ports (but this will be fixed). You could use NAVAL CAP to move the Norwegian Island port to some other port.

Will hopefully look into some of the smaller issues this weekend.

< Message edited by Grymme -- 5/11/2011 7:57:59 PM >


_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to rjh1971)
Post #: 106
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/15/2011 3:57:34 AM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
Grymme - pls let us know when you get those issues worked out and where we can get the new version. I'm going to start a ame with rjh I think once the new version is out.

_____________________________


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 107
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/15/2011 8:20:05 AM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
Updates will be posted in this thread so there is no risk of missing anything

On the to-do list still
- A Engine bug in the OOB window that crashes the game if you click on the LVI Mot Korps HQ under PG4 in AG Nord. I have posted on the AT support forum but cannot do anything myself about this. Waiting for Vics reply. Sollution for now. Dont click on that specific unit in the OOB window, or at least save before you do it.
- The SS-specific Issue. This is low priority and long term, so nothing expected on this.

Changes.
- Made Copenhagen & Oslo ports
- Motorized all SS mot bdes properly.
- Fixed a strange hex bug in one specific hex that made the hex look like plains when it was hills.
- Changed chance of Greek partisans appearing down because they were appearing to often.
- Changed Bulgarians fighting mod vs allies from 60% to 30% & changed it back to 60% when Bulgaria goes to war (Bulgarians really should only be used as an occupying force).

None of these changes are critical. So no need to stop any ongoing games.

Here is a link to download of v205b
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=EW6BPVGL

JJdenver & Rjh. Have fun.


I wanted to write something about the balance in this scenario. A scenario like this will always be difficult to balance. What i did was compare balance of this scenario (production and forces) with a couple of other AT scenarios on the same subject. I compared balance with GPW, Ostfront and Russia41

FITE
Axis production 114,3 (60% of SU) Soviet Production 189

GPW
Axis production 46,7 (58%) Soviet Production 80,3

Ostfront
Axis production 62,5 (55,4%) Sovier Production 112,7

Russia41
Axis production 65 (56%) Soviet Production 115

I did similar tests when it came to starting force strength.

So, in my scenario Axis production is quite similar to the other scenarios, but slightly higher. Now there are some things that compensate for this. Primarily the fact that you can evacuate factories in my scenario and the rules for Lend Lease which is not included at all. So will the scenario ultimatly be balanced. Who knows, but i have tried as much as possible to ensure that is the case.

< Message edited by Grymme -- 5/15/2011 8:57:19 AM >


_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 108
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/15/2011 1:59:53 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
Hi Grymme, I'm glad to hear you tried to balance. Starting force strength might be another metric you'd want to look at. I'll say that I've got experience with GPW - have played a few games although none ever reached 1942. In all of them the Soviet absolutely crushed the Axis in 1941 so I don't think it was balanced - perhaps things have changed in the latest release(s) of it though?


_____________________________


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 109
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/15/2011 3:27:32 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
JJdenver.

I did the same thing with starting force strength. But there are much more variables there. For example the soviets have huge amounts of obsolete fighters that are next to useless (you will see). How do you account for that, tank differences etc. But i did compare scenarios. But when it comes to starting forces there is also the issue of historical accuracy. If the axis forces had ca 3 400 tanks then there should be ca 340 tanks ingame and so on.

So i did work on that but the true test is people playing it. That being said i dont think even playing a scenario a couple of times nescessary says much about balance in AT. Its such a skill game that certain people can win against really bad odds. Lunaticus for example can easily beat me in a scenario, i will say its unbalanced, then he beats me just as easily from the other side :)

_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 110
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/16/2011 3:32:23 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
Hi Grymme - thanks for the update.

Is it intentional that Axis starts with so many 1941 techs unresearched but SU has them all researched already? Essentially it appears that SU tech is ahead of Axis tech in all areas. Is this right?

Also the Soviet production seems already skewed to the east. I counted up production as follows:
Initial areas that Axis grab quickly incl Kiev/Odessa/Minsk/Smolensk/Baltics: 14k
Far East (Gorkiy and east of there): 98k
Leningrad Axis (incl navy prod): 16k
Moskva Axis: 34k
Stalingrad Axis (incl Sevastopol): 10k
Caucasus: 18k

So it seems like Far East production already outnumbers all other production 98k to 92k even before any factories move.

For example Kharkov was a very big industrial city for USSR (if I remember correctly it was 3rd behind Moskva and Leningrad) but it is only 2k production in the game compared to 10k for a relatively small producer like Perm or Chelyabinsk.

Cities like Rostov have no production and even if you assess that there was little industry in the Don Basin - at least there was lots of mining and men to recruit for the Red Army.

Usually the area from Kiev to Kharkov to Rostov is considered a very important region for industry, raw materials, and population, but in the FITE scenario there is only Kiev(2k), Kharkov (2k) and that's all until you reach Stalingrad (4k). This huge area of Kiev to Stalingrad is outproduced by Akmolinsk 10k to 8k (?!), and by Perm(10k), Sverdlovsk (10k), Omsk (10k), Chelabinsk (10), Gorky (4k+6k), Magnitogorks(10k), Yaroslavl (6k+4k), and nearly equalled by a city like PetroPavlovsk(5k).

I just thought I'd point this out.

Cheers


< Message edited by jjdenver -- 5/16/2011 4:14:44 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 111
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/16/2011 4:23:04 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
JJDenver. The scenario doesnt use the normal research. Instead it uses the research branches described in the Briefing named something41,42 and so on. What you are seing are most likely the old research. I did not delete them because i was afraid of bugs. But they have no importance for gameplay.

_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 112
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/16/2011 4:38:58 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme
JJDenver. The scenario doesnt use the normal research. Instead it uses the research branches described in the Briefing named something41,42 and so on. What you are seing are most likely the old research. I did not delete them because i was afraid of bugs. But they have no importance for gameplay.


I don't understand. The scenario briefing says those techs have to be researched but USSR already has them all researched when scenrio begins while Germany does not. (see screenshot)

From briefing:
"(95-98) Infantry 41,42,43,44
(99-100)Light Infantry 41, 43
(101-104)Antitank Guns 41,42,43,44
(105-108)Tanks 41,42,43,44
(91-94)Self propellered guns & Artillery 41,42,43,44
(109-112)AFVs 41,42,43,44

At the start of each year the researches of that year will become available to research (if you have researched the previous years research of that branch).

Each branch of research will initially cost 100PP to research. The cost of researching will then become lower by 2 for each round (but can never go below 2). For each front that is asleep the research will go down another 1 per round."





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by jjdenver -- 5/16/2011 5:08:44 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 113
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/16/2011 8:21:00 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
Yep, that is a bug. Good catch.

It does not affect games with separate AG regimes.

Here is a fast patch

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QA5NXX4S

I hope you guys will be patient with me, with a scenario like this there will likely be more bugs. I try to take care of the bigger ones as fast as possible.

_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 114
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/16/2011 10:00:07 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
It's no problem Grymme. Thanks for fixing. Did you read my note about 4 up in the thread about production? It may be WAD (Working As Designed) but I'm not sure. I edited the post so you might not have read it since it might have been edited to show all of that analysis about production after you read it once. Thx

_____________________________


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 115
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/17/2011 6:04:59 AM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
JJdenver. Actually the production is as intended. I did not want the Axis advancing to historical limits causing a dent in Soviet production so large that it changes the essential balance of the game. Should the Axis advance beoyond historical borders the balance could swing pretty quickly though (Leningrad/Moscow). One bit to weigh in here is that the AI cannot really handle factory evacuation (i have scripted it but it doesnt work as it does for the human player).

The far east is a little bit of a misnomer because it really was the whole inerior of the country. Also Chelyabinsk might not be so large, but productionwise it was huge. It was actually called Tankograd and a large part of the soviet tanks were produced there.

Anyway. This is one area were i had to compromize a little with historic accuracy because of above stated reasons, but also because i need the game to be playable even if for example the south and middle fronts are sleeping (so i placed 30% of production in the north even though in reality maybe less were there).

That being said i am not commited to having it as it is now. Things might be changed in the future, but that is on longer perspective.



_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to rjh1971)
Post #: 116
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/17/2011 4:58:11 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
Ok I understand about production. I see a bitter end for Axis in this one though. I doubt they have much chance w/ how huge Soviet production and army is.

I'm not able to DL the latest update - says file unavailable - can you check it?

Thanks


< Message edited by jjdenver -- 5/17/2011 9:06:48 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 117
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/23/2011 8:16:59 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
Hi Grymme, the SU doesn't have any research avail to do when game starts but GE has a bunch left to do including all planes and flak. Is this what you intended? (I'm using latest patch 2.06)

_____________________________


(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 118
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/23/2011 9:07:41 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
JJdenver.

Does it look like this
Destroyer
Divebomber
Fighter
Flak
Levelbomber
Paratrooper
Submarine
Transporter

If that is the case then you can just ignore it. Those researches are leftovers from the original masterfile and does not enable purchase of other units. I will clean up this in the next version, they should not be enabled.

have you and Rhj started playing yet? How is it going. I am playing a game against Soviet AI+ but i am having some trouble finding the time. I am almost done with round2.



_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 119
RE: Fire In the East scenario - 5/23/2011 10:04:29 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2097
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
I see. thx for explanation Grymme.

I started twice but had to restart for bugs. I haven't got the 3rd start going yet as I had visitors this weekend.

The scenario is absolutely huge - and we are discussing finding another player for each side to make it 2v2 or 3v3.

It looks fun but daunting. We both wanted to play the Sovs as I think it looks like they will have a pretty easy time of it but we'll see.....


_____________________________


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Fire In the East scenario Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   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

0.188