View Full Version : The Great War 2.0 !!!!! IS OUT!
Bloodstar
06 Jul 05, 03:51
OK, I hope that Daniel will not mind for posting this but maybe is he too modest to post it here, or he waits that scenario is actually posted on Rugged Defense...
Anyway, I will be out so I thought to post the news anyway.
YOU LUCKY TOAW BASTARDS !!! :laugh::devious::devious:
The Great War 2.0 is actually sent to RD site and will be up later in the day. I have my copy but you will have to wait yours :p:p
This is THE SCENARIO! You are mentioned in the docs as well. I have also contributed my historical and player knowledge to some extent and Daniel have put my name there which I thank him here, it's a honour for me.
You will see numerous changes and good changes from 1.7 version, great many changes, and you will notice it from our discussion here at Warfare HQ forum (I like the old name hehe)
We can have this thread open for discussion on this scenario, and you are damn sure that I will play this scenario. I am playing it against Daniel and I will think about starting another game as well against someone here. But, that eventually because I will play FITE new version also when it will be out and that is enough for me of TOAW :)
(That's it if Soren not get "arrested" by some good looking Brasilian women there ! :cheeky: ;);))
Ahh, big step forward in TOAW scenario excellence, masterpiece of TOAW design art.
Mario
Sirs;
If for no other reason, anyone interested in WW1 should down-load this .sce just to read the designers notes.
This is more than just a game, and after reading the .doc more than just a scenario..........
McBride is more than a designer, he's a philosopher/historian of the first water!
If your interested in what World War One actually is all about, try this .sce on both sides............very informative, very good!
The only bad point is the game engine itself- a vast pity that Koger has no rights to patch anymore, which makes this more a P2P game than what might have been the 'game o the year' if Norm was still in charge of design.
Gallopili (sp) comes to life in this .sce, and suddenly starts to make reasonable sense......
L`zard
PS: find it HERE.....http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?
Note that one must first join the forums and log in, in order to dl any .sce, eh?
(grumble, details, grumble)
Bloodstar
07 Jul 05, 04:23
Sirs;
If for no other reason, anyone interested in WW1 should down-load this .sce just to read the designers notes.
This is more than just a game, and after reading the .doc more than just a scenario..........
McBride is more than a designer, he's a philosopher/historian of the first water!
If your interested in what World War One actually is all about, try this .sce on both sides............very informative, very good!
The only bad point is the game engine itself- a vast pity that Koger has no rights to patch anymore, which makes this more a P2P game than what might have been the 'game o the year' if Norm was still in charge of design.
Gallopili (sp) comes to life in this .sce, and suddenly starts to make reasonable sense......
L`zard
You said this very well Lizard! :) I have also read everything last night, Daniel got inspiration from last doc file and made written bigger historical postWW1 aspect.
Mario
Thank you, MM;
I just wish that ToaW was an ongoing affair, rather than nearly abbandon-ware in so far as the engine is concerned.
If only there were a version 5 coming out..........sigh!
Anyroad: all you guys < I abase myself in your general direction, eh?
Damn fine work!
L`zard
Bloodstar
07 Jul 05, 05:58
Thank you, MM;
I just wish that ToaW was an ongoing affair, rather than nearly abbandon-ware in so far as the engine is concerned.
If only there were a version 5 coming out..........sigh!
Anyroad: all you guys < I abase myself in your general direction, eh?
Damn fine work!
L`zard
Good to have you here L`zard!
You will see, TOAW community esp. on this board is frendly and really great!
I wouldn't stick to TOAW since vol 1. if works like Daniel's and other fine designers didn't keep this game alive.
I must confess that initially I was very cold toward TOAW when I briefly tried it against AI, never liked the speed of AI shuttling his units BUT when I played my first PBEM that was difference like heaven and earth! Greatest moment is when you receive your turn, and click to continue and hear a sound, get news, see some events rolling, see that something has changed etc... makes game feels alive to some degree :)
Yes, it's quite a pitty that TOAW is not developing anymore but it obviously makes Mr. Koger very proud even with todays result and new scenarios. I hope that one day corporate minds at Take 2 realize that even if they give back copyright rights to Norm Koger will not hurt them - well their bussines end day is anyway accounted on sales like GTA:San Andreas so actually they wouldn't lose so much money if they leave TOAW altoghether, they have gobbled Talon Soft but if they don't want to develop wargames, for god sake leave it out then and stick with GTA and other more profitable games (like Civ IV).
Daniel's work is great, I've seen that he listen to players and us amateurs historian, he consult many books and try to make this historical research playable, logical and also what is very good explorable on some ways so that players can finds some logical "what if's" as well. It also helps that he is also historian and that he thoroughly research the topic.
All must be playtested and it takes time to fine tune. I see that merchant ships have been reduced in size because in previous version they could inflict bigger losses.
I suggested that Montenegro units is cut in size and become brigades but they are still division but broken into brigades some of them but I don't mind it so much because I will anyway not attack Montenegro there and maybe scenario is better like that in terms of playability. So not big deal.
But, Daniel is friendly guy and he did liste to many of my suggestion like lowering Aden Indian big garrison (thanks for that one more time ! :laugh:) and many other suggestions of mine to not mention again everything. BIG THANKS FOR THAT AGAIN!
I have just small remark (that I did mentioned to him before alas) about March brigades of Austrians that did have one battery, of 6 guns, and it is still not there but I hope in next version, but this is really small thing and nothing that it will spoil my enjoyment of the scenario. 120 guns or more or less is not big deal - it will not help them too much. But that small details is chrome that I like to see.
One more scenario entering immortal TOAW Hall of Fame scenarios (which we can assemble the list one day :)) and worth of price like new full game like Battlefields 2 (yes you folks at Take 2 and EA, that is true! Free scenario is worth the price of your multi-million $ projects :p)
Best,
Mario
PS. Also, it's very good to see Petrovaradin fortress that Daniel put on my suggestion. I was born in Novi Sad which is across Petrovaradin fortress. I also was there many times when I was going to school and actually passes with bus there many time across the bridge which is near fortress (beside). Bridge was actually destroyed in NATO bombing and they put there a pontoon bridge I think (I was since 1995. in Croatia so I visited my friends there only twice since then). That small details like this fortress mean a lot to me.
Blackcloud6
07 Jul 05, 08:12
What versions of TOAW will this work with?
What versions of TOAW will this work with?
ACOW 1.04
Dicke Bertha
07 Jul 05, 16:52
nemo, nemo, when you're back from your trip... :)
piero1971
07 Jul 05, 18:08
it's a great great war scenario. incredible doc attached...
now, try to get them home before the leaves fall...
nemo, nemo, when you're back from your trip... :)Landing saturday 13:15, until then still in Dutch Friesland with no WiFi connection and having to rely on the library public computers :dead:
Got the scenario from RD anyway, I'll probably give it a look during the incoming conference here... :whist:
Dicke Bertha
08 Jul 05, 16:22
Ha nemo, no panic at all, I'll need a lot of time anyway to go through the settings, deciding what sort of cheating I need to do to stop you. Do you have e-mail virus protection? :whist:
Sirs;
Could someone explain the difference in thinking between CC (comand control) and basic supply?
CC is exempt of zoc rules (.doc 2.0) or did I miss something.
Further, am I correct in thinking that army level HQ units need to be 3/1 from a railhead to be in supply?
Bloodstar
09 Jul 05, 07:23
Sirs;
Could someone explain the difference in thinking between CC (comand control) and basic supply?
CC is exempt of zoc rules (.doc 2.0) or did I miss something.
Further, am I correct in thinking that army level HQ units need to be 3/1 from a railhead to be in supply?
Well, there is 3 hex supply radii that goes to 1 during winter I think. I think that CC and supply radii is not related.
Supply of 3 hex is given because of nature of WW1(early exhaustion of offensives) and because of the scale of scenario.
CC is broken by enemy units only I think and there is also some special cases.
No, 3 hex range is I think basically range from railheads to get decen resupply - you can go beyond that but you will get less supply.
On a side note and level of micromanagment in this scenario - my thougghts:
Oh boy, scenario is really great and what is good that you must use a brain very much esp. in first turn. I am just finished moving AH units and need to finish German moves as well. First turn is crucial and you must be careful where you will send this or that unit. AH also get less rail capacity so it's 7x3 divisions in first turn plus one by Danube (good that you position next on Danube as well for second turn).
That is change because before was 8x3 capacity for AH in first turn. Some unit's are locked until turn 2 so I had to think about them as well, and there was some other changes in deployment of units & reserves so my first turn that I played before in other version didn't helped me much to see where unit's are going.
About CC - well it is put there because of some not so div populated areas of Eastern Front or maybe Asia, Turkey etc... and it's good to reflect some advance that would be not so unhistorical (there were fighting by progress was not spectacular most of the time).
But, as I really do hate to micromanage all the time (sometimes is ok but you get burned out of that) - I don't have a habit in TOAW to look into armies and say "aha, this corps was going there so now it will go there as well".
Beside TOAW doesn't have attaching or reataching of unit's to different corp, you cannot even see to what army this or that corps belongs! (yes, you can but you must look into OOB or cycle through formations to see where is start of that formation higher parent army HQ)
Which put you into lesser flexibility of even WW1 generals hehe, who could easily transfer this to that corps or army, or rename army or create new corps out of some other units etc...
That's why I think that corps HQ that needs to be to army HQ in CC is useless and esp. to guys like me who are lazy to keep that in control with that many unit's, I really don't have nerves for that. I think that unit needs to be in CC with corps HQ and I will look that that is the case, keep divisions with HQ's.
Also, some flexibility is needed so that while HQ of some German corps is not there (one of that examples is near Posen) their div. can temp. have CC of any other nearby HQ.
Also, I think that independend units of armies or maybe OB West of something like that could have been in CC of any other HQ so that there is also some flexibility in providing arty barrage - or moving engineer etc - I don't think that Ludendorf had to move his HQ every time Germans besieged some fortress just that those guns be in CC of parent HQ.
Independet units also could just use any HQ that is there.
All other rules are more or less OK - telling in which sea zone is naval unit could maybe just be made more clear - maybe just to tell when there is major force or invasion but light force of submarines maybe should not be announced so that player not sweep ocean with his all forces just to destroy submarine hmm maybe he will sweep it in any case.
But, really fun to play... Anyone else kicking the tires out of this scenario? :D
Mario
Dan Neely
09 Jul 05, 10:29
bloodstar: I intend to doso this weekend.
I emailed DMB about naval transport limits in the african lakes, and he replied with a limit of a bde.
Can anyone make a scen dump of it for me to look at? The dumper only works under 9x OSes and my pcs are all NT based.
Bloodstar
10 Jul 05, 03:44
bloodstar: I intend to doso this weekend.
I emailed DMB about naval transport limits in the african lakes, and he replied with a limit of a bde.
Can anyone make a scen dump of it for me to look at? The dumper only works under 9x OSes and my pcs are all NT based.
Great, I just seen now this post I would reply earlier.
Good to know about Africa, hehe but I am doomed there anyway. I will use your trick to starve Montenegro :)
I would like to play against you but don't know if this would be possible actually when FITE arrives which is very time consuming, but maybe then later.
Sorry I have 64 bit Windows XP which I must reinstall, and I have Win XP. On my previous PC I had Win 98. I don't know will I install Win 98 or will I install some program that emulates Win 98 games.
Mario
Here goes the scenario dump
Bloodstar
10 Jul 05, 07:06
Here goes the scenario dump
Great!
---
On a side note playing of scenario will test the ability of both sides. I am also more for historical approach but don't mind mild what if situations.
In the doc is stated that Serbians can operate only in Serbia etc... now there is also that when they each Korfu (6 div) they can operate from any allied med base but again i think that it should be clearly stated that they cannot be used charging at Turks in Gaza or Some or freeing up UK troops in Kut. I doubt that would be realistic and obviously TE player should be somehow "penalized" if he choose to ignore Salonica and not land there so Serb should be "interned" in Greece - which in fact is maybe the case right now and maybe I am don't understand this completely. But, in any case landing in Salonica makes game much more interesting so I hope that TE players will use it - yes they can be tempted to ignore it, but...
We had discussion about this (me and Daniel), tricky situation.
Except for Joffre (a must) offensive on turn 2 and 3, TE have greater maneuver possibilities and cay choose to ignore Dardanellies (maybe) which was big bloodshed.
Germans can send some forces to help Turks and now also AH can send something, will this be enough we will see, anyway thay also cannot send too much anyway because they will be hard pressed on other fronts.
Also they(TE) had lot's of difficulties in Mesopotamia but that is also on CP player if they can attrit them there enough so there is everything posible. Africa yields 2x5 EEv points so it will be interesting to see if CP can get some EEV points elsewhere. (I was for only one 5 EEV in East Africa but...nevermind :laugh:)
In any case time will show how both forces will show themselfs...
Mario
Stauffenberg
10 Jul 05, 08:55
I think I will be putting up a separate scenario notes download link, for updated notes minus all the jpegs. Finding simple but effective honour rules for naval etc., or finally ditching them completely, will require a lot of playtesting. The other contentious issue has to do with historically restricted deployment vs completely free. In any case, these are all developments that don't require a new scenario file for every version so I'll likely go ahead with it once the first round of corrections and clarifications occur.
I'll also be adding a complete reinforcement OB.
D.
Dan Neely
10 Jul 05, 12:01
Great!
On a side note playing of scenario will test the ability of both sides. I am also more for historical approach but don't mind mild what if situations.
agreed. The longer the scen runs the more random events will force it to diverge. To pick an example, if the OE isn't as heavily pressed to the south they'll have enough troops to seal off the Galipoli beachs and make any sort of landing there impossible.
In the doc is stated that Serbians can operate only in Serbia etc... now there is also that when they each Korfu (6 div) they can operate from any allied med base but again i think that it should be clearly stated that they cannot be used charging at Turks in Gaza or Some or freeing up UK troops in Kut. I doubt that would be realistic and obviously TE player should be somehow "penalized" if he choose to ignore Salonica and not land there so Serb should be "interned" in Greece - which in fact is maybe the case right now and maybe I am don't understand this completely. But, in any case landing in Salonica makes game much more interesting so I hope that TE players will use it - yes they can be tempted to ignore it, but...
We had discussion about this (me and Daniel), tricky situation.
Agreed, if the TE's ignoring the theater the serbs wouldn't have anywhere to run to. Not getting the new Serbs if Salonika isn't landed in and Greece hasn't been invaded yet sounds like a good choice to me. It'd probably need to be done via house rule though.
Also they(TE) had lot's of difficulties in Mesopotamia but that is also on CP player if they can attrit them there enough so there is everything posible. Africa yields 2x5 EEv points so it will be interesting to see if CP can get some EEV points elsewhere. (I was for only one 5 EEV in East Africa but...nevermind :laugh:)
Don't forget the 5 EEV the CP has a chance to grab in Bengazi if the Lybian revolt is done right.
Dan Neely
10 Jul 05, 12:06
Good to know about Africa, hehe but I am doomed there anyway. I will use your trick to starve Montenegro :)
My trick in Montenegro???
I would like to play against you but don't know if this would be possible actually when FITE arrives which is very time consuming, but maybe then later.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That you couldn't start tgw until you're done with FITE, or that whenever you're already working on a FITE turn it would take you longer to get a turn out to me?
Dan Neely
10 Jul 05, 12:18
I think I will be putting up a separate scenario notes download link, for updated notes minus all the jpegs. Finding simple but effective honour rules for naval etc., or finally ditching them completely, will require a lot of playtesting. The other contentious issue has to do with historically restricted deployment vs completely free. In any case, these are all developments that don't require a new scenario file for every version so I'll likely go ahead with it once the first round of corrections and clarifications occur.
I'll also be adding a complete reinforcement OB.
D.
While you're tweaking the scen doc, could you add a key for all the local unit naming conventions for the benefit of those of us who don't speak French/German/Russian/etc.?
Bloodstar
10 Jul 05, 12:29
agreed. The longer the scen runs the more random events will force it to diverge. To pick an example, if the OE isn't as heavily pressed to the south they'll have enough troops to seal off the Galipoli beachs and make any sort of landing there impossible.
It is great that Daniel addes so many Turks allies, Swedish gendarmerie etc. nice chrome!
Agreed, if the TE's ignoring the theater the serbs wouldn't have anywhere to run to. Not getting the new Serbs if Salonika isn't landed in and Greece hasn't been invaded yet sounds like a good choice to me. It'd probably need to be done via house rule though.
Yes, it can be arranged via house rules.
Don't forget the 5 EEV the CP has a chance to grab in Bengazi if the Lybian revolt is done right.
Ahh, yes I see it now! I have told Daniel that this would make uprising in Lybia much more interesting if there is actually EEV point for taking, just great! :devious:
Mario
Bloodstar
10 Jul 05, 12:35
My trick in Montenegro???
Maybe I am wrong but you or Mensch have been writing something before about starving Montenegro later when Nis is occupied, and I liked this tactic.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That you couldn't start tgw until you're done with FITE, or that whenever you're already working on a FITE turn it would take you longer to get a turn out to me?
Well, actually i am playing against the designer itself hehe. Will send my first turn today I think, to him. No, I am not playing still FITE and waiting for new version but once it arrives I will play those two scenario. I would like to play TGW with someone else as well but I just must disciplinize myself because FITE turns are huge and I will not have time obviously for playing three monster scenarios at the same time. TGW turns are smaller once past initial deploying but FITE turns as Germans are huge investment of time. I am just not a Raver, TOAW Iron Man.:laugh:
Mario
Dan Neely
10 Jul 05, 12:46
Maybe I am wrong but you or Mensch have been writing something before about starving Montenegro later when Nis is occupied, and I liked this tactic.
I might've said something about it in the 1.7 thread although I don't recall doing so.
Well, actually i am playing against the designer itself hehe. Will send my first turn today I think, to him. No, I am not playing still FITE and waiting for new version but once it arrives I will play those two scenario. I would like to play TGW with someone else as well but I just must disciplinize myself because FITE turns are huge and I will not have time obviously for playing three monster scenarios at the same time. TGW turns are smaller once past initial deploying but FITE turns as Germans are huge investment of time. I am just not a Raver, TOAW Iron Man.:laugh:
Ok, I'll hunt an opponent elsewhere then.
Originally Posted by Stauffenberg
"I think I will be putting up a separate scenario notes download link, for updated notes minus all the jpegs."
While putting up a TO&E tree would be an immense amount of work, it would certainly help those players intent on using 'all' of the CC rules, not to mention an aid to amatuer historians, lol!
Working the OB really IS rather time consuming, eh? Were there not OB .jpegs somewhere in your research docs?
Alternately, one just assigns OHL assets as one pleases, as it might be rather difficult to entirely pull hindenberg and all his toys out of a given front (ie: ship all to east).
Forgive me if I've missed the obvious, please.
separate file for .jpegs for maps/to&e's eh? comments?
Originally Posted by Stauffenberg
"I think I will be putting up a separate scenario notes download link, for updated notes minus all the jpegs."
While putting up a TO&E tree would be an immense amount of work, it would certainly help those players intent on using 'all' of the CC rules, not to mention an aid to amatuer historians, lol!
Working the OB really IS rather time consuming, eh? Were there not OB .jpegs somewhere in your research docs?
Alternately, one just assigns OHL assets as one pleases, as it might be rather difficult to entirely pull hindenberg and all his toys out of a given front (ie: ship all to east).
Forgive me if I've missed the obvious, please.
I believe you can pull the OOB tree out of the dump, with a bit of Excel work. Let me see what I can do.
On another matter, Daniel, and this is just a personal preference, would it be possible to separate the sea areas with asterisks or lines or something like that? reason is I recently picked an old laptop and it doesn't have that much contrast for my auld eyes...
Bloodstar
11 Jul 05, 04:19
While putting up a TO&E tree would be an immense amount of work, it would certainly help those players intent on using 'all' of the CC rules, not to mention an aid to amatuer historians, lol!
LOL, I am joking with myself when I say that I am historian.
I have researching WW2 and WW1(and some other periods) as well but don't have a really good memory for numbers.
Alternately, one just assigns OHL assets as one pleases, as it might be rather difficult to entirely pull hindenberg and all his toys out of a given front (ie: ship all to east).
This is also something that I've been proposing when I gazed a deep look into scenario months ago. Those assets are mostly non combative, I mean more supportive. Siege artyllery - have been used in the west and in the east - and have not lead the way forward but CC is here not important because obviously OHL HQ just lend the assets as situation advised (attack on Namur or Novo Gerorgievsk etc...), or pioneers to make a bridge, or supply units, or those RR repairs. If I have understood you OK.
Game is complicated - I have sent first turn to Daniel, been trying my best :laugh:
Because it is complicated it needs to give some help to player and lessen micromanagment somehow.
Mario
Dan Neely
11 Jul 05, 06:51
I believe you can pull the OOB tree out of the dump, with a bit of Excel work. Let me see what I can do.
that's what I was working on for him yesterday afternoon. So far I've been using regular expressions to do the parsing but I'm probably going to shift tools to finish the job.
On another matter, Daniel, and this is just a personal preference, would it be possible to separate the sea areas with asterisks or lines or something like that? reason is I recently picked an old laptop and it doesn't have that much contrast for my auld eyes...
Probably not, there're a finite number of placenames available and I doubt there're hundreds available for that use.
Stauffenberg
11 Jul 05, 09:49
I believe you can pull the OOB tree out of the dump, with a bit of Excel work. Let me see what I can do.
On another matter, Daniel, and this is just a personal preference, would it be possible to separate the sea areas with asterisks or lines or something like that? reason is I recently picked an old laptop and it doesn't have that much contrast for my auld eyes...
I appreciate the offer, but i think Dan is working on the OB, threading it out of the dump file. I was hoping for something simple with colour-coded nationalities but we'll see what he comes up with and take it from there. I looking forward to see what the entire war OB will look like. Should be impressive.
I would rather have used asterisks or something to separate Sea Zones but Koger has that strange 300 name limit in the editor and I need every name on the map for locations and other things. In an earlier version I was using shallow sea hexes every second hex to mark the edge of Sea Zones and it looked nice visually. I changed it to distance marker simply so that every border hex could be crossed--shallow sea hexes could'nt of course.
Daniel
Stauffenberg
11 Jul 05, 10:34
While putting up a TO&E tree would be an immense amount of work, it would certainly help those players intent on using 'all' of the CC rules, not to mention an aid to amatuer historians, lol!
Working the OB really IS rather time consuming, eh? Were there not OB .jpegs somewhere in your research docs?
Alternately, one just assigns OHL assets as one pleases, as it might be rather difficult to entirely pull hindenberg and all his toys out of a given front (ie: ship all to east).
Forgive me if I've missed the obvious, please.
separate file for .jpegs for maps/to&e's eh? comments?
A TOE tree. It hadn't even occured to me. There are some unique uses of squad types, but other than that the main differences are in the mortars, guns, and howitzers etc. You can get a clear picture of this by looking at each Major Power's industrial cadre units that appear 4 times a year starting 1916. But you have to keep in mind certain artillery issues that saw me not adhereing strictly to a particular "historical" gun type. I wanted most Corps & independent artillery unit TOE to have 2 hex range--not all, but most. This involved some substitutions and compromises.
The only jpeg OB material I was using was for the A-H forces sent to me by Glenn Jewison who runs the superb A-H site:
http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/
They are unfortunately locked in the HD of a notebook that died but I will be retrieving them soon.
I used the Databook, not as some sort of OB bible but as a comprehensive starting point for a massive topic. I haven't looked at the WWII equivalent yet, but I can't imagine it is better. The databook is in a class of its own.
From there I branched off into whatever sources I could come up with. Really quite incredible how much you can get off the net. The Italians, oddly enough, proved the most difficult for awhile. Assistance from Piero there (and Jose I forgot to add in my first posting here), and Pavel for the Russians, demonstrate the obvious fact that there is really no substitution for someone working in the source language at issue. Alot of my earlier interest (before this surprising WWI bug that has bitten me) was Ostfront WWII and I always felt limited in not knowing Russian. I got pretty good at reading their maps at least.
Right now 2.0 is the first serious version to try out but it really is the first prototype of what will be a long process. Francois at RD will be refining the French OB--and that illustrates another research issue: being able to read the language is not enough either if you can't get access to specific research material. There are vast reams of information in Parisian libraries that do not exist here in Montreal.
Apart from that I keep hoping a German grognard will appear with all sorts of answers about the German OB.
The units stuck in the OHL formation were just dumped in there with the idea that they could be sent back from whatever front they are on to build up strength, readiness, & supply, adjacent to a central HQ.
The jpegs stay in the main text doc as I have a jpeg fetish--I like lots of colour here and there. But I'll split off a separate text with no graphics so that evolving honour rules and deployment restrictions can be put up without a new sce. download each time. Next version I'll even finally learn how to use the auto-indexer.
D.
Stauffenberg
11 Jul 05, 11:04
While you're tweaking the scen doc, could you add a key for all the local unit naming conventions for the benefit of those of us who don't speak French/German/Russian/etc.?
Yes of course. I meant to do it for 2.0 but ran out of time. Next version I hope.
D.
Ben Turner
11 Jul 05, 11:13
I would rather have used asterisks or something to separate Sea Zones but Koger has that strange 300 name limit in the editor and I need every name on the map for locations and other things. In an earlier version I was using shallow sea hexes every second hex to mark the edge of Sea Zones and it looked nice visually. I changed it to distance marker simply so that every border hex could be crossed--shallow sea hexes could'nt of course.
The distance marker? Won't this mean that ships in these hexes are invulnerable, since the game thinks they're further away than they are? Or are ships not allowed to stop on the line?
Other alternatives are broken rail lines running over the sea (a little unseemly but functional) and shallow water hexes with anchorages (I think I've seen this done, but I could be imagining it).
Bloodstar
11 Jul 05, 11:29
The distance marker? Won't this mean that ships in these hexes are invulnerable, since the game thinks they're further away than they are? Or are ships not allowed to stop on the line?
Other alternatives are broken rail lines running over the sea (a little unseemly but functional) and shallow water hexes with anchorages (I think I've seen this done, but I could be imagining it).
the combat is not allowed in the distance marker I think you must be 3 hexes away at least and you cannot position your fleet on the marker - all is in rules.
Mario
Ben Turner
11 Jul 05, 13:49
the combat is not allowed in the distance marker I think you must be 3 hexes away at least and you cannot position your fleet on the marker - all is in rules.
OK. Of course, one could do away with this house rule if a different marker was used.
Dan Neely
11 Jul 05, 18:49
A TOE tree. It hadn't even occured to me. There are some unique uses of squad types, but other than that the main differences are in the mortars, guns, and howitzers etc. You can get a clear picture of this by looking at each Major Power's industrial cadre units that appear 4 times a year starting 1916. But you have to keep in mind certain artillery issues that saw me not adhereing strictly to a particular "historical" gun type. I wanted most Corps & independent artillery unit TOE to have 2 hex range--not all, but most. This involved some substitutions and compromises.
Hmmm. A tree's certainly'd be a nice option if it was easily doable in Excel (anyone know the answer to that?) since my data processing so far's left the oob parts of the dump in a pseudo tree format as is.
Since I'm probably not going to have a chance to chew on it anymore for annother day or two, her's what I did sunday afternoon. Your best bet would be to open the file in Excel and let the import wizard do it's thing. (if prompted it's tab delimited, no headers - Formation and unit data is ordered the same way as in the dump though)
Edit: trying to attach the file again.
Bloodstar
11 Jul 05, 18:59
Hmmm. A tree's certainly'd be a nice option if it was easily doable in Excel (anyone know the answer to that?) since my data processing so far's left the oob parts of the dump in a pseudo tree format as is.
Since I'm probably not going to have a chance to chew on it anymore for annother day or two, her's what I did sunday afternoon. Your best bet would be to open the file in Excel and let the import wizard do it's thing. (if prompted it's tab delimited, no headers - Formation and unit data is ordered the same way as in the dump though)
Edit: trying to attach the file again.
Dan, GREAT !!! :hail::thumup::toast:
Thank you!
Mario
@Dan Neely: WoW, I guess I should be careful what I ask for. This is the full-meal-deal, eh?
My original intent was to see if anyone had some sort of OoB formation tree for use with the CC rules, as ToaW doesn't allow for attachments, and using the oob button doesn't seem to show units that appear later. Using both the oob button and the 'expected reinforment' button seems to me rather unwieldly.
While I don't have Excell, I do have Excell Reader, eh? But thanks for the effort, as I can see 'thinly through the fog', and your work is deffinatly appreciated. I 'can' do some work myself, lol!
Cat-out-of-the-bag Dept: I wanted to try the 'full' schlieffen plan, and figuring that v. Schlieffen might be smarter than I (not to mention McBride and Co.), I was looking for an OOB tree that would speed up the first turn movement for the CP.
One has to look carefully at the OOB to know that the 1st-4th Kav should go to the East and join Ludendorff, unless one is very well grounded in period. Didn't notice this right off myself until it struck me that cav really sux in the west, and Ludendorff could use some mobile defence units. I'm laughing at myself, so please feel free to join in, eh?
@MM:
Personally, I LOVE micro-managing, especially in this .sce.
The first 'serious' wargame I ever played was Avalon Hill's '1914', and I used to type up aar's while I learned to type on an old manual typewriter. WW1 deserves micro-managing, and house-rules per 2.0 more than any other toaw .sce extant.
Using the full set of CC rules may take an unholy ammount of time, but that's what WW1 is all about. I've even come to the conclusion that RRrepair units should NOT be used in masses ( ie: sending them all to the place you most wish to advance a railhead), and instead, should only be used in the 'army zone' allocated to.
Anyroad: I feel a long turn gets one in the 'psychic' mode for game.
Ain't no panzers here, by Ghod!
Kurt
As an example: the enclosed txt.
I guess what I pine for would be the nice 'graphic addendums' that AH/SPI used to turn out with their games, lol.
Alternately, the ability to attach lower formations to higher commands (and vice versa).
While I'm at it, damn Take2, damn Talonsoft, and free the Koger One!
Will Koger ever get the rights to this game back?
Not Without YOUR Help!
Kurt
Bloodstar
12 Jul 05, 05:03
Cat-out-of-the-bag Dept: I wanted to try the 'full' schlieffen plan, and figuring that v. Schlieffen might be smarter than I (not to mention McBride and Co.), I was looking for an OOB tree that would speed up the first turn movement for the CP.
@MM:
Personally, I LOVE micro-managing, especially in this .sce.
The first 'serious' wargame I ever played was Avalon Hill's '1914', and I used to type up aar's while I learned to type on an old manual typewriter. WW1 deserves micro-managing, and house-rules per 2.0 more than any other toaw .sce extant.
Using the full set of CC rules may take an unholy ammount of time, but that's what WW1 is all about. I've even come to the conclusion that RRrepair units should NOT be used in masses ( ie: sending them all to the place you most wish to advance a railhead), and instead, should only be used in the 'army zone' allocated to.
Anyroad: I feel a long turn gets one in the 'psychic' mode for game.
Ain't no panzers here, by Ghod!
I appreciated your enthusiasm for WW1 and this is really great.
But you must be aware of limitations of TOAW system, even Germans (real Germans) and real Schlieffen plan was written mostly to show which division will go where because Belgium is small and it takes a lost of roads etc... for divisions to progress so that space doesn't become congested.
This is even worse in TOAW and I don't like any yellow or orange or god no red signs that my unit's are packed like Cheetos in the shop :devil: (Cheetos is best USA snacker BTW! With cheese - ahh, we cannot buy it here in Europe, damn!)
You will not pull Schliefen plan in TOAW I can guarantee you. Or maybe it will be suicide mission - You will get Paris and Russians will have meal on Tempelhof and Berlin itself.
TOAW doesn't allow situation like that what happened for real because game system cannot copy the history and it's not intendent to do so - it can give just a glimplse and our imagination will do the rest.
You cannot simulate that it took Russians a month I think to transfer troops to Lodz and stop Germans there - so even a month was enough in that case - TOAW is in this case faster. But, TOAW is slower in the case of 8th Army transfering forces to fight Russians at Tannenberg - in TOAW you would do it slower and also Russians would be in Konnigsberg (now Kalinin, Russians are celebrationg 750 years of founding of the city, ironically) in 1 or 2 turns because nobody will be there to stop them (almost nobody).
Well, I come from different playing experience than you - my wargaming is almost all computer wargaming - I had some board wargames but here you don't have people who would play it against you so PC games are my choice.
I don't mind creative micromanagment(preparing good attack etc...) but counting hexes to army HQ is not fun to me, and yes I was used to Brabarossa or some other scenarios where divisions and subunits would be all over the place how situation dictates, yes it's unrealistic but it is TOAW :)
Dishing out Army HQ CC rule out is not big deal for me - scale here that front will be formed more or less everywhere and there couldn't be so wild movements almost anywhere if players play it right.
In any case I don't want to make any Schlieffen moves - it didn't work out in 1914. and it will not work in 2005. as well :)
And those 2-3 corps that where sent from Western Front to Eastern (historically on the eve of Marne battle)- how I'm gonna attache them to Eastern front army (8 or 9?)... How will they make offensive moves in Masurian (ok this is German territory but they will cross Soviet border eventually). Just plain too much micromangment in limiting TOAW condition.
And nightmare about reinforcements, which div or corps goes where, will I have enough units here or there etc...
Mind you, Germans have crossed the border in Slesia and how will you do it in TOAW when 8th army HQ is in Eastern Prussia - count 5 hexes and there are more than that!(EDIT: in fact on border are few corps that belongs to army that is on western front!!!) There is I think more situation where corps wher making offensive or divisions even independent of Army HQ - I would just have to dig those situatios from the books - we are talking about era of wirelless radio and telegraph, and recon planes as well (yes, not modern radio but radio). Also recon planes and balloons should give some recon % - I don't mind even this 0% but...
There are many other problems associated with this.
Mario
Bloodstar
12 Jul 05, 05:08
While I'm at it, damn Take2, damn Talonsoft, and free the Koger One!
Will Koger ever get the rights to this game back?
Not Without YOUR Help!
Kurt
Well, Kurt, maybe we should write to Take 2 and ask them what they wait that TOAW becomes abandonware or what?
I think that they even forget about TOAW. It's the same situation like Ubi Soft and right of Panzer General, Ubi Soft doesn't seem to want to continue the making of these games and potential is there but don't want to sell rights to the name etc... for small money.
And that's why some now try to make "simplier" games like World at War, Strategic Command (2) etc... they recognise the need for beer & pretzels games.
Mario
Stauffenberg
12 Jul 05, 11:19
Well, Kurt, maybe we should write to Take 2 and ask them what they wait that TOAW becomes abandonware or what?
Mario
There may be developments on that soon.
D.
Bloodstar
12 Jul 05, 11:26
There may be developments on that soon.
D.
This sounds good. :)
Mario
Stauffenberg
12 Jul 05, 11:28
Dan & Kurt,
Interesting work. I guess what I had in mind was a simple Word doc that lists out reinforcements by turn/historical date, and colour referenced to nationality. My guess, depending on font, this would be a 12 pg document. I suppose a spreadsheet offering TOE and prof. stats would be useful too, but certainly a reinforcement OB has to rank at the top for usefulness. I wouldn't mind seeing a bar graph TE/CP for total number of divisions deployed month by month either, just out of curiousity.
Thanks,
Daniel
There may be developments on that soon.
D.You teaser!
;)
Stauffenberg
12 Jul 05, 12:07
You teaser!
;)
It's a tough job but someone has to do it. :whist:
Dan Neely
12 Jul 05, 17:46
Dan & Kurt,
Interesting work. I guess what I had in mind was a simple Word doc that lists out reinforcements by turn/historical date, and colour referenced to nationality. My guess, depending on font, this would be a 12 pg document. I suppose a spreadsheet offering TOE and prof. stats would be useful too, but certainly a reinforcement OB has to rank at the top for usefulness. I wouldn't mind seeing a bar graph TE/CP for total number of divisions deployed month by month either, just out of curiousity.
OK. Both of those're simpler than what I orginally had in mind. It would be so much simpler todo what I want with a database app, unfortunately I suspect alot of the people who'd otherwise be interested would balk at having to install mysql to use it, and the people who have the DB I'm familiar with from work (mssql2k) are even fewer on the ground. :scream:
Dan Neely
12 Jul 05, 17:53
There may be developments on that soon.
D.
I don't suppose you could tell us anything else, even where your rumor's coming from.
In previous remarks Norm's said the price take2 was demanding was high enough that his wife'd divorce him over spending it. I hope this means that t2's leadership has recovered from thier severe crainiorectal impaction or that Norm's won the lottery and not that he's having severe domestic problems.
hmmm. I wonder if this's why norm's gone silent on the subject since promising acow 1.07 in the very near future last year. If he had, even potentially, a new version in the works I could see him not wanting to release a more advanced codebase for free. Everyone here would probably shell out the $50 either way but ceo types are harder to convince.
Stauffenberg
12 Jul 05, 18:04
I don't suppose you could tell us anything else, even where your rumor's coming from.
.
No, sorry. Just take it as is. Better than nothing I thought.
D.
Stauffenberg
12 Jul 05, 18:07
OK. Both of those're simpler than what I orginally had in mind. It would be so much simpler todo what I want with a database app, unfortunately I suspect alot of the people who'd otherwise be interested would balk at having to install mysql to use it, and the people who have the DB I'm familiar with from work (mssql2k) are even fewer on the ground. :scream:
By all means carry on with that, I wasn't trying to discourage. My first interest was the reinf. OB but anything else that interests players would be good too. I'll decide later on whether to add this or that to an already long tex file.
D.
Dan Neely
12 Jul 05, 19:56
By all means carry on with that, I wasn't trying to discourage. My first interest was the reinf. OB but anything else that interests players would be good too. I'll decide later on whether to add this or that to an already long tex file.
What I'm aiming for as a final product would be best left in SS format for ease of manipulation. With ~4k lines and 30ish columns (maybe more depending on what I do with the composition data) sorting/filtering will be mandatory.
But you must be aware of limitations of TOAW system, even Germans (real Germans) and real Schlieffen plan was written mostly to show which division will go where because Belgium is small and it takes a lost of roads etc... for divisions to progress so that space doesn't become congested.
~Indeed, Bloodstar, quite aware that the plan is more logistics than anything else.~
This is even worse in TOAW and I don't like any yellow or orange or god no red signs ....
~Myself either in a later period game, but this being a period where bad tactics kill 60,000 men in an afternoon, methinx those nasty red dots are gonna be rather common during an offensive.
You will not pull Schliefen plan in TOAW I can guarantee you. Or maybe it will be suicide mission - You will get Paris and Russians will have meal on Tempelhof and Berlin itself.
~most likely not, but that wouldn't stop me from trying. It's one of few options, eh? One has to deal with the French sooner or later..........
You cannot simulate that it took Russians a month I think to transfer troops to Lodz and stop Germans there - so even a month was enough in that case - TOAW is in this case faster. But, TOAW is slower in the case of 8th Army transfering forces to fight Russians at Tannenberg - in TOAW you would do it slower and also Russians would be in Konnigsberg (now Kalinin, Russians are celebrationg 750 years of founding of the city, ironically) in 1 or 2 turns because nobody will be there to stop them (almost nobody).
~Hence the rail limits, and the need for at least one more army hq in the east~
And those 2-3 corps that where sent from Western Front to Eastern (historically on the eve of Marne battle)- how I'm gonna attache them to Eastern front army (8 or 9?)... How will they make offensive moves in Masurian (ok this is German territory but they will cross Soviet border eventually). Just plain too much micromangment in limiting TOAW condition.
And nightmare about reinforcements, which div or corps goes where, will I have enough units here or there etc...
Mind you, Germans have crossed the border in Slesia and how will you do it in TOAW when 8th army HQ is in Eastern Prussia - count 5 hexes and there are more than that!(EDIT: in fact on border are few corps that belongs to army that is on western front!!!) There is I think more situation where corps wher making offensive or divisions even independent of Army HQ - I would just have to dig those situatios from the books - we are talking about era of wirelless radio and telegraph, and recon planes as well (yes, not modern radio but radio). Also recon planes and balloons should give some recon % - I don't mind even this 0% but...
There are many other problems associated with this.
Mario
~Mario, I understand your reservations, but still feel that this .sce will be many things to many people. To me, all these things are simply something to be overcome, eh? Part of what makes this .sce so attractive to me, many problems to be solved, oportunity to try more than once to get it right, lol!
Kurt
@Daniel and Dan;
Concerning OOB's, myself, I'd happily take any info I can get.
My first thought was that Daniel must have the original OOB for forces along with reinforcements in some sort of file, which might be simple to post. Say from part of his working notes?
Sort of a readout of how he set the game up, eh? Knowing that such and such a Korps started with X units, would recieve X more units on turn Y, that sort of thing. A full TO&E of said units would be truely outstanding.
It should be understood that I don't think of a full original OOB as something binding, but it would be of considerable interest to note the eventual differences as some korps are stripped away from thier original parent armies and attached to others. Make for a finest kind detailed AAR, lol.
My main thrust is to create a player-aid allowing one to see what exists, and how assets might be better deployed. In this .sce we face considerable problems with certain fronts almost certain to stagnate into trench warfare, yet with the possibility of success in the assualt if time can be traded for force. After all, Rommel started as an infantry officer............
And yes, I do have this silly idea of victory in the west for the CP, sigh...
A really neat url concerning oob's for GE=
http://home.comcast.net/~lcviser/corps.htm
The linx should work, eh? Be sure to check out the whole site.
Kudos to these peeps!
Kurt
Originally Posted by Bloodstar
Well, Kurt, maybe we should write to Take 2 and ask them what they wait that TOAW becomes abandonware or what?
Mario
There may be developments on that soon.
D.
Outstanding, Stauffenberg, Outstanding!
(/me lights incense, practices thinking good thoughts)
Bloodstar
13 Jul 05, 05:29
~Mario, I understand your reservations, but still feel that this .sce will be many things to many people. To me, all these things are simply something to be overcome, eh? Part of what makes this .sce so attractive to me, many problems to be solved, oportunity to try more than once to get it right, lol!
Kurt
Yes, Kurt, I understand you. I also didn't know how to quote just part of the text - you have on the far right side icon when you point your mouse it will write "wrap (quote)" just delete those quote signs from the beginning and from the end and then you can with a mouse select part of the text and push this quote button, voila it's quotting a part of the text. I still don't know everything about this editor but I see that it's good. :salute:
Maybe in my next game I will play with full rules on. When you come up with some really helpful OOB files, I think that trick here is to help somehow Central Powers in the beginning-middle game when they where in ascendancy only later things were going better for the Allies in spite of Russia dropping out of the war (too late).
We will see how scenario is playing out (maybe I am wrong, still think it's not big deal, we will see), first thing I'm gonna punish Serbians for killing our Archduke lol... Next thing I'm gonna teach Belgians to get me Stella beer in time next time, and I will teach Frenchies some lessons from 1870. and Russian hordes will get also... :devious:
Mario
Stauffenberg
13 Jul 05, 11:42
Kurt,
Outstanding German Army site. Hard to believe I missed that--well not that hard. I've added it to the biblio and will be looking through it soon.
All unit arrivals are given in the dump file that Jose put up a few days ago. Its just a question of threading it all out. I usually put it in Word and use replace commands etc.
D.
Dicke Bertha
14 Jul 05, 16:37
Ha, I just watched nemo's first turn, 5800 something moves, and I think I saw half a dozen units move! Great! No long-air recon, this should be great, in GiO I've often wondered why my Germans can spot, indeed watch the better part of Soviet reinforcement being railed up to the front, even on those stretches that are 100-200 km behind enemy lines. And I see the Jerries move too, from Berlin, as Soviet. In this one I don't, but it's still peace :), I just hope it stays that way. Perhaps TOAW is just best for WWI? :D
I want to replay the French/TE side historically, with an unhistorical learning curve if I see that this is reasonable (if nemo is kicking me badly). I don't really know what that means yet, but it is an intention. I will squander away as I believe my command would have, at leat in 1914 I will... ;)
With that said, I have two questions, as the briefing does not hint here.
1) Border units. I will not dig them in in anticipation of an attack.
2) In GiO, there are clear indications on how many turns the Soviets should aim for to win, or go anywhere. As this is a big undertaking, it would be bad to go along for thirty turns just ot see that the general approach was faulty. In hitherto playtesting, what is a reasonable round/turn ratio? Is three rounds balanced?
Man, nemo, tomorrow the Frenchies may be standing to! ;)
Ha, I just watched nemo's first turn, 5800 something moves, and I think I saw half a dozen units move! Great! No long-air recon, this should be great, in GiO I've often wondered why my Germans can spot, indeed watch the better part of Soviet reinforcement being railed up to the front, even on those stretches that are 100-200 km behind enemy lines. And I see the Jerries move too, from Berlin, as Soviet.Yeah, that's just great, as it also pretty much eliminates the need to go through a replay in the several thousands moves range!
In this one I don't, but it's still peace :), I just hope it stays that way. Perhaps TOAW is just best for WWI? :DWell yes, all these moves were in fact coach buses of retired workers touring through Germany's beer factories. It's said they have a rigid schedule to follow... :whist:
With that said, I have two questions, as the briefing does not hint here.
1) Border units. I will not dig them in in anticipation of an attack. Same here. Most, if not all of them, start the game already entrenched however.
2) In GiO, there are clear indications on how many turns the Soviets should aim for to win, or go anywhere. As this is a big undertaking, it would be bad to go along for thirty turns just ot see that the general approach was faulty. In hitherto playtesting, what is a reasonable round/turn ratio? Is three rounds balanced?Good question.
Man, nemo, tomorrow the Frenchies may be standing to! ;)That's just not fair. I'd suggest you'd keep them to one round of half-hearted attacks per turn followed by immediate disbanding to remain within the limits of historical veracity :p
Dicke Bertha
14 Jul 05, 17:28
Nah, nemo, from what I know the French surrender monkeys were lions. After years of senseless and horrible losses they refused to the usual attacks as Foggy has defined them, but they kept the defence solid. Serious and dependable guys. That the Germans are the effiecient Germans has no bearing on the French. And successful, given the fact that the overall plan worked, the Germans weren't really paying attention as in WW2, when the French weren't. I plan to have my BEF defend Bordeaux in our game, if only to piss Ben off. :)
@Stauffenberg:
I propose an ammendment to your CC rules :
existing:
--There is no CC phase at the beginning of the turn; CC range is determined moment by moment. If units are out of range of their Corps HQ, or if a Corps HQ is not within range of an Army, they may move into range, or have HQs reposition themselves to be offensively enabled.
addendum:
'ENTRAINED' HQ'S may not exert CC!
Prolly doesn't need mentioning, but won't hurt, eh? No 'asia' hq trains in this period, lol!
Also: could you expand upon this vis a vis your intent?
"II.21.3 CC for Independent or out of range status:
--units can trace a direct line of any length to their controlling HQ along rail, major river, or across water from port to port, and are considered to be in CC—these three unlimited distance methods may not
however be combined. With respect to major rivers both units need only be adjacent to the same river—enemy units will not block CC unless a ZOC is projected into a major river hex from both sides of the
river. Independent CC attempted across sea hexes will not be blocked unless the enemy has a blockade of either port in place."
Making this apply to 'out of range' units seem somewhat ambiguous to me, so I figure you had something specific in mind when you wrote it. wtf, over?
Kurt
Just an aside, gentlemen;
Is this .sce just begging to be played by teams, or am I missing the point of something?
Obviously, it would require some seriously fanatic players to get the game done but imagaine how sweet it could be.
Just a thought..........
Kurt
Stauffenberg
15 Jul 05, 13:40
@Stauffenberg:
I propose an ammendment to your CC rules :
existing:
--There is no CC phase at the beginning of the turn; CC range is determined moment by moment. If units are out of range of their Corps HQ, or if a Corps HQ is not within range of an Army, they may move into range, or have HQs reposition themselves to be offensively enabled.
addendum:
'ENTRAINED' HQ'S may not exert CC!
Prolly doesn't need mentioning, but won't hurt, eh? No 'asia' hq trains in this period, lol!
Also: could you expand upon this vis a vis your intent?
"II.21.3 CC for Independent or out of range status:
--units can trace a direct line of any length to their controlling HQ along rail, major river, or across water from port to port, and are considered to be in CC—these three unlimited distance methods may not
however be combined. With respect to major rivers both units need only be adjacent to the same river—enemy units will not block CC unless a ZOC is projected into a major river hex from both sides of the
river. Independent CC attempted across sea hexes will not be blocked unless the enemy has a blockade of either port in place."
Making this apply to 'out of range' units seem somewhat ambiguous to me, so I figure you had something specific in mind when you wrote it. wtf, over?
Kurt
WTF indeed. I should have indicated that segment is very much experimental. I think what I was getting at was some way of extending the length along rivers, especially in Mesopotamia. Let's just put that on hold and see how the Brits are in that area.
A moment by moment provision sounds fine by me. All of this is not usually much of an issue on the West front. Its the space in the other theatres I was concerned with.
D.
@Stauffenberg:
Undoubtedly showing my ass here, but I assume cross attachment of GE to AH army HQ's (and vice versa) is allowable for CC rules. A light hop skip and jump would so indicate.
I'd question this for the FR and BR corps..........need to research this on my part.
(If nothing else, TGW is making me spend some good time doing research, lol!)
Presently playing hot-seat, which really brings out the 'rules lawyer' in me, lol.
Kurt
What is the post date on this scenario? Thanks
I'd question this for the FR and BR corps..........need to research this on my part.Certainly in the later part of the war. Operations in 1918 especially saw British divisions attached to French corps and vice-versa. Same goes for the U.S. with both French and British corps. The trick would be to determine the date from which this would become possible.
What is the post date on this scenario? Thanks
July 6, 2005
Brand new and still being spanked!
Certainly in the later part of the war. Operations in 1918 especially saw British divisions attached to French corps and vice-versa. Same goes for the U.S. with both French and British corps. The trick would be to determine the date from which this would become possible.
Roger your last, Nemo;
Most of my reservations are towards the early part (1914), in spite of Joffre being CinC West, as it were.....
My thrust is concerning corps level attachments, eh?
Will research befor shooting off mouth anymore on this subject, thanks for the push, lol
Kurt
If memory serves me well, there were no cross-attachments between French and British troops in 1914. French's three BEF corps always fought as a whole, even if after their transfer from the Aisne to Flanders in october the ensuing melee often led to French and British troops intermingling. Same situation for the Belgian, which always remained within their own command structure even if on the ground they more often than not were mixed with both French and British units.
Wild guess: I'd go for no cross-attachment before say, 1917 on the western front. Things would probably be different on peripheral fronts (thinking of the Daradnelles here for instance) and I'd say 1915 here.
My 0.02 cents :)
L'zard,
Thanks. I wasn't totally sure what date convention was being used.
Stauffenberg
16 Jul 05, 13:04
If memory serves me well, there were no cross-attachments between French and British troops in 1914. French's three BEF corps always fought as a whole, even if after their transfer from the Aisne to Flanders in october the ensuing melee often led to French and British troops intermingling. Same situation for the Belgian, which always remained within their own command structure even if on the ground they more often than not were mixed with both French and British units.
Wild guess: I'd go for no cross-attachment before say, 1917 on the western front. Things would probably be different on peripheral fronts (thinking of the Daradnelles here for instance) and I'd say 1915 here.
My 0.02 cents :)
I had initially thought that units would be welded into their Corps or Army formations since TOAW has no flexibility at all re reassignment. That said, I thought the issue of trans-national assignments would best be handled on the Corps level, To keep it simple, perhaps a max of 1 foreign Corps per Army. So the French have 1 Corps in Salonika operating under the Brit. Med. Expedition Army HQ. If they want more French troops there they need to have one of their own Army HQs--their own Expeditionary force HQ for example.
And this touches upon another topic that will come up--should the French & Italians be limited in what they send east from their main fronts? Right now I have them limited to their Expeditionary Force units but I am more than willing to hear information that indicates they could send twice as many troops if they wanted to.
Daniel
L'zard,
Thanks. I wasn't totally sure what date convention was being used.
NP, Jim.
Very Very good take on WW1, try it you'll like it (assuming of course that you've a good amount of spare time. a possible range of 260 turns doesn't come for free, lol).
I'll note that this is more a pbem/hot-seat game, eh?
Kurt
1)I had initially thought that units would be welded into their Corps or Army formations since TOAW has no flexibility at all re reassignment.
2)That said, I thought the issue of trans-national assignments would best be handled on the Corps level, To keep it simple, perhaps a max of 1 foreign Corps per Army. So the French have 1 Corps in Salonika operating under the Brit. Med. Expedition Army HQ. If they want more French troops there they need to have one of their own Army HQs--their own Expeditionary force HQ for example.
3)And this touches upon another topic that will come up--should the French & Italians be limited in what they send east from their main fronts? Right now I have them limited to their Expeditionary Force units but I am more than willing to hear information that indicates they could send twice as many troops if they wanted to.
Daniel
1) If support levels were raised by one class across the board, would this not allow such cross-attachments? House rules should handle non-historical usage, no?
Or would this screw up your design?
Poking about in the editor shows it won't anything other than tedious, but how much trouble is it? Could it be worth while?
( I really need to find my manuals for Toaw- printed out the cow ver, it's around here some dmn place, lol)
Kurt
PS: would you like me to take this discussion off the boards into pm or email?
Dicke Bertha
17 Jul 05, 09:21
L'zard, good thoughts, maybe this will allow too much cooperation though between units. Perhaps a more liberal approach within given constraints would be ok; An army HQ can provide the required CC to unlimited foreign corps as long as there is at least one 'national' corps attached to that very army.
Maby the CC won't be much of an issue in the west, in the east I am already after turn one uncertain if my dispositions for turn two will be sound, given the distance limits of CCs...
But then again I suppose that initial playtesting already has given a good indication on this.
Maybe it is time that McBride's scenarios get an own section/sub-forum.
Even having one sub-subforum level dedicated to each and every scenario out there would be good, alternatively having a checkbox option for a thread coupled to a specific scenario already in the WARS system, including the stats for the scenario, the available mini- as well as full-AARs, all in the name of user-friendliness... (admin headachinesss)...
Did that make any sense :)
Bloodstar
17 Jul 05, 10:03
Maby the CC won't be much of an issue in the west, in the east I am already after turn one uncertain if my dispositions for turn two will be sound, given the distance limits of CCs...
But then again I suppose that initial playtesting already has given a good indication on this.
If I were asking I would scrap all CC above corps level :laugh:
That's just me.
Maybe it is time that McBride's scenarios get an own section/sub-forum.
Even having one sub-subforum level dedicated to each and every scenario out there would be good, alternatively having a checkbox option for a thread coupled to a specific scenario already in the WARS system, including the stats for the scenario, the available mini- as well as full-AARs, all in the name of user-friendliness... (admin headachinesss)...
Did that make any sense :)
Yes, Daniel's scenarios should get section! Europe Afleme is OK but it also have two pages of topics and Daniel's scenarios let you also be small dictator and run whole Empires in WW1 or WW2 :cheeky:
Also, Daniel said that he will work on a new version of Braunschweig with the help of new book that he got (The Caucasus and the Oil I think which I have ordered on Amazon and I will get it in a few days)
Please admin make a forum section dedicated to Mr. McBride's scenarios!
I would also like to see forum section dedicated to Fire in the East 4.3.1 - I know that it will get full interest very soon when it will be released.
BTW, TGW 2.0 is great so unbelievable great! With it's rules it have some charm of old board games and ahhh... I have played 2 turns (will start playing turn 3 soon) and it's very rich and I am trying not to repeat Von Conrad's mistakes. Daniel is good player and it will be very, very hard and Triple Entente have an edge here. Yes, CP have some chances but only in the beginning - later pn will be really fight for survival for CP while forces of TE grows and grows... But it's interesting situation - to play weaker side which is on the center of situation later on TE can maneuver around CP forces easily and count of the strength of the navy to attack some weak spot. Fantastic. :cheeky:
Mario
Dan Neely
17 Jul 05, 22:10
TGW OOB in spreadsheet format.
Default ordering is the same as it appears in game. You can resort anyway you want using Excel. Coloring approximates in game choices although since toaw's and excels colorsets don't map nicely some are on the odd side. I've enabled autofilters (the arrows in the column headers), thier dropdowns are populated with every entry in the column. In some columns they're useless, but if you want to see only turn N reinforcements you can use the filters to do so.
Todo:
Add tables for formations
Add a nationality column
Break out the equiptment section (unlikely unless I get a vba solution to do the monkey work)
Stauffenberg: I think you should be able to pull out the tables you wanted from this. If you want me to do so, just let me know what columns you want, and what to sort by.
EDIT: forgot to attach file.
EDIT: %*#@)$*@# Forum software. I'll try again tommorrow.
Dan Neely
18 Jul 05, 07:32
Let's try again.
@Dan Neely;
Beautiful, just beautiful!
06 Maestro
18 Jul 05, 23:46
That is a fine work Dan. You saved me some major pencil and ruler work Thanks.
L'zard, good thoughts, maybe this will allow too much cooperation though between units. Perhaps a more liberal approach within given constraints would be ok; An army HQ can provide the required CC to unlimited foreign corps as long as there is at least one 'national' corps attached to that very army.
Maby the CC won't be much of an issue in the west, in the east I am already after turn one uncertain if my dispositions for turn two will be sound, given the distance limits of CCs...
But then again I suppose that initial playtesting already has given a good indication on this.
@Dicke Berthe:
Prolly only my problem, as I'm looking at GE/AH cooperation on the East front. Command Control ranges really aren't the problem, it's getting enough 'ARMY' level HQ's in the area, and also that some of my research shows mixed ge/ah army level formations (tho I will need to document the dates).
What I'm interested in (in detail) is whether setting the 8th army (and following on the east front reinforcement armies) to a higher support level will allow these armies to work together with AH formations. Look at the support settings as you go down the formation OOB tree..........
AS all the CC rules are 'house rules' anyway, they could be 'chromed' to allow for any desired level of cooperation, neh? Similar to the rail movement rules...........
Like the man said: formations are seemingly locked in vis the OOB, UNLESS the support levels are changed. OR unless someone comes along with a clue-by-four and eases my head out of my **s.
I know I've got to be missing something simple here, but it's driving me wild, LOL!
Kurt
Stauffenberg
19 Jul 05, 09:50
1) If support levels were raised by one class across the board, would this not allow such cross-attachments? House rules should handle non-historical usage, no?
Or would this screw up your design?
Poking about in the editor shows it won't anything other than tedious, but how much trouble is it? Could it be worth while?
( I really need to find my manuals for Toaw- printed out the cow ver, it's around here some dmn place, lol)
Kurt
PS: would you like me to take this discussion off the boards into pm or email?
Kurt,
Either here or email is fine. I think the others would like to hear about whatever, so I'll continue to post here.
I hadn't even really considered completely non-historical division in Corps reassignment as it seemed as though it would be far more trouble than it was worth. From playtesting, all it required was an examination of specific Corps and assigning them appropriately.
But if your idea was to be used I would think that a series of corps & army assignment pages in the text.doc would be there to be xeroxed and used. The impression I have had from some quarters is that basic honour rules are tough to sell, let alone something as exacting as this.
Re support levels, I have to go through and fine-tune that but I am thinking that most units should be at Army support with some exceptions.
D.
Stauffenberg
19 Jul 05, 10:26
If you have a look at some of the 1914 maps:
http://www.military.com/Resources/HistorySubmittedFileView?file=history_worldwari_ma ps.htm
You can see the German Army offensive front range was about 50 miles/80 kilometers. Kluck's 1st Army was supposed to advance to the west of Paris but ended up going east in order to maintain its offensive mass adjacent to 2nd Army.
At my scale I think 75kms/5 hexes is a good base to work from (I'm refining the ranges in the text.doc here). The question then is what segment of this range can be taken up by Corps HQs. If the Corps have a 2 hex range to their subordinate units (for offense only) then its 3 hexes max from any Corps to an Army HQ. 1 & 4 is another option, or even 3 & 2. Playtesting required to indicate which is best. My hunch is that 2/3 is probably best.
In all instances, units already in an Army's formation get the full 5 hex range.
Cavalry Corps HQs get +1 range to Army I suppose.
Front length in France 8/14= 42 hexes. German Armies available: 1-7 = 35 maximum offensive frontage. To remain active right to the Channel the Germans will have to stretch out a part of the front into defensive mode.
In each major power forces, one might use designated HQs which are given force support and can be used with other nationalities without penalty--the French and Italian expeditionary HQs and subordinated units. The Turkish Corps that operated with the Bulgarians in the Balkans & Romania. Note that this is a factor that would argue against a manual reassignment of divisions to different formations--the division in question will always be directly subordinate to its original HQ and will retain its support status which cannot be changed for the entire war.
D.
If you have a look at some of the 1914 maps:
http://www.military.com/Resources/HistorySubmittedFileView?file=history_worldwari_ma ps.htm
You can see the German Army offensive front range was about 50 miles/80 kilometers. Kluck's 1st Army was supposed to advance to the west of Paris but ended up going east in order to maintain its offensive mass adjacent to 2nd Army.
At my scale I think 75kms/5 hexes is a good base to work from (I'm refining the ranges in the text.doc here). The question then is what segment of this range can be taken up by Corps HQs. If the Corps have a 2 hex range to their subordinate units (for offense only) then its 3 hexes max from any Corps to an Army HQ. 1 & 4 is another option, or even 3 & 2. Playtesting required to indicate which is best. My hunch is that 2/3 is probably best.
In all instances, units already in an Army's formation get the full 5 hex range.
Yeah. 2 hexes should maybe be a maximum, as it can represent 45 km of linear frontage. In most instances, typical corps frontage on the western front when on the offence was quite shorter, more like 10 km or less. Besides, corps headquarters sitting two hexes away from their attacking divisions implies their 2-hex ranged artillery assets are not providing fire support of any kind. To me, a Corps CC range of 1 would portray more faithfully the conditions under which offensives were conducted on the western front.
On the other hand, things were seemingly different on the eastern front - it's an area I'm less familiar with. Besides, playtest will tell, but there are probable playability issues with such short range for Corps CC. So a 2 hex radius could be a working compromise.
My 0.02 €
Any chance of seeing the revisions to the .doc?
Quite interested in how CC ranges are to be modified, concerning the idea of GE/ AH cooperation on the army/ korps level vis the east front.
Dan & Kurt,
Interesting work. I guess what I had in mind was a simple Word doc that lists out reinforcements by turn/historical date, and colour referenced to nationality. My guess, depending on font, this would be a 12 pg document. I suppose a spreadsheet offering TOE and prof. stats would be useful too, but certainly a reinforcement OB has to rank at the top for usefulness. I wouldn't mind seeing a bar graph TE/CP for total number of divisions deployed month by month either, just out of curiousity.
Thanks,
Daniel
@Stauffenberg:
{possibly something like this?} see attachment (an extract from Dan's xl file......)
I'm mucking about with other ways of doing the same thing, my intent to make something that will work for easing the 1st turn RailRoad blues, lol.
As much as I like to micro-manage, I'm having a tough time getting army formations united in the right place to re-create history on the west front.
Clues, please?
Kurt
PS: viewed the map using 'InfranView', and all I can say is 'wow'. Having set up SPI's War in Europe ( 4x - 4footx8foot tables, 2 and 1/2 sets o' maps) this is ONE large map. I'm vastly impressed!
Maybe I'm stating the obvious but anyway, just to be sure: I'm taking for granted that I'm able to assign corps to any Army I see fit, provided I respect the Command-and-Control rules. Say I want to assign the Garde Armeekorps to AOK 1 instead of AOK 2: is that all right or did I mis-read the rules?
Maybe I'm stating the obvious but anyway, just to be sure: I'm taking for granted that I'm able to assign corps to any Army I see fit, provided I respect the Command-and-Control rules. Say I want to assign the Garde Armeekorps to AOK 1 instead of AOK 2: is that all right or did I mis-read the rules?
I've been waiting to see if Stauffenberg would post on this, but after this many days one can safely assume that for general purposes you've got it right. Especially for playing pbem.
As a philosophical aside: There's everything in the doc and various posts to imply that the game could be played in 'Purist mode', which would be that Korps must be in CC of thier listed Army HQ's.
I'm here to tell you that playing this way (while it can be done) is a very slow game turn, tho it's interesting to see the way doing so changes the game to a 'ww1 speed', especially in turn one and seems to model the time lag involved in the whole 'mobilization process'.
I've spent the last week working up 'quick reference oob's and mobilization plans' just to try to get the given korps listed railed into cc range of thier listed HQ's and have mostly desided that while this is fun in the anal retentive sort of way, it's a bit much for playing against another human, lol.
I consider my work not in vain, but for later on for when this .sce develops into rev. 3.0 ...........not to mention that no research goes unrewarded, it always gets used eventually. Even if for an entirely different game system.
I've learned a vast amount in the last week, but if I was going to play the game pbem, I'd certainly just agree to what parts of the 'house rules' were to by enacted, and then play play play!
Note Stauffenberg's use of support levels as one of the implications I'm refering to, especially concerning the use of mixed country korps sized units attached (in game) to a given HQ.
Still, this .sce just gets better all the time, eh?
For the sake of simplicity, given that this is not hardwired into the game engine, if your corps HQ is within the command range of an army HQ, all is well. So, if you decide to move the I German corps (where it forms part of 8 Army), from East Prussia to Flanders, this won't be a problem, as long as it ends up within command range of any army HQ in that region.
To my way of thinking, even if I German Corps remains in Prussia, you could still send 1st German Inf Div to Flanders, again as long as it ends up within command range of another corps HQ. Any other system is going to require a lot of time consuming checks, for no real purpose as far as I can see. And given that divisions moved freely between corps, armies and theatres, this is only realistic.
Stauffenberg
29 Jul 05, 00:43
I've been waiting to see if Stauffenberg would post on this, but after this many days one can safely assume that for general purposes you've got it right. Especially for playing pbem.
As a philosophical aside: There's everything in the doc and various posts to imply that the game could be played in 'Purist mode', which would be that Korps must be in CC of thier listed Army HQ's.
I'm here to tell you that playing this way (while it can be done) is a very slow game turn, tho it's interesting to see the way doing so changes the game to a 'ww1 speed', especially in turn one and seems to model the time lag involved in the whole 'mobilization process'.
I've spent the last week working up 'quick reference oob's and mobilization plans' just to try to get the given korps listed railed into cc range of thier listed HQ's and have mostly desided that while this is fun in the anal retentive sort of way, it's a bit much for playing against another human, lol.
Yes, sorry I missed some posts--I got caught up with advancing a playtest as far as I could before my main playtester Doug went AWOL on vacation. I was playing the CP and Doug is a first-class defensive player. We left off at turn 20 and I definitely had the TE on the ropes. I'll detail my thoughts on that and the tweaks and changes I've made for ver. 2.1 which is well on the way at this point--in another post. This weekend perhaps.
I consider my work not in vain, but for later on for when this .sce develops into rev. 3.0 ...........not to mention that no research goes unrewarded, it always gets used eventually. Even if for an entirely different game system.
I've learned a vast amount in the last week, but if I was going to play the game pbem, I'd certainly just agree to what parts of the 'house rules' were to by enacted, and then play play play!
Note Stauffenberg's use of support levels as one of the implications I'm refering to, especially concerning the use of mixed country korps sized units attached (in game) to a given HQ.
Still, this .sce just gets better all the time, eh?
I usually develop critical aspects of a scenario from a broad array of features, narrowing down things as playtests indicate what can be removed. I tend to be heavy on historical detail, and have a definite chrome fetish; but I generally will remove features that just don't work. Case in point--I would like the U-boat Merchant-Marine war to have worked, and we got it functioning fairly well this playtest--but it is finally far too much micro-management for little gain. I've scaled the U-boat presence down to allow possible interdiction of surface fleets and convoys at this point (in 2.1).
Command Control, along with cumbersome Naval dynamics were put in as a starting point, no more, no less. I had one basic CC concept which I thought would keep things clean & simple--CC has no effect upon defensive operations. Move what you want, wherever desired in friendly territory to defend; however, if you want to occupy enemy terrain or launch attacks, the CC restrictions have to be observed. So far so good. Playtests made the point that without these CC restrictions in place, it becomes a complete ant race in Mesopotamia and Persia--the side with the most ants wins essentially. I had thought perhaps this could be waived on the West Front where there will be no wide open spaces, but basically, its a reward for the meticulous players who keeps his Corps formations in order, and has his more powerful Corps in CC with a controlling Army, where he wants them, when offensive options are used--on any front. I'll give a Western Front example to make my point below.
In my reading, I have the impression that complete "Force Support" status, in TOAW terms, is not something common--the French did not attack on the Somme with any real-time coordination going on with the British: they launched their own supporting offensive and, as far as I know, no British and French divisions jointly charged German positions together. And so My thoughts on that are to minimise it with the exception of Expeditionary forces, or elite formations. I am not convinced that painstakingly reassigning divisions away from the Corps or Army they are in serves any purpose--its cumbersome; the units are still in their original formation as far as the TOAW program is concerned; finally there is great depth on both sides with large numbers of divisions and corps, but with a far lesser number of Army HQs. Generally, this allows players to do what they want within CC limitations without resorting to more micro management. Certain formations on both sides will be listed as Force Support, most are at Army Support, and Tribal or local colonial troops, guerillas etc, are on Internal Support.
But one thing to keep in mind is the issue of entire Corps being able to suborninate to another nationality Army HQ. I am thinking in terms of making this a particular nation's military capability. For example, given German command control competence, we might have a simple limitation to the effect that every German Army can command two allied Corps maxiumum. Austro-Hungarian Army HQs can control a maxiumum of one alled Corps, and that one Corps can only be German. Ottoman Armies can handle one German (only) Corps each.
British, French, and Italian might simply allow a total of two allied Corps total, controlled by one or two of their Army HQs. Tsarist Russia cannot control allied Corps, or perhaps one total; Bolshevik Russia none.
In developing this dynamic there has to be some tighter restrictions on having X number of Army HQs to handle X number of Corps; e.g. even though the French Front is narrow, the Germans on September 9th, 1914 had 5 Army HQs handling some 30 Korps at a rough count, in a large arch from NE of Paris up to the north of Verdun where 6th Army started, followed by 7th, holding much larger frontages on the defensive. German Army Limitations seem to be 7 Corps maximum, but more commonly 5--Kluck's 1st Army had 5 infantry plus 1 Cavalry Corps on this date. The key thing to highlight is that he moved his army SE in order to maintain his offensive mass just to the west of the German 2nd Army. The entire arch of 5 German armies covered some 18 hexes at the scale used here; so 3-4 hexes ea which we can conclude was an optimal advance frontage for an army intent upon delivering a crushing blow, with as many divisions and Corps in CC when the French were finally cornered.
The French 5th Army and the BEF appeared on Kluck's right as we all know, much to his intense surprise and dismay, but he reacted quickly enough to avoid complete disaster. The point to be made here is that the appearance of these forces on Kluck's right immedialy meant he had to move some of his Corps out beyond offensive CC range, and their function was initially defensive. With the ranges I give below it would be possible to offensively attack on an 8 hex front, but only if this curved around the Army HQ in almost a half circle. A straight-ahead offensive would be limited to 4-6 hexes.
Based upon this example, I would argue that CC limits should apply everywhere. I think a good starting point now (to alter what is in the text doc): Offensive Command Control Range:
Army to regular Corps: 3 hexes inclusive (count the Army HQ's hex to the Corp's hex, including that hex too.
Army to Cavalry Corps HQ: 4 hexes inclusive.
Corps to subordinate units: 1 hex
As per the input of someone above (sorry the name slips me right now) these range limitations are continuously in effect, not ascertained at the beginning of the turn and then ignored. A unit must be in range in a given hex at the monent it proceeds to enter an ememy hex; likewise, all units must be within range in the hexes they launch attacks from, at the moment the combat orders are given to those units.
(note from this you can see it is not absolutely "at the moment of attack" but at the moment the units get their orders to attack. What happens up until the combat is finally resolved--even if the units end up out of CC range for some reason--has no effect).
One other thing I would mention is that this will greatly mitigate this front-line free-for-all of "independent" units able to attack, execute complicated surround maneuvers and pull off incredible coordinated attacks from areas far beyond any possible Command Control, or conducting "autonomous" raids deep into the enemy hinterland... Offensive operations occur in the close vicinity of active armies--if you know the enemy does not have the ability to create offensive CC on your flanks or rear, you can ignore it. This, it seems to me, is the main reason I am convinced this has to be developed at this scale, and hopefully even simpler than the above. Its WWI, a time of divisions going over the top a few miles into enemy trench zones, and "disappearing" for hours, or half a day, as phone lines laid were quickly broken, runners never made their destination, and neither did the pigeons.
That's my take on it for now and I'll end this long-winded post. I'll look forward to your feedback.
Daniel
06 Maestro
29 Jul 05, 01:13
The new CC ranges will be a mild challenge for the western front, but in the east, it will really put a damper on things. As the TE on turn two, I have a front in excess of 120 hexes in Russia (cutting a few corners) with currently 18 corps HQs- over 6 hexes per corps if spread out. More HQs are on the way, but any offensive action will take some real planning- I hope the recon level stays low throughout the game.
Good riddance to the merchant marine-I couldn’t find them.
The new CC ranges will be a mild challenge for the western front, but in the east, it will really put a damper on things. As the TE on turn two, I have a front in excess of 120 hexes in Russia (cutting a few corners) with currently 18 corps HQs- over 6 hexes per corps if spread out. More HQs are on the way, but any offensive action will take some real planning- I hope the recon level stays low throughout the game.
Good riddance to the merchant marine-I couldn’t find them.
My take: just forces one to play armies as manuever units rather than korps, so there will DEFINATLY be large spaces unprotected.
Kav units are the life-blood, eh?
LOL! At least the Rus have space and time.... and initiative!
Kurt
06 Maestro
29 Jul 05, 01:34
My take: just forces one to play armies as manuever units rather than korps, so there will DEFINATLY be large spaces unprotected.
Kav units are the life-blood, eh?
LOL! At least the Rus have space and time.... and initiative!
Kurt
The eastern front solidfied also, just not as densely as the west. Cavalry holding a front will be sitting ducks I'm afraid. They may have to be abused in that manner for a while.
The eastern front solidfied also, just not as densely as the west. Cavalry holding a front will be sitting ducks I'm afraid. They may have to be abused in that manner for a while.
Dulce et decorum est, old sock, eh?
Korps organic cav should be enough for the west, the GE Kav Korps just look too good in the eastern framework.
After all, there just might be a 'green field beyond' in the east, lol.
What I'm hoping for is that Kav set to minimum will slow things down enough for my CP inf to react in time to fill any major breach, rather than have them die in place.
Seems operationally sound, eh? Anything for some time......the new CC rules would indicate to me that unless one is playing free deployment, one will need a sizable number of screening formations in the east, which is the cavs mission, eh?
What can a poor boy do?
Kurt
@Stauffenberg;
Waiting with bated breath for a view of the 2.1 doc........
Majorically in favor of your thinking, and am sure that the minor details I'm in exception of will be explained.
Some day I'd like to play 'purist/ironman' with you, as I still feel that all the work you've put in on OOBs should be used in a historical set-up............
I.E. < CP does 'shclieffen', TE does Plan 17, at least for initial turns, and the CP player should use his armee's as the OOB states them. Meaning that on turn ONE, the CP powers player must move 1.ARMEE KORPS units to 1.ARMEE HQ concentration areas, AH 4th armee KORPS units to AH 4.armee HQ, etc etc...........
(some day, all the work I've done this week will be usefull as a 'lightning' fast first turn, eh?)
Kurt
Stauffenberg
29 Jul 05, 23:10
Maybe I'm stating the obvious but anyway, just to be sure: I'm taking for granted that I'm able to assign corps to any Army I see fit, provided I respect the Command-and-Control rules. Say I want to assign the Garde Armeekorps to AOK 1 instead of AOK 2: is that all right or did I mis-read the rules?
Nemo,
I don;t think you missed anything in the rules. I'm trying to evolve a simple but effective CC rubric. Once agreed upon and implemented it should create so very interesting siturations. I'll list it out without going off into rants about minutae and certain exceptions you may never neet.
Units with No Command Control
1) Units engaged in purely defensive missions, digging in, moving around behind the front, do not need to check for CC control. Only units that intend to move into an enemy controlled hex or lauch assaults must ensure their command grid is good.
2)[/COLOR][COLOR=Black]
Defensive units with no CC can barrage enemy positions as desired; however, they may not in any way engage in coordinated attacks, ormove towards enemy units in order to attack--ranged artillery fire is allowed only
3) Units with no CC may also make limited attacks to recover areas that belonged to his side, and was thentaken away from them. If the officer in charge with ok this (keep it in mind it is entirely his call)--it takes a certain type of man to out past the wires, minefield, and jumpy gunners, to face whatever it is he feels he has to face out there.
4) And finally,a unit that has not able to draw a line of communication (LOC) to a controlling HQ at the very start of its turn has a problem--it may launch desperation attacks which are clearly aiming to free the unit from encirclement, or to at least to allow a suuply line in, and this might mean clearing enemy gunners off a hot LZ.
D.
06 Maestro
30 Jul 05, 00:35
Do HQs use sea movement without counting towards the unit limit, as with RR movement? As an example; the Brits can move up to 6 divisions accross the channel per turn; can the HQs move in addition to the 6?
1) Units engaged in purely defensive missions, digging in, moving around behind the front, do not need to check for CC control. Only units that intend to move into an enemy controlled hex or lauch assaults must ensure their command grid is good.
D.
Stauffenberg;
A definition please? By 'enemy controlled' do you refer to:
1)ZOC's of active units....
or
2) controlled hexes as the 'control' tab shows? (red vs grn).
If option 2;
I note the possibility of an (extremely slow) advance of any friendly elements, which might reflect the 'general order to advance to contact on an army level' as each turn neighboring hexs not in ZOC of enemy formations turn into friendly controlled hexs if one has a unit adjacent to said hex.
This yields a 'one hex per turn advance' without being in CC, but only where there are no enemy 'screening forces'.
Just a thought..........
Kurt
Do HQs use sea movement without counting towards the unit limit, as with RR movement? As an example; the Brits can move up to 6 divisions accross the channel per turn; can the HQs move in addition to the 6?
Extract from the 2.0 doc<
" HQs, rail repair, and RR artillery (only), can move by RR or sea for free. Supply Units, all nationalities, count as a brigade-size unit."
My thoughts: Naturlich, aber RR artty maybe not, eh? Not like this is a problem in the 'early game', eh?
Anyroad, I'd certainly play under this understanding.
One or Two pt.s , whatever, it's a big game and hard to track 'every point', eh?
06 Maestro
30 Jul 05, 01:27
Thanks- I should invest in some eye glasses.
I.E. < CP does 'shclieffen', TE does Plan 17, at least for initial turns, and the CP player should use his armee's as the OOB states them. Meaning that on turn ONE, the CP powers player must move 1.ARMEE KORPS units to 1.ARMEE HQ concentration areas, AH 4th armee KORPS units to AH 4.armee HQ, etc etc...........
Railway limitations (one third max east of Berlin for Germany) should suffice to keep the game within the historical boundaries of the so-called Schlieffen / Plan XVII settings. What if you want to * cough* improve *cough* on Moltke the Younger (have a really strong right wing) or try a derivative (attack head-on through the Fench centre)? Same goes for the Entente player, variant can be introduced: i.e. Alsace can be ignored and an all-out assault made on Metz, or the other way round...
Rail caps and C-and-C limitations are enough in my opinion to put the players as clos as possible to historical conditions right from the first turn, without binding them to a pure script aiming at re-create each and every circumstance of the war's early stages.
Anyway, it all boils down to interpretation and agreement between both players I guess.
Slightly less than 0.02 € ;)
Dicke Bertha
01 Aug 05, 14:39
Ehem, I am about to send my poilus into eternity on T2. But, which units are the Plan XVII ones???? Ah well, let's send them all in, or? :)
Ehem, I am about to send my poilus into eternity on T2. But, which units are the Plan XVII ones???? Ah well, let's send them all in, or? :)The manual states the Plan XVII units have a different colour scheme, most probably the blue on light blue one, as opposed to the white on light blue colour scheme for other French units.
There's enough of them already to overrun the few Landwehr companies I left to watch the Elsass border... :whist:
Dicke Bertha
01 Aug 05, 15:36
:D Too late, anything that could move in the area has moved up and are assaulting les boches sacrébleu! I am just going to hit resolve... ;
06 Maestro
01 Aug 05, 15:48
:D Too late, anything that could move in the area has moved up and are assaulting les boches sacrébleu! I am just going to hit resolve... ;
Hit the boch hard, but don't evaporate too many of your units-they just might be needed in the west. But don't worry, there are plenty of French reinforcements coming on turn 4.
It's amazing how all of this works out; both sides were good enough to make sure that niether could lose-nor win.
:D Too late, anything that could move in the area has moved up and are assaulting les boches sacrébleu! I am just going to hit resolve... ;:laugh: No problem, bring'em on. Where the hell did I leave my spike helmet?
It's amazing how all of this works out; both sides were good enough to make sure that niether could lose-nor win.Yeah. Both sides were in fact pretty even as far as sheer numbers are concerned. French, British and Belgian troops (active and reserve, excluded the territorial formations) amounted to 83 infantry divisions and 12 cavalry divisions. The German manoeuvre on the western front relied (without the Landwehr) on 76 infantry divisions and a half plus 10 cavalry divisions. Hardly an overwhelming German superiority...
Dicke Bertha
01 Aug 05, 16:35
Oh, that was one of the worst bloodbaths I have ever set in motion! Took Colmar and have surrounded Metz, Mühlhausen is under heavy attack, and my divisions are severely depleted. This was fun! :)
Mmmh, so you've committed de Langle's 4th Army to the melee around Metz? Interesting...:devious:
Dicke Bertha
01 Aug 05, 17:10
I sent in everything I saw. I hope it is ok with the rules, I supsect it is crazy! :)
It's OK with the rules by me.
By all means, throw everything in that direction: the more the merrier they say. This is going to be wild! :D
06 Maestro
02 Aug 05, 03:33
I sent in everything I saw. I hope it is ok with the rules, I supsect it is crazy! :)
The 4th Army too? You are bold indeed. Although there are plenty of French reinforcements, they must have something to reinforce. Hopefully the Huns are making their big push in the east.
Dicke Bertha
02 Aug 05, 12:05
Ha bold and bold.
I didn't exactly know what units were the Plan XVII ones, and seeing things seem to be going well for nemo in Belgium, I am combining a suspicion his lower wing is weakened, and also I suspect that the French would be more than willing to go offensively (counterattack immediately) for Metz (not knowing in August 1914 what we know today - and I am not sure about how far north the French actually attacked).
I was a bit surprised by the number of rounds though, I went all out from the start, but ignore loss ground attacks and direct bombardments only consumed 10% during some rounds. I even sent in the Frukas (FRench Unsuitable Kamikaze Air Squadrons) on the armoured trains in Metz and Mühlhausen - very historical no doubt!
I've lost more than ten thousand rifle squads this turn! :D
Bloodstar
02 Aug 05, 12:16
I've lost more than ten thousand rifle squads this turn! :D
Way to go DB! :laugh:
Mario
Dicke Bertha
02 Aug 05, 12:19
AARRGGGGHH! Nemo, I have made a terrible mistake I fear!!!! I have railed every single Russian reinforcement division I have seen on both T1 and T2, thereby most probably exceeding the rail limit!!!
How many are there on T1 and T2, anyone knows? I'll try to count them in the T1 and T2 reinforcement columns. Best remedy? Redo (rather not)? Subtract the extra sent from the avaialble rail capacity coming turns until I am back at zero, or? Sorry. :(
Dang I am sorry.
Dicke Bertha
02 Aug 05, 12:34
T1 - something like 25-30 Russian divisions
T2 - 16 Russian divisions
and of course they are also all leaving Russia, going into Poland...
So what if I won't touch the entrained divisions from T2 for three turns, and also not use more than half of my Russian front units next turn?
I am a fool and I am sorry.
I'm not overly concerned at this point by the Russian rail aspect. I have no clue if it drastically changes the balance or not. Should the cossacks enter Berlin, Budapest or Vienna within three turns, then we'll know :D
Did I mention I actually don't watch the replay?
It'll be a bit more challenging for AOK 8 and the K.u.K. of course but let's see this as a surprise factor. I'd say use your railcap normally from now on and everything will be fine. Expect the turn within 48 hours - I'm on vacation...
Dicke Bertha
03 Aug 05, 12:50
Thanks for not being angry with this war criminal...
Since yesterday I have found §II.5.2 Turn 1 Rail Capacity Increase, doubles during turn one....
Still I have railed too much, and especially in Poland (another gauge or?). I will compensate my rail capacity downwards until the effects have been balanced.
The rules are difficult to master first time round. Maybe I need to make a checklist...
Nemo, take your time, enjoy your vacances. :)
Nemo, take your time, enjoy your vacances. :)I'm home: I'm not leaving before monday, so I put this week to good use by crancking out turns during my daughter's naps ;)
06 Maestro
14 Aug 05, 18:49
Regarding rail movement allowances; what is the second number for in the brackets? :confused:
Regarding rail movement allowances; what is the second number for in the brackets? :confused:If I'm not mistaken (talking from memory here), it's the number of divisions that can be shipped by sea for each country. There are variations around this number (doubled for transport between friendly ports less than 10 hexes away) and some countries (Great Britain and Ottoman Turkey for instance) have separate sea capacities for certain areas - the English Channel and the Sea of Marmara if I remember correctly.
You can check the appropriate chapter in the manual (sea transport?) to get the details.