Matrix-TOAW Scenario Submission

[Stauffenberg]

For those interested in sending in a scenario for us to look at, first check that it is not posted at Rugged Defense in their scenario archive (http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/news.php).

If it isn't you can choose a specific team to send it in to. Team composition is posted here:


Scenario Review Team Roster
G.A.E. = General Area of Expertise

This list, other than naming the Team Captains, has some basic composition elements:

--The four teams have two players and two designers as Team Captains.
--Each team has two designers at least, and usually three players.
--Teams are listed in brackets with a general area of expertise. This isn't meant to be hard and fast application as any team can deal effectively with anything--consider it a plus.



Team Alpha (WWI & II East Front incl. Finland; modern India/Pakistan):

**Daniel Mc Bride (Stauffenberg) Team Captain [drmcb@colba.net]
Pavel Voylov (T-28A)
Jason Raven (Raver)
Jyri Kettunen (Sheik Yerbouti)
Ray Wolfe (RayWolfe)

Team Bravo (G.A.E. = WWI & II Italy, Vietnam):

**Ed Morris (Currahee) Team Captain [emorris5@arn.net]
Piero Falotti (piero1971
Doug Hensley (sherman)
Zac (Menschenfresser)
Mark Reading (Marko)

Team Charlie: (G.A.E. = WWI & II France & Poland; Spanish Civil War; Bio-Ed scenarios)

**Jose Serrano (JMS) Team Captain [jms101es@yahoo.es]
Pontus (Dicke Bertha)
Jaroslav Flis (Legun)
Francois (Lucinus)
Joao Russo (Secedas)

Team Delta (WWII West Front; North Africa):

**James Mathews (Jamiam) Team Captain [iamjamiam@yahoo.com]
Chris (General Staff)
Bob Cross (Bob Cross)
Trey Marshall (el hefe)
Marc (Nemo)


Daniel

[sstevens06]

Will you consider scenarios that currently require a 'Bio-editted' custom ACOW .exe?

[JAMiAM]

Good question, as my group has a couple of these, as well. We need to get an answer from Matrix on this, I would suspect.

[Stauffenberg]

For now my answer is that bio-ed scenarios will be evaluated but will have to revert to vanilla TOAW at some point--and then into TOAW-ME which will likely have have an expanded database in which case the Bio-ed changes would be redundant.

I'll probably have JMSs team handle all Bio-ed submissions and will check with him today to see if he agrees with that.

Daniel

[Hellfish6]

I'm a bit dissappointed by the lack of modern and Cold War GAEs.

[Joao Lima]

I'm a bit dissappointed by the lack of modern and Cold War GAEs.

Same here but I suppose it will come later...

Now, by VIETNAM , do you understand also the first Vietnam war? (France vs VM) ?

[Stauffenberg]

I'm a bit dissappointed by the lack of modern and Cold War GAEs.

Here's a more detailed list of G.A.E. characteristics by group member:




Matrix TOAW Scenario Review Group Members



G.A.E. = General Areas of Expertise


Piero Falotti aka piero1971 - Italy (Designer)
G.A.E. = 1800s, WWI, WWII

Pavel Voylov aka T-28A - Ukraine (Designer)
G.A.E. = Russ.-Jap. war, WWI Russia, WWII E. Front

Chris aka General Staff - Ireland (Player)
G.A.E. = 1900 - 1955

Jason Raven aka Raver - New Zealand (Player)
G.A.E. = WWII E. & W. Front, N. Africa & Pacific

Doug Hensley aka sherman - U.S.A. (Player)
G.A.E. = WWII & Modern All

Daniel Mc Bride aka Stauffenberg - Canada (Designer)
G.A.E. = WWI, WWII Eastfront, North Africa, Modern: Indo-Pakistani

Marc aka Nemo - France (Player)
G.A.E. = WWII Eastfront, North Africa, Warsaw Pact/NATO, Israeli wars

Mark Reading aka Marko - Britain (Player)
G.A.E. = WWII & Modern All

Pontus aka Dicke Bertha - Sweden (Player)
G.A.E. = pre WWI, Any

Bob Cross aka Bob Cross - U.S.A. (Designer)
G.A.E. = WWII, North Africa, Any

Jose Serrano aka JMS - Spain (Designer)
G.A.E. = WWI, Spanish Civil War, WWII & Modern, All

Jaroslav Flis aka Legun - Poland (Designer)
G.A.E. = 1900-1954

Ed Morris aka Currahee - U.S.A. (Player)
G.A.E. = WWII All, Vietnam, NATO & Warsaw Pact

Trey Marshall aka el hefe - U.S.A. (Designer)
G.A.E. = WWII All, NATO-Warsaw Pact

James Mathews aka Jamiam - U.S.A. (Player)
G.A.E. = WWII & Modern All

Jyri Kettunen aka Sheik Yerbouti - Finland (Designer)
G.A.E. = WWII Eastfront, Any

Joao Russo aka Secedas - Portugal (Player)
G.A.E. = WWII & Modern All

Zac aka Menschenfresser - U.S.A. (Player)
G.A.E. = WWII & Modern All

Francois Roche aka Lucinus - France (Player)
G.A.E. = WWI All, Any except Modern

Ray Wolfe aka RayWolfe - Britain (Designer)
G.A.E. = WWII British and Commonwealth TO&Es & OOB; S. & N. European
& N. African campaigns.

[Hellfish6]

That's good. I'm just concerned that we're going to have a dearth of Cold War/Modern scenarios and an overabundance of WWII.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very fond of WWII and I've played many great scenarios in that timeframe, but I think that there's so many good modern/Cold War scenarios out there that to exclude them because the scenario team has a bigger focus on WWII would be a mistake.

I'm not saying that's gonna happen, I just want to make sure that it doesn't. :)

[Stauffenberg]

That's good. I'm just concerned that we're going to have a dearth of Cold War/Modern scenarios and an overabundance of WWII.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very fond of WWII and I've played many great scenarios in that timeframe, but I think that there's so many good modern/Cold War scenarios out there that to exclude them because the scenario team has a bigger focus on WWII would be a mistake.

I'm not saying that's gonna happen, I just want to make sure that it doesn't. :)

Well if in fact that comes about it won't be because of us. We are taking what is "out there" in terms of scenarios that people will enjoy playing whatever the time period. There isn't a team that lacks interest in modern scenarios.

Check out Pierro Falotti's work over at Rugged Defense if you haven't already. He has some large detailed modern scenarios on Korea, hypothetical Israeli, present-day Iraq, Taiwan, any one of which I am keen to try out when I have time. Or have a look at Haris Riris and his 1988 Global Conflict, or Aegean 2004--another quality designer doing modern scenarios I just discovered.

I can't predict how the group will vote but I would be surprised if quality works like these are not recommended to Matrix and subsequently accepted. I am sure the other teams will be uncovering other work. We'll check them for event flaws and the like, work with the designer to polish it off if needed, and put it on our final list. I'm keen to see modern work myself and had some projects I was contemplating... until Falotti beat me to 2 or 3 of them. Gotta get up early to beat that guy to a new topic. Which is why I'm not even going to hint at my next modern scenario idea. :whist:

Daniel

[JMS]

That's good. I'm just concerned that we're going to have a dearth of Cold War/Modern scenarios and an overabundance of WWII.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very fond of WWII and I've played many great scenarios in that timeframe, but I think that there's so many good modern/Cold War scenarios out there that to exclude them because the scenario team has a bigger focus on WWII would be a mistake.

I'm not saying that's gonna happen, I just want to make sure that it doesn't. :)

Don't worry, there are enough Cold War scenarios out there to evaluate, for example, I can think of a quality Germany scenario for all decades but the 1950s, there's Norm Korea and Piero's Modern Korea, for the Middle East there are 1967, 1973 and 1982 scenarios, for Iraq 1990 and 2003, Taiwan, Kosovo... and I am speaking about quality scenarios not the disk Germany 1984 or 1962. There's even one on the Chechen war of 94. Don't underestimate either the level of knowledge there's on the team as a whole.

[Marko]

Well if in fact that comes about it won't be because of us. We are taking what is "out there" in terms of scenarios that people will enjoy playing whatever the time period. There isn't a team that lacks interest in modern scenarios.

Check out Pierro Falotti's work over at Rugged Defense if you haven't already. He has some large detailed modern scenarios on Korea, hypothetical Israeli, present-day Iraq, Taiwan, any one of which I am keen to try out when I have time. Or have a look at Haris Riris and his 1988 Global Conflict, or Aegean 2004--another quality designer doing modern scenarios I just discovered.

I can't predict how the group will vote but I would be surprised if quality works like these are not recommended to Matrix and subsequently accepted. I am sure the other teams will be uncovering other work. We'll check them for event flaws and the like, work with the designer to polish it off if needed, and put it on our final list. I'm keen to see modern work myself and had some projects I was contemplating... until Falotti beat me to 2 or 3 of them. Gotta get up early to beat that guy to a new topic. Which is why I'm not even going to hint at my next modern scenario idea. :whist:

Daniel

I checked out the 1988 Global Conflict game - lots of thorough work carried out on the OOB. Checked with my copy of the Military Balance 1988-89, spot on for the most part. If we had a game without map limitations then this game would develop even further. :)

[LOK]

I checked out the 1988 Global Conflict game - lots of thorough work carried out on the OOB. Checked with my copy of the Military Balance 1988-89, spot on for the most part. If we had a game without map limitations then this game would develop even further. :)

thanks for the kind words gentlemen. I appreciate the feedback.

I, too, wish we had more flexibility in TOAW to make scenarios like 1988 Global Conflict. I believe if a few changes in the game engine are implemented (e.g. bigger maps, a better naval module, etc. etc.) and a couple of bugs corrected (e.g. theater options scroll bug or maximum number of events, etc.) the scenario has some potential. Right now, in order to make it really interesting I need a bunch of house rules which makes it cumbersome and awkard to play.

Depending on what Matrix decides to do with TOAW I have considered several options for a revised scenario:

A. Split the scenario in two (or possible 3) scenarios/maps that could be played together:
1. Europe-Middle East (most of the present map)
2. North Pacific - Korean Peninsula, including perhaps parts of the Sino-USSR border
3. South Asia (India-Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan and Iran)

B. Make several scenarios (variants of the exisiting scenario). Instead of allowing the players full flexibility to guide the initial developments, simulate the initial conditions (or possible crises) in the scenario, e.g.

A world war that starts in the Middle East after the overthrow of the Saudi government, or the death of King Hussein of Jordan, or Israeli strikes in Lebanon/Syria, or an imminent Iranian victory in the Iran-Iraq war.
A surpise USSR attack in Scandinavia-Iceland (as in Red Storm Rising by Clancy)
A world war that starts on the Korean Peninsula, or a flare up on the USSR-China border, ....etc. etc...your choice here. The possibilities are endless

i do not necessarily want to force the players into a specific situation but the TOAW engine was not designed to do what I am trying to do, i.e. have multiple decision tress with different brenches and effects.

Any feedback/ideas would be more than greatly appreciated

[JAMiAM]

Oh...so you're Haris? If I may suggest something for your Aegean scenario, you should at least finish/rework the scenario briefing. The version found at RD does not seem to be finished in this respect. If you are interested in this scenario being considered for inclusion, please do so, since the briefing seems to be the primary weakness at first glance.

[LOK]

Oh...so you're Haris? If I may suggest something for your Aegean scenario, you should at least finish/rework the scenario briefing. The version found at RD does not seem to be finished in this respect. If you are interested in this scenario being considered for inclusion, please do so, since the briefing seems to be the primary weakness at first glance.

Oops - I hope I did not upload the wrong version. I may have since the final version had a decent brifiefing. I will check as soon as I can and make sure the briefing is correct.

[larryfulkerson]

Hey you guys are we submitting bug reports on this forum? if so.....I have a gripe with the TOAW way of letting the computer play itself. When it gets to the combat stage there's no interrupting it. And if you switch applications ( to check your email or whatever ) upon returning to TOAW you get a pure white screen and it acts like the program is hung or something....but if you wait long enough the action will pick up when the movement starts after the conclusion of the combat round.

A minor nit maybe, but still annoying.

[Stauffenberg]

thanks for the kind words gentlemen. I appreciate the feedback.

I, too, wish we had more flexibility in TOAW to make scenarios like 1988 Global Conflict. I believe if a few changes in the game engine are implemented (e.g. bigger maps, a better naval module, etc. etc.) and a couple of bugs corrected (e.g. theater options scroll bug or maximum number of events, etc.) the scenario has some potential. Right now, in order to make it really interesting I need a bunch of house rules which makes it cumbersome and awkard to play.

Tell me about it. Have a look at my WW I monster if you have time at some point: I've written large pamphlets each for naval and command control and it isn't everyone's cup of tea; but then all boardgames were "cumbersome" as they depended 100% upon honour rules. You work with what you have and you arrived at similar innovations to mine (or I arrived at yours) attempting to compensate for TOAW's limitations.

Depending on what Matrix decides to do with TOAW I have considered several options for a revised scenario:

A. Split the scenario in two (or possible 3) scenarios/maps that could be played together:
1. Europe-Middle East (most of the present map)
2. North Pacific - Korean Peninsula, including perhaps parts of the Sino-USSR border
3. South Asia (India-Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan and Iran)

I won't get into the details here but I believe the other TOAW Beta group will be focusing on more likely, and less involved, program details to begin with. Along with the above I would love to have a multi-player capability. Six grognards playing WWI separate powers in TGW 2.2... imagine the diplomatic exchanges in a forum set up for such.

B. Make several scenarios (variants of the exisiting scenario). Instead of allowing the players full flexibility to guide the initial developments, simulate the initial conditions (or possible crises) in the scenario, e.g.
A world war that starts in the Middle East after the overthrow of the Saudi government, or the death of King Hussein of Jordan, or Israeli strikes in Lebanon/Syria, or an imminent Iranian victory in the Iran-Iraq war.....

To embelish my remarks above, a more effective PO (Programmed Opponent) could handle a separate power to give you all the variability you could wish for. That's an ideal and probably not too likely, but a more effective PO is high on most lists.

Any feedback/ideas would be more than greatly appreciated

Glad to give your work the exposure it deserves. As I said before, feel free to add any other scenarios you have. It's not a make or break point right now as we are just doing a rather cursory initial evaluation. The process will go on for months and months... lots of time to get obssessed again over favorite--and never quite finished--scenarios of yours. :laugh:

Daniel

[LOK]

Oh...so you're Haris? If I may suggest something for your Aegean scenario, you should at least finish/rework the scenario briefing. The version found at RD does not seem to be finished in this respect. If you are interested in this scenario being considered for inclusion, please do so, since the briefing seems to be the primary weakness at first glance.

Jam are you refering to the scenario summary/briefing that appears on the website or the actual scenario briefing you see once you open it in CoW?

I checked and the version I have on Rugged Defense is correct. I agree that the scenario briefing could use some more tips on strategy but the main events are listed in the briefing. I'd be happy to change it. Is there anything specific you would like to see?

[LOK]

Daniel
I have looked at your WWI scenario and played a few rounds in hot seat. I think it's excellent. Exactly the kind of scenario I like. I have also enjoyed your other scenarios (Indo-Pakistani war and DnO etc). Keep up the good work.

I generally enjoy large scenarios that include strategic aspects in their design but include a lot of operational "details". That's what makes TOAW such a great game system in my opinion. The event editor along with the operational details of the game are very unique. But like the rest of us I want more... :)

It looks like Matrix is on the right path. I had given up on TOAW about a year ago but now I am eagerly awaiting their updates. I have 6 copies of TOAW and I'd happily buy more if Matrix keeps improving it.

[JAMiAM]

Jam are you refering to the scenario summary/briefing that appears on the website or the actual scenario briefing you see once you open it in CoW?

I checked and the version I have on Rugged Defense is correct. I agree that the scenario briefing could use some more tips on strategy but the main events are listed in the briefing. I'd be happy to change it. Is there anything specific you would like to see?
I haven't yet looked too deeply at the scenario, but when I open a scenario, and find that the opponents are in a state of cease-fire, yet this was not mentioned anywhere in either the briefing, or newstrings, then I would normally disqualify the scenario from further consideration.

Obvious things to note, are the fact that there is a cease-fire event in effect on turn one. How long the cease-fire lasts. How many turns the game is nominally supposed to last. What scale the map and units are at. This type of data should be available to a player, when looking through the scenario listings and perusing the briefings. A player should not have to crack open the file in the scenario editor, or to play a few turns, before finding out about this kind of important information. It makes the scenario seem unfinished.

[LOK]

I haven't yet looked too deeply at the scenario, but when I open a scenario, and find that the opponents are in a state of cease-fire, yet this was not mentioned anywhere in either the briefing, or newstrings, then I would normally disqualify the scenario from further consideration.

Obvious things to note, are the fact that there is a cease-fire event in effect on turn one. How long the cease-fire lasts. How many turns the game is nominally supposed to last. What scale the map and units are at. This type of data should be available to a player, when looking through the scenario listings and perusing the briefings. A player should not have to crack open the file in the scenario editor, or to play a few turns, before finding out about this kind of important information. It makes the scenario seem unfinished.
good points - thanks for the feedback - I will improve the briefing and upload the scenario.

As an aside: I have a new version with a brand new map and up-to-date TOE/OOB but I think i will hold off until we have some more news from Matrix about possible new TOAW releases before I send the new one out.

thanks again

[JAMiAM]

good points - thanks for the feedback - I will improve the briefing and upload the scenario.

As an aside: I have a new version with a brand new map and up-to-date TOE/OOB but I think i will hold off until we have some more news from Matrix about possible new TOAW releases before I send the new one out.

thanks again
You're welcome and thanks for understanding. I hope I didn't seem too harsh, but it's just that in interest of time efficiency, the groups are doing a two-stage culling process, whereby the large pile gets whittled down to possible inclusion, and not recommended. Though there is some variability in the individual groups judgement criteria, my own viewpoint is that unless there is some extraordinary saving grace to the scenario, any unfinished, or amateurish work, will be summarily dismissed in the first culling, so that we can better utilize our time in the second round of evaluations. Your scenario has, at first blush, two things going for it. First, it is on a battle (real or hypothetical) which has not received much attention in previous releases, and it is actively being supported by (you) the designer. If you were unavailable, or if it were just another Kursk battle, then my own, rather harsh, first round, judging criteria would have led me to vote against it.

As a side note to any lurking, and interested scenario designers, it is rather critical that you determine whether in fact the RD archive has the most recent version of any of your work. If you want maximize the probability of your work being submitted for possible inclusion on the Matrix Edition of TOAW, then you want to make sure that we do have your best work, and most updated versions available to us, whether in the RD archive, or by personal submission to one of our judging groups.

[LOK]

You're welcome and thanks for understanding. I hope I didn't seem too harsh....

No worries - no offense taken :)
It's actually nice to get some constructive comments back as opposed to complete silence after you publish a scenario!

[Dan Neely]

Two things from my current game. Spell out exactly what countries are in nato. I'd think it'd be self explanatory but both of my pbem opponents were mistakenly thought some nato members weren't allowed out of their home borders.

Put a port at the end of the raidhead in russia east of the caspian, and run the rail line around the eastern shore on land instead of water (units on sea hexes will be massacred by air strikes).

Not sure how to word it, but I think this's essential for nato strategy in Germany. Nato mobilizes faster both in terms of total numbers and quality, which makes recovering from disaster almost impossible. The Pact has 2.5x as many tanks as Nato. Roughly speaking nato starts the war at 60% strenght and will reach 75 or 80% when the first nato reserves and us Pomcus units arrive. The pact starts at ~45% and hits 75% with the catBs (which arrive after the first round of nato reserves). This means that Nato can't afford to risk any major number of troops in delaying actions that might leave them cut off.

Broadly speaking tanks fall into two classes M1A1/Leo2/Challenger/t64/t72/t80 and everything else. All of the former are roughly equivilant, and will eat the latter alive. As long as tanks are present in a decent number infantry/apcs are largely irrelevant for determining results. Attacking a mobile division results in roughly 1:1 losses. Attacking a defending/entrenched div results in 2.5:1 losses, attacking a fortified div will take somewhere between 5 and 10:1 losses. Loosing a few hexes, regardless of thier VP value won't turn the course of the war, having a turn end early with a large chunk of your force mobile and vulnerable to attack can. A fortified line of healthy firstline divisions running from the baltic to the alps is nearly unbreakable. Keep this in mind whenever you consider doing anything other than straitening your lines to avoid being flanked/cut off and digging in deeper.

I really need to try this as nato in a pbem, this logic governed multiple successful stalemates in hotseat tests, not doing it has undone Viridomoros in our game a year back, is looking to bring down WolfTone in our game now. End of Turn 7 (shooting in germany starts on t3), The Bundswher(sp) and BAOR are both effectively destroyed, with only 2.25 German regular armor/mech divs, and .5 Bittish divs remaining. In the north i'm 15 km (1hex) from the dutch border, the central region is holding better in the upper part with my essentially stoped, to the south i'm moving forward slowly with Frankfurt falling this turn and the line running roughly strait from the North Sea through FF to a point 30km east of Stuttgart. South of Stuttgard the line is running at a ~45 degree angle east and consists almost entirely of remants being slugged back as fast as I can move through the difficult terrain. Unless I run into Italians moving north through the passes I'll probably take insbruk the next turn or the one thereafter. Yugoslavia,Denmark, and Austria are effectively conquered and their armies destroyed even if only the former has surrendered at the moment. My CatBs will arrive in annother turn or two, within another week I expect to have broken nato in general.

[LOK]

Two things from my current game. Spell out exactly what countries are in nato. I'd think it'd be self explanatory but both of my pbem opponents were mistakenly thought some nato members weren't allowed out of their home borders.
Not a problem. All the countries and their initial (and possible) affiliations are shown in the units doc but I can put that table in the main briefing. I was just trying to keep the docs small.


Put a port at the end of the raidhead in russia east of the caspian, and run the rail line around the eastern shore on land instead of water (units on sea hexes will be massacred by air strikes).

No problem will do.


Not sure how to word it, but I think this's essential for nato strategy in Germany. Nato mobilizes faster both in terms of total numbers and quality, which makes recovering from disaster almost impossible. The Pact has 2.5x as many tanks as Nato. Roughly speaking nato starts the war at 60% strenght and will reach 75 or 80% when the first nato reserves and us Pomcus units arrive. The pact starts at ~45% and hits 75% with the catBs (which arrive after the first round of nato reserves). This means that Nato can't afford to risk any major number of troops in delaying actions that might leave them cut off.

Broadly speaking tanks fall into two classes M1A1/Leo2/Challenger/t64/t72/t80 and everything else. All of the former are roughly equivilant, and will eat the latter alive. As long as tanks are present in a decent number infantry/apcs are largely irrelevant for determining results. Attacking a mobile division results in roughly 1:1 losses. Attacking a defending/entrenched div results in 2.5:1 losses, attacking a fortified div will take somewhere between 5 and 10:1 losses. Loosing a few hexes, regardless of thier VP value won't turn the course of the war, having a turn end early with a large chunk of your force mobile and vulnerable to attack can. A fortified line of healthy firstline divisions running from the baltic to the alps is nearly unbreakable. Keep this in mind whenever you consider doing anything other than straitening your lines to avoid being flanked/cut off and digging in deeper.

I really need to try this as nato in a pbem, this logic governed multiple successful stalemates in hotseat tests, not doing it has undone Viridomoros in our game a year back, is looking to bring down WolfTone in our game now. End of Turn 7 (shooting in germany starts on t3), The Bundswher(sp) and BAOR are both effectively destroyed, with only 2.25 German regular armor/mech divs, and .5 Bittish divs remaining. In the north i'm 15 km (1hex) from the dutch border, the central region is holding better in the upper part with my essentially stoped, to the south i'm moving forward slowly with Frankfurt falling this turn and the line running roughly strait from the North Sea through FF to a point 30km east of Stuttgart. South of Stuttgard the line is running at a ~45 degree angle east and consists almost entirely of remants being slugged back as fast as I can move through the difficult terrain. Unless I run into Italians moving north through the passes I'll probably take insbruk the next turn or the one thereafter. Yugoslavia,Denmark, and Austria are effectively conquered and their armies destroyed even if only the former has surrendered at the moment. My CatBs will arrive in annother turn or two, within another week I expect to have broken nato in general.

I am not sure if you are advocating a scenario change here or just an improved briefing. I was trying to simulate what was "historically" true: NATO had rapid mobilization plans to counter any surpise WP attack in W. Germany.

I can:
A. Change the mobilization rate for NATO units
B. Add more US National Guard units (which in reality were not slated for European operations).
C. I can change the ratings for some of the Soviet CatB and CatC divisions/formations
D. I can add some of your comments in the strategy section of the briefing.

Personally I prefer option D since I am trying to be "true" to history.
It has also been my experience that CatB and certainly CatC Soviet divisions get mauled very quickly but that could be just my incompetent play :rolleyes:

As an aside: what do you think about splitting the scenario in two: one Pacific/Korean peninsula and one everything else?

[Dan Neely]

I am not sure if you are advocating a scenario change here or just an improved briefing. I was trying to simulate what was "historically" true: NATO had rapid mobilization plans to counter any surpise WP attack in W. Germany.

I can:
A. Change the mobilization rate for NATO units
B. Add more US National Guard units (which in reality were not slated for European operations).
C. I can change the ratings for some of the Soviet CatB and CatC divisions/formations
D. I can add some of your comments in the strategy section of the briefing.


Mainly I was looking at D. The problem as I see it is that most people envision ww3's likely course as the soviets achieving a breakthrough or near breakthrough in the opening days and nato forces building until they can check and then counter attack them back. Implicit in that concept is nato getting proportionally stronger reinforcements than the pact.

Regarding B, are you looking at divs planned for the pac theater, or ones intended to be used in the western hemisphere? If the latter, definately make them available somehow. If the former, what I'd really like would be a way to choose which coast the NG entered in, altough baring more events I realize it's probably not possible.

I don't like the idea of changing expected rates of A for balance purposes, and I don't think D's needed as long as people know what they're getting into.



Personally I prefer option D since I am trying to be "true" to history.
It has also been my experience that CatB and certainly CatC Soviet divisions get mauled very quickly but that could be just my incompetent play :rolleyes:


I'll agree with you on the CatC and t-62 CatBs being much more fragile. The T64 divs however are almost as effective as the CatAs (the biggest limit seeming to be that the existing depleted divs suck replacments from the B/C units into themselves speeding the drain). The t55/62 divs will be massacred if commited to attacking dug in, 1st line nato armor. But by the time that they begin arriving large portions of the nato line will also be held by obsolete tanks (leo1, m48/60/ amx30B2), these units can be effectively engaged while the dwindling stock of modern tanks screen thier nato equivilants. If done correctly the 2nd line armor can threaten the modern units with being flanked and force them to pull out of their entrechments. Some will be caught mobile and can then be hammered by old tanks or depleted divs of new ones at similar relative losses to what were taken digging out nato at teh start of the war.


As an aside: what do you think about splitting the scenario in two: one Pacific/Korean peninsula and one everything else?

I'm not sure. It would improve the gameplay in europe/the middle east (more events if nothing else). The pacwar scen would see larger benefits: Korea would be better served by a smaller scale, and additional supply points would make amphibious sparring between japan and the USSR more likely. At the same time though, removing all the subsidiary theaters also pulls out alot of what makes your scen different from other entries in the arena. My gut call would be to wait and see what if anything matrix has in the offering for big scenario designers in future versions of toaw.

[LOK]

Jam et.al.
just as an FYI.
I sent a new version of the scenario with an improved briefing to Rugged Defense. Nothing else has changed.

[JAMiAM]

Jam et.al.
just as an FYI.
I sent a new version of the scenario with an improved briefing to Rugged Defense. Nothing else has changed.
Thanks. We'll evaluate that updated version then.

[Dan Neely]

Does RD require admin action to load the new scen? The version I just DLed has the old breifing.

[LOK]

Does RD require admin action to load the new scen? The version I just DLed has the old breifing.
My post was not very specific and I may have misled you Dan.
I was talking about my 2004 Aegean scenario not the 1998 Global Conflict. I got an email from Fancois that the new 2004 Aegean is up but have not checked it myself yet.