View Full Version : US-USSR scenrio playetesters needed
I have a very large (20 km/hex, ~ 1650 units/side, up to 60 turns) US-USSR scenario that I have developed and tested over the years. The map covers Europe/Middle East and a separated North Pacific/Korea section.
I would like to play a mirrored game with a dedicated, picky :) playester to iron out the last few bugs. 1-2 turns per week is the maximum I can do. Turns take about 1-2 hours.
If anyone is interested please e-mail me. The scenario file is about 900 Kbytes and the Briefing docs are about 1.9 Mbytes (pdf)
thanks
LOK
PS If enough people show interest we may have several playtesting groups.
Not interested in playtesting per se, but would _love_ to have a look at the scen, as well as any accompanying material. (Being something of a 70s/80s CW nut myself)
Not interested in playtesting per se, but would _love_ to have a look at the scen, as well as any accompanying material. (Being something of a 70s/80s CW nut myself)
Thanks for the reply.
Send me a private message or an e-mail with your e-mail and I will send you the scenario and briefings
Regards
LOK
PS Eisai Ellinas?
viridomaros
28 Apr 04, 10:05
i'm interested in playtesting this with you if it doesn't need special qualifications like to be a highly skill player ;)
email me viridomaros@hotmail.com
LOK: your email's bouncing again, so I'm sending you the contents in a private message here. Ping me back (preferably via email) so I'm sure you've received it.
Dan! You've returned from the grave!?!? Welcome back. Why the new format on the user name?
viridomaros
30 Apr 04, 06:49
i have downloaded the scenario is there somewhere where i can have some information over it cause the briefing doesn't give much information over it, i already opened it up and it is a bit strange as on turn 1 there is only a few units on the map, not sure i have the good version of the scenario, i went to download it to the link you emailed me ( dan)
i noticed all these units in the north of the map ( units out of map) it seems it is related to some events
if you have a page or a file with information about this scenario
i would be pleased to be able to have a look on it
i have downloaded the scenario is there somewhere where i can have some information over it cause the briefing doesn't give much information over it, i already opened it up and it is a bit strange as on turn 1 there is only a few units on the map, not sure i have the good version of the scenario, i went to download it to the link you emailed me ( dan)
i noticed all these units in the north of the map ( units out of map) it seems it is related to some events
if you have a page or a file with information about this scenario
i would be pleased to be able to have a look on it
I have a feeling I have not sent you the briefing and the unit colors...they are on their way. My apologies...
LOK: your email's bouncing again, so I'm sending you the contents in a private message here. Ping me back (preferably via email) so I'm sure you've received it.
Got them. Thank you! I will distribute the "final" playtest version tonight (US EST). I have been cleaning my e-mail box and there should be at least 2 Mbytes available...it's odd. I will do some more cleaning...
Dan! You've returned from the grave!?!? Welcome back. Why the new format on the user name?
Something like that, and because I niether recalled my old PW, nor have the email address I used then to recover it.
viridomaros
01 May 04, 04:43
I have a feeling I have not sent you the briefing and the unit colors...they are on their way. My apologies...
i don't want to hurry you but i still have nothing about this in my box, just to be sure in case of it has been lost in the cyberspace :nuts:
It arrived in my inbox about 90m before your post, so it either got delayed or ended up in the bitbucket. From Haris's comments when sending it (If you already started a game no problem the only real
change is the bug fix for the Mi-24 HH I had mentioned earlier. I would like to freeze any further changes until I collect the bugs/suggestions from you.) I assume it's essentially the same as the first of the two I sent his way, but without anything beyond a crc check app I can't confirm/deny since the .scn format includes the name the file was saved as.
viridomaros
01 May 04, 19:18
still nothing in my box, this must have been lost in the cyberspace :mad:
still nothing in my box, this must have been lost in the cyberspace :mad:
I am resending them...3 separate e-mails briefing, sce file, and unit colors - let me know if you got them. If it fails again I may try posting them on the scenario depot
I am resending them...3 separate e-mails briefing, sce file, and unit colors - let me know if you got them. If it fails again I may try posting them on the scenario depot
Your e-mail box is full...the first file just bounced back - you have another email address??
If you sent an updated briefing my way, I haven't received it. The most recent I have predates the revised surrender table I sent.
If you sent an updated briefing my way, I haven't received it. The most recent I have predates the revised surrender table I sent.
i'm sending you one just to be sure
seems like my mrb account's not taking anything atm since a testmail I sent hasn't shown up either. summoner @ computersims . com is my primary alternate, try sending a copy there instead. You'll have to snip the spaces, I don't want a spambot spider to be able to find it.
Don't bother sending the colors thing again even it it was updated, I never use it.
viridomaros
02 May 04, 07:23
my box is empty now
otherwise you can try viridomaros@yahoo.fr
it would be good to read the information before starting playing i think, so sorry if i make you wait a bit Dan, as soon as i have read all the information i will start playing
my box is empty now
otherwise you can try viridomaros@yahoo.fr
it would be good to read the information before starting playing i think, so sorry if i make you wait a bit Dan, as soon as i have read all the information i will start playing
They are on their way...
I have started two games - one as USSR and one as US. That's all I can handle for now but I greatly appreciate any comments you may have
viridomaros
02 May 04, 09:18
1,6 meg !!!!!!! :surprise:
now i understand why it didn't work on my hotmail account, my box on hotmail has only 1 meg space, i have a look to these files then i start my first turn with dan Nelly
thanks for sending me the files
seems like my mrb account's not taking anything atm since a testmail I sent hasn't shown up either. summoner @ computersims . com is my primary alternate, try sending a copy there instead. You'll have to snip the spaces, I don't want a spambot spider to be able to find it.
Don't bother sending the colors thing again even it it was updated, I never use it.
Done!
viridomaros
02 May 04, 11:09
They are on their way...
I have started two games - one as USSR and one as US. That's all I can handle for now but I greatly appreciate any comments you may have
i have played my first turn and here are my first comments
why did you put the option of mobilizing finland, austria, sweden since for me it is quite obvious the warsaw pact player is going to attack there and since if these countries are attacked by warsaw pact they will automtically join USA at no cost in term of vp for the USA player, so why a USA player should mobilize these countries before warsaw pact invade them
as it will cost vp to the USA player i think this is useless to mobilize these countries.
but may be ( surely :D) is there something i missed, i have some difficulties in understanding the situation in this scenario, the more difficult for me is to examine the situation to know which option is worth it and which is not.
Preemptive mobilization. IF you mobilize them before being attacked you can better deploy their forces to resist invasion and send additional troops to reinforce them. If the soviet player rushes troops to the border and attacks the same turn it won't matter, but if he builds the force up slowly deploying them over a few turns, or decides to wait until the catBs mobilize before attacking it's annother story entirely.
Finland and Austria will likely be overran in short order regardless of what you do. In austria's case a rapid nato reinforcement will allow you to defend farther forward into the mountains protecting more entry hexes until the reserves deploy and pull back the exposed mech units allowing the country to partially defend itself reducing the number of divs that need to be divirted from elsewhere. The Lenningrad Military District is almost entirely cat B/C units which means that an early invasion of finland/sweden will require divirting troops from the effort in Germany. The flip side of this is that with Swedish assistance a spoiling attack can be made from finland at the kola peninsula. Unlike Finland/Austria/Yugoslovia Sweden has a decent military and fighting through it to take the country out will largely deplete the entirity of forces assigned to the Northern TVD. The same is true of trying to bludgeon south through the Norwegian mountains, it's doable but the loss rates will be very much in nato's favor. Maintaining a minimum screening force to hold the Swedes back and sending most of the troops to Germany is certainly a viable option. If the pact player doesn't attack Sweden and neglects to leave enough good troops north to hold the line the Swedes are capable of carrying out an offensive against CatC divs.
viridomaros
02 May 04, 12:14
right i understand
did you get my first turn?
i sent it to you something like one hour ago at summoner @ computersims . com
i have played my first turn and here are my first comments
why did you put the option of mobilizing finland, austria, sweden since for me it is quite obvious the warsaw pact player is going to attack there and since if these countries are attacked by warsaw pact they will automtically join USA at no cost in term of vp for the USA player, so why a USA player should mobilize these countries before warsaw pact invade them
as it will cost vp to the USA player i think this is useless to mobilize these countries.
but may be ( surely :D) is there something i missed, i have some difficulties in understanding the situation in this scenario, the more difficult for me is to examine the situation to know which option is worth it and which is not.
I know the set-up is a bit strange for TOAW. Here is an attempt to explain a few issues (similar info is in the briefing but probably I could have done a better job explaining it).
The USSR player may choose not to attack countries like Finland or Sweden for various reasons (e.g. a wider front, SWedish and Finnish units joining NATO etc.). Mobilizing or attacking too many countries will result in significant victory point losses so you must choose carefully.
The US player may decide to mobilize them first for the same reasons: to open up a wider front again the USSR in the North, get the additional units from Sweden & Finland etc.
Similar reasons apply to Austria, Yugoslavia Middle eastern countries etc. although for each countries different reasons may apply.
In general I tried to have as many neutral countries as possible and let the players decide which countries they attack or mobilize. I think it makes it more interesting and gives variability to the scenario. I hope this helps...let me know if you have more questions.
right i understand
did you get my first turn?
i sent it to you something like one hour ago at summoner @ computersims . com
yes. I fired off a quick reply when I got it, and you should have my next one in your mailbox when you wake up in the morning.
piero1971
03 May 04, 03:19
two quick things I noticed:
I'd put as one player the Nato flag instead than USA one.
I'd write on the map where the strategic options are what they are, it iss a bit clumsy to look at the page (resolutions, etc.) to know which option is which and one can do mistakes...
two quick things I noticed:
I'd put as one player the Nato flag instead than USA one.
I'd write on the map where the strategic options are what they are, it iss a bit clumsy to look at the page (resolutions, etc.) to know which option is which and one can do mistakes...
The NATO flag did not show up correctly on my PC. Also the scenario is more from the global US perspective rather than NATO.
On the second part I am not what you mean. Where should I write the strategic options? (I have reached the max number of placenames already). I agree it is clumsy to look at a piece of paper (just like the a boardgame) but I wanted all the info to be contained in a single place. I am open to suggestions
You might have a few hiding off the edges of the map. I found one 3 hexes off the top when I resized to stick the panama canal on.
viridomaros
03 May 04, 14:38
hi dan
don't know if you sent me your turn already but i can't find it in both of my boxes, i just hope it hasn't been lost one more time in the cyberspace :mad:
You might have a few hiding off the edges of the map. I found one 3 hexes off the top when I resized to stick the panama canal on.
will check...thanks :)
I screwed up on my orginal turn (mispelled pw I couldn't guess) and had to redo it. I sent it ~24hrs ago so I'm assuming it didn't arrive and will resend. Your query was only a minute or two after the last time I checked this thread while on earlier today, or I'd've responded then. As a thought, I'll send a reply back as soon as I get a turn so you'll know that it arrived, if you do the same we shouldn't have any worries about lost emails.
Sent to your hotmail address. I don't have you other one or I'd try there instead since IIRC hotmail only has a 2meg quota so >600k emails would overflow it rapidly.
viridomaros
04 May 04, 07:22
i don't know if you have already resend it or not
but i still don't have anything in my box
may be better to use: viridomaros@yahoo.fr
as i have plenty of room on this one ( about 10 meg)
it would be good to send me a pm on warfare hq once you sent me something so we can keep in touch
piero1971
04 May 04, 08:16
On the second part I am not what you mean. Where should I write the strategic options? (I have reached the max number of placenames already).
Damn TOAW for limiting this. I have had the same problem for quite some scenarios!!! then you took the only solution possible!
Issue:
"As pact on turn 1 I mobilized syria and lebannon to redeploy the
syrian army and prevent it from being flanked by a lebanese collapse.
The enemy mobilized Isreal and attacked Lebanon ONLY intending to do just that. I'd assume that he'd be allowed to attack Syrian units in Lebanon but would be forced to let the ones on the Syrian border unmollested."
Resolution:
Since you moblized Syria and Lebanon on turn 1 you get a chance to redeploy your units before he can attack anywhere. He can only initiate combat against a country after one full turn has passed.
So ingoring his Attack Lebanon Option activation for a moment, the 1 FULL turn requirement is fullfilled by your action alone: Syria/Lebanon join the war from USSR Turn 1 to USSR Turn 2. Since Syria has joined the war by his turn 2 he is free to attack any Syrian territory and units within Syria proper independent of any other action he may have taken on Lebanon.
Basically, once either of the players has mobilized or attacked a country and 1 FULL turn has passed the countries can be attacked.
To clarify further consider this:
IF you had not mobilized Syria then the following would have applied:
Since he only exercised the Attack Lebanon Option he is allowed to attack Lebanese hexes including any Syrian units deployed in Lebanon (which iirc mobilize when Lebanon is attacked anyway). He is NOT allowed to attack ANY units in Syria proper. In order to enter Syrian air space or Syrian hexes he MUST use the option to Attack Syria (disband the appropriate unit).
This design feature was intentional on my part to allow players to do exactly what he was trying to do. Glad to see it worked!
I hope this helps.
I'd be very interested to hear any other comments/suggestions etc. I have two games going one as US and one as USSR and I am enjoying them immensly.
Issue:
"As pact on turn 1 I mobilized syria and lebannon to redeploy the
syrian army and prevent it from being flanked by a lebanese collapse.
The enemy mobilized Isreal and attacked Lebanon ONLY intending to do just that. I'd assume that he'd be allowed to attack Syrian units in Lebanon but would be forced to let the ones on the Syrian border unmollested."
*mumble* thunderstorms ... sleep deprivation ... fain bralure ...
viridomaros and I are behind because of a miskeyed pw on my part an a few com problems after that. Once something interesting happens I'll let you know. A truncated save when annother round of tstorms rumbled by cost 2hrs of play and kept me from finishing it tonight. BLEGH. I'm mostly done, but still need to rebase the entire soviet fighterforce and I'm not doing that on a small screen. no way, no how.
I put together a table listing each country, the number of VPs the objective hexes in it's borders are worth, the number of VPs it's army's worth, and for countries with single activation, the number of VPs needed for either side to do so. I got the VP values for the armies via disbanding, so it's limited to what I could actaully disband. Air, naval, and attack HHs aren't disbandable. I didn't think to remove yellow bars in the editor until I was ~75% done so fixed AA units aren't counted either. There might be counting errors on the VP hex side, or misremembered previous value errors on the army value one. I know I caught a few of the latter when they looked screwy but won't gaurantee I found all of them.
http://summoner.falldowngoboom.org/toaw/vps.xls
viridomaros
08 May 04, 03:31
your link doesn't work dan at least for me
your link doesn't work dan at least for me
What error are you getting? it opened fine for me a second ago.
I put together a table listing each country, the number of VPs the objective hexes in it's borders are worth, the number of VPs it's army's worth, and for countries with single activation, the number of VPs needed for either side to do so. I got the VP values for the armies via disbanding, so it's limited to what I could actaully disband. Air, naval, and attack HHs aren't disbandable. I didn't think to remove yellow bars in the editor until I was ~75% done so fixed AA units aren't counted either. There might be counting errors on the VP hex side, or misremembered previous value errors on the army value one. I know I caught a few of the latter when they looked screwy but won't gaurantee I found all of them.
http://summoner.falldowngoboom.org/toaw/vps.xls
nice table!! mind if i use a version of it in the briefing?
I'd be very interested to hear any other comments/suggestions etc. I have two games going one as US and one as USSR and I am enjoying them immensly.
farther clarification, is nato/soviet union a special case? Since both sides disbaning thier deploy units on t1 is almost a given, it seems that unless the pact player used the surprise attack TO, nato would always be able to attack first.
EDIT: I'm assuming that's not your intent since earlier versions had an exclusion zone between the two sides until an attack option was activated.
farther clarification, is nato/soviet union a special case? Since both sides disbaning thier deploy units on t1 is almost a given, it seems that unless the pact player used the surprise attack TO, nato would always be able to attack first.
First the Attack WP unit for the US/NATO player is not deployed until turn 2. This ensures that the WP is not caught by surspise unless he fails to mobilize on turn 1.
Assuming NATO/US player chooses to attack WP first anyway (that is disband the To Attack WP unit), there is VP cost associated (-75 VP).
I understand what you mean, but I fail to see any reason in the rules why isreal/syria deploying on the same turn with niether's attack unit being disbanded should allow isreal to attack syria the same turn it deploys, yet with nato/pact armies in Europe no combat's allowed until an attack event is activated. Am I missing something in the rules document?
PS I'm not trying to rules lawyer to cause trouble. I am however aware that there is a substantial portion of players that will stretch what you wrote to the limit, twisting your intent into a pretzel, all the while insisting that they're not being gamey but only following the letter of the law. If you don't believe me, ask Mark about his experiances with EA. I haven't had anything to do with the scenario for about a year, but in the ~2years prior to my break many(most?) of the changes were made specificly to counter gamey activities.
PPS viridomaros: Turn soon (probably within an hour)
And a related one on guerillas/revolt units. It's a moot point on pact units since afaik they only deploy on demand and the pact player moves first, I assume that the afgans are a legit target as soon as they deploy since there's already an active shooting war going on there, but what about elsewhere? Since many of them kurds/shiites/yugo/finn represent forces belonging to groups that were already engaged in lowlevel or full scale war a case could be made for thier being attacked immediately on deployment. To an extent, I also question the finns existance in the first place. Yes they were among the more effective guerilla forces in ww2, but do those conditions still apply, or've they been softened like the other western democracies?
LOK emailed me asking if I would post this for him since he's suffered multiple failures when trying.
From LOK
No need for apolgies. You are making costructive
critisism. :)
I now just realized that I may have given you a
confusing resolution in your earlier post so I
apologize if I did.
Fisrt there is no difference between the TO ATTACK and
TO MOBILIZE disband units. Think of them as TO's that
allow a neutral country to enter the game. (as you
know the only reason they exist is due to the TOAW GUI
bug with the TO dialog box).
As long as the ONE FULL turn rule is obeyed by both
players (as defined in the briefing) everything
is consistent.
Let's take your example of Israel/Syria:
IF the USSR player has disbanded the TO MOBILIZE SYRIA
unit on turn 1 then obeying the 1 FULL Turn rule
during his turn 2 he can move the deployed Syrian
units. That's all! He can NOT attack Israel.
It does NOT matter that the US player has disbanded
the TO MOBILIZE ISRAEL unit on turn 1. One FULL turn
must pass before the opposing player is allowed to
enter Israeli hexes. One full turn for the US player
means: US Turn1 to US Turn 2. So the
USSR player must wait until one FULL turn has passed
since the mobilization of Israel to enter any Israeli
hex.
The US player CAN attack Syria however on his turn 2
since Syria has been mobilized for one FULL turn: from
USSR Turn 1 to USSR turn 2 (I think that's what you
asked me before).
HAD the USSR player disbanded the TO ATTACK ISRAEL
unit in turn 1 then he would be allowed to
enter/attack Israel on HIS turn 2. Again One
FULL turn has passed since the option has been
exercised.
Europe is no different except that I did not want
US/NATO launching a surpise attack on the USSR/Wrasaw
Pact.
I hope this helps
Haris
Edited because I realized there was a partial repeat in what I was emailed.
Let's take your example of Israel/Syria:
IF the USSR player has disbanded the TO MOBILIZE SYRIA
unit on turn 1 then obeying the 1 FULL Turn rule
during his turn 2 he can move the deployed Syrian
units. That's all! He can NOT attack Israel.
It does NOT matter that the US player has disbanded
the TO MOBILIZE ISRAEL unit on turn 1. One FULL turn
must pass before the opposing player is allowed to
enter Israeli hexes. One full turn for the US player
means: US Turn1 to US Turn 2. So the
USSR player must wait until one FULL turn has passed
since the mobilization of Israel to enter any Israeli
hex.
The US player CAN attack Syria however on his turn 2
since Syria has been mobilized for one FULL turn: from
USSR Turn 1 to USSR turn 2 (I think that's what you
asked me before).
Europe is no different except that I did not want
US/NATO launching a surpise attack on the USSR/Wrasaw
Pact.
And my reply.
Now that I'm fully awake I understand what you meant re syria/isreal clearly, so no farther comment on that part. Re Europe however I do have some comments/objections.
For the 'standard opening', on t1 the pact disbands the deploy soviet units but doesn't activate the surprise attack TO because he wants the shock bonus, and nato does the same with the nato/us ones. On t2, the soviet player setsup his units along the inter-german border for attack but cannot cross it. To this point I have no objection.
Here I do. Again following the Isreal/Syria example from before, the US player is free to launch was is effectively a preemptive strike on soviet units that have been carrying out what at this point could be nothing more than a large scale unannounced exercise. That IMO is totally bogus, contrary to nato doctrine, and a political disaster. IIRC it's also contrary to your intent in earlier versions where an exclusion zone sat along the border and wasn't lifted until one of the attack events was triggered, simple deployment didn't do it.
It also reduces the pair of attack USSR/NATO disbands to gambling on a shock bonus. If the above is actually your intent now, I'd suggest: aknowledging it by changing the attack USSR/NATO disbands names to something akin to 'launch major offensive'. Increasing the odds of success to 100%, and making both nato and pact's have timelimit instead of being indefinite. To get the needed events to terminate the nato shocks I'd be willing to sacrifice the one side'sairshock since 105% is a very modest effect. Alternately the 95% shocks from destruction of HQs. Short of it going nuclear I can't see either being destroyed before the battle was effectively over anyway, and in a nuc environment far more serious penalties would be justified. Actaully the 115/110 land shocks are relatively modest as well, for a real offensive I'd rather one or two turns at 150%+ to give a real shot at shattering the opposing line (not sure how much would actually be needed), followed by a few turns of 110-120ish maintainance shock before falling off to 100.
And my reply.
Now that I'm fully awake I understand what you meant re syria/isreal clearly, so no farther comment on that part. Re Europe however I do have some comments/objections.
For the 'standard opening', on t1 the pact disbands the deploy soviet units but doesn't activate the surprise attack TO because he wants the shock bonus, and nato does the same with the nato/us ones. On t2, the soviet player setsup his units along the inter-german border for attack but cannot cross it. To this point I have no objection.
Here I do. Again following the Isreal/Syria example from before, the US player is free to launch was is effectively a preemptive strike on soviet units that have been carrying out what at this point could be nothing more than a large scale unannounced exercise. That IMO is totally bogus, contrary to nato doctrine, and a political disaster. IIRC it's also contrary to your intent in earlier versions where an exclusion zone sat along the border and wasn't lifted until one of the attack events was triggered, simple deployment didn't do it.
It also reduces the pair of attack USSR/NATO disbands to gambling on a shock bonus. If the above is actually your intent now, I'd suggest: aknowledging it by changing the attack USSR/NATO disbands names to something akin to 'launch major offensive'. Increasing the odds of success to 100%, and making both nato and pact's have timelimit instead of being indefinite. To get the needed events to terminate the nato shocks I'd be willing to sacrifice the one side'sairshock since 105% is a very modest effect. Alternately the 95% shocks from destruction of HQs. Short of it going nuclear I can't see either being destroyed before the battle was effectively over anyway, and in a nuc environment far more serious penalties would be justified. Actaully the 115/110 land shocks are relatively modest as well, for a real offensive I'd rather one or two turns at 150%+ to give a real shot at shattering the opposing line (not sure how much would actually be needed), followed by a few turns of 110-120ish maintainance shock before falling off to 100.
I now understand your point about Europe and you are correct. The rules as written and "clarified" :crosseye: by me allow for the sequence of events you described. As you said it is is totally bogus, contrary to nato doctrine, and a political disaster and completely contrary to my intent.
It needs to be fixed and I have two choices how to fix it:
1. Revise the house rules to make an exception
2. Bring back the exclusion zone
No 2 would involve rework of the events (something I hate doing at this stage) and has a few other problems.
So I vote for solution 1 unless someone has a better or easier idea.
thanks for pointing this logical inconsistency out.
As far as shock value go I am willing to experiment and find the right formula as long as it does not predtermine the outcome.
And a related one on guerillas/revolt units. It's a moot point on pact units since afaik they only deploy on demand and the pact player moves first, I assume that the afgans are a legit target as soon as they deploy since there's already an active shooting war going on there, but what about elsewhere? Since many of them kurds/shiites/yugo/finn represent forces belonging to groups that were already engaged in lowlevel or full scale war a case could be made for thier being attacked immediately on deployment. To an extent, I also question the finns existance in the first place. Yes they were among the more effective guerilla forces in ww2, but do those conditions still apply, or've they been softened like the other western democracies?
Sorry for the lack of reply on this one.
here is my general philosophy: None of the G units result should any combat that would alter the outcome of the war in Europe. They just represent different political situations and force players to Garisson their objectives just like irl.
Afghans are there because the conflict was still in progress. Previous versions of the map at a different scale had the entire country including Kabul making that front more interesting imo. Now it's merely a side show.
Kurds (PKK and and PUK) are there to give a bit more flavor to the the complexity of the Middle East politics (Iraq/Turkey). No real action takes place except some diversion of small units to guard against them or attack them.
Shiites are there only to simulate internal dissention in Iraq. They have very little impact.
Yugo G's are there to simulate the collapse of the federal army and I wanted to prevent the NATO player from mobilizing Yugoslavia in order to get to the "soft underbelly" of the Pact. They can be changed if need be.
Finns... I thought it was a nice idea to add some more difficulty in the Arctic front for the Pact player. I can take them out if people hate the idea of Finnish partisans.
I am open to suggestions on all G units
Sorry for the lack of reply on this one.
here is my general philosophy: None of the G units result should any combat that would alter the outcome of the war in Europe. They just represent different political situations and force players to Garisson their objectives just like irl.
Yeah, possibly excluding the revolt of the Egyptian southern MD (haven't had the opportunity to test yet) none of them have any staying power, and the value of the Egpytian southern MD is only 7vp, so even it's a net loss in terms of troops. The kurds/arabs will be swatted in a turn or two and I suspect the same for the yugos unless they can slip back to link up with allied troops elsewhere. The Finns deploy far enough north that they should be able to last a bit longer esp considering how light of a force the soviets are likely to have unless gunning for Sweden as well.
Afghans are there because the conflict was still in progress. Previous versions of the map at a different scale had the entire country including Kabul making that front more interesting imo. Now it's merely a side show.
They still die in 2 or 3 turns though. Unless you mod the scen so they have steady reinforcements coming in every turn or two the soviets will quickly be able to swat the rebels entirely and then redeploy most of the troops elsewhere. A single div should be able to screen the Pakistani's, hammering them out of the mountains is more trouble than it's worth. Alternately I'd suggest axing the theater entirely, along with whatever iranian forces would be gaurding thier eastern border. For flavor, an option for the pact to pull out and free some troops at a fairly steep VP price would have more flavor IMO since G warfare is so hard to acomplish
Kurds (PKK and and PUK) are there to give a bit more flavor to the the complexity of the Middle East politics (Iraq/Turkey). No real action takes place except some diversion of small units to guard against them or attack them.
IMO these guys are more useful as a threat than in actaul deployment. Once deploy'd they'll be quickly splattered, and the forces freed for use elsewhere, but until then a sizeable force needs to be kept to gaurd against them, esp on the iraqi side since they don't have any rail rep ability. A single unit with 30-50% eng/rr here would be nice. Not enough to do rapid repairs in support of an advance but capable of minor housekeeping tasks. 20% in a division is small enough to be useless on repair although it does help with minor river crossings. Egypt has the same problem.
Yugo G's are there to simulate the collapse of the federal army and I wanted to prevent the NATO player from mobilizing Yugoslavia in order to get to the "soft underbelly" of the Pact.
They can be changed if need be.
I suspect the yugos will be swatting without even being a speedbump unless they can slip back to link up with allied troops elsewhere. If I changed anything here, I'd increase thier numbers.
Finns... I thought it was a nice idea to add some more difficulty in the Arctic front for the Pact player. I can take them out if people hate the idea of Finnish partisans.
The Finns deploy far enough north that they should be able to last a bit longer esp considering how light of a force the soviets are likely to have unless gunning for Sweden as well. It's not that I hate them so much as that I'm not sure the conditions that resulted in thier being so effective 60 years ago still apply.
Shifting subjects, what's the status of US bases in still neutral nations. OKinawa, bahrain and the island off oman are my immediate concerns. All have US troops potentially deploying before the host is activated. I'm assuming no farther troop movements to them, or if so only as waystations for air units/etc. And no attacks out of them until the host is activated.
A single unit with 30-50% eng/rr here would be nice. Not enough to do rapid repairs in support of an advance but capable of minor housekeeping tasks. 20% in a division is small enough to be useless on repair although it does help with minor river crossings. Egypt has the same problem..
I may add some rail repair capability to most minor countries,a although initially the lack of engineering capability was deliberate since most minor countries would lack the spare parts and/or capability to do major repairs during a world war.
Regarding G units - I agree that Afghans are very weak compared to the Soviet forces there. The best thing to do is reduce the number of Soviet troops in Afghanistan that become available. I had assumed that given a world wide conflict the Soviets would let go of Aghannistan if they needed the troops elesewhere. May be I freed too many divisions from the AFGF.
Shifting subjects, what's the status of US bases in still neutral nations. OKinawa, bahrain and the island off oman are my immediate concerns. All have US troops potentially deploying before the host is activated. I'm assuming no farther troop movements to them, or if so only as waystations for air units/etc. And no attacks out of them until the host is activated ..
Correct. All the US bases abroad such as Okinawa etc. (excluding those on NATO countries) are treated as part of the host nation.
1. No further troop movements to them
2. Yes, they can be used as waystations for air units.
3. No attacks out of them until the host is activated.
Anyone heard from PanzerGIII (Matt). I had started a game with him as USSR but had no other emails since turn 1.
I seem to have lost one of my opponents so I am looking to play as USSR if anyone has time.
LOK,
I have some free gaming time so I could step in and play as the Soviets
Paul
LOK,
I have some free gaming time so I could step in and play as the Soviets
Paul
Actually I need you to play as US/NATO. If you are still interested post a reply or email me.
Thanks
Dan Neely
21 May 04, 00:26
I decided to do an aar of my ongoing test game.
http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?p=74666#post74666
Menschenfresser
21 May 04, 11:26
LOK, I was wondering if you'd allow me a gander at your scenario. While I doubt I have the time for a real PBEM, I could use some fresh solitaire blood. And I'm sure I can repay the favor with a few comments.
menschenfresser@rcn.com
Absolutely. I'd really appreciate any comments you may have. I am sending you the files...
Menschenfresser
21 May 04, 11:41
Thanks...reading the briefing now.
Menschenfresser
21 May 04, 13:46
I don't have toaw at work anymore, so I'll wait for the latest version tonight.
It looks like one of the most, if not the most, complicated scenario I've seen.
Thanks...
I don't have toaw at work anymore, so
It looks like one of the most, if not the most, complicated scenario I've seen...
I hope that's a good thing :D
Menschenfresser
21 May 04, 14:02
Oh definitely. I love complication. :)
Are you still looking to chop this momma in half and do two separate scenarios?
Oh definitely. I love complication. :)
Are you still looking to chop this momma in half and do two separate scenarios?
I think that's the best long-term solution to get around the map issues and other limitations. However, I am not sure how to play two coupled scenarios in TOAW - lots of house rules I suppose...
Menschenfresser
21 May 04, 15:29
I think it's all in how you lay out interaction between the two. Obviously, you'd have to limit the number of redeployable formations, but it could be done. Since the scenario is only 60 days long, it's conceivable that even given a massive failure along one front, neither the US/NATO nor the WP could reposition anything but their highly mobile divisions.
My suggestion would be to have on T1 a series of disband TOs that allow for both players to add certain formations to one or the other game. Not too much so that if NATO didn't add all their formations to Europe, the game would be virtually over on T2, but enough to make it somewhat interesting.
Then have a few divisions like the 82nd AB which can during the course of the game be pulled from their initial game/theater and added to the other. This could be done at a VP loss. Honor rules would have to be added to limit a player redeploying a mauled 82nd AB just to have it suddenly replenished, but that's a minor issue.
While it does sound limiting at first, I can think of several benefits this adds. Like being able to have different replacement rates & supply levels for each theater. This also could be adjustable by TO if the US player wants to pour more men into one game or the other.
This is just theoretical.
yes that what i was thinking about also. The other thing I thought about is to have a small program to manage the TO's in both theaters/scenarios. It should be easy to program something like that and one can introduce a whole bunch of other triggers and options. The players will still need to activate the options in TOAW but the decision tree could be made more complex in this other program. Of course, that requires players running yet another program so I am not sure if that's a great idea.
Menschenfresser
22 May 04, 19:25
Initial Comments:
I like the map. I like that you've done east & west and not turned it all into a spagetti of rail & sea lanes. There's much of Russia that seems rather unimportant to the game since I don't see any chance that NATO can whip the Russians back to Moscow. But that's a side issue.
I do want to ask about some of the interesting, but side, theaters of the game. What is the significance of N. Africa, the Middle East & Central Asia in this game...other than flair. More precisely, it seems victory is more or less decided in Europe and though these extra points play their part, what would be the reason for, say, activating any of the N. African nations...or attacking them?
If I activate Algeria and attack Morocco, I lose some 35 points in the activation and attack TOs and have the possibility of gaining 36 if I over run Morocco. Same with Isreal. Costs 60 to activate Israel, plus some 20-30 extra to DOW on Lebanon, Syria, etc. If the Israelis take all of Syria and Lenanon, I think they receive some 75 points.
If some extra reason for activating other theaters existed, artificial though it may be, it would enhance the depth of strategic choices presented scenario. You're probably lacking free events at this point, but what about boosting the point totals for capital cities?
Or, if you have events, having EEV variable tied to NATO signing a detrimental peace treaty if it goes too high (i.e. OV for the WP). Or simply having each capital city (i.e. surrender trigger city) also reduce force supply levels.
I was just wondering because many players tend toward playing scenarios by taking the shortest route to victory. And while this scenario has more color than most, it seems an ardent focus on Europe is all that's necessary.
I haven't been thorough in looking over all the units of all the countries, but it seems that the US uses Assault AT+ squads while the rest of its allies use Assault AT squads. Seems all of the WP uses Assault AT, with some using lesser squads. In keeping the number of theaters down, one can focus all the replacements into the European theater. So if you aren't burning up Assault Squads in Korea, then they can beef up your advance into W. Germany.
Also I noticed that the game starts off with a WP marginal victory. Is it possible for NATO to improve upon that?
These are really just discussion points...not suggestions. I love the variety here, but what I'm getting at is, I want strong reasons for choosing path X or choosing path Y. Maybe they are there. Maybe I just need a little coaching on how this game plays out since it can go in so many directions.
Initial Comments:
I like the map. I like that you've done east & west and not turned it all into a spagetti of rail & sea lanes. There's much of Russia that seems rather unimportant to the game since I don't see any chance that NATO can whip the Russians back to Moscow. But that's a side issue.
I do want to ask about some of the interesting, but side, theaters of the game. What is the significance of N. Africa, the Middle East & Central Asia in this game...other than flair. More precisely, it seems victory is more or less decided in Europe and though these extra points play their part, what would be the reason for, say, activating any of the N. African nations...or attacking them?
If I activate Algeria and attack Morocco, I lose some 35 points in the activation and attack TOs and have the possibility of gaining 36 if I over run Morocco. Same with Isreal. Costs 60 to activate Israel, plus some 20-30 extra to DOW on Lebanon, Syria, etc. If the Israelis take all of Syria and Lenanon, I think they receive some 75 points.
If some extra reason for activating other theaters existed, artificial though it may be, it would enhance the depth of strategic choices presented scenario. You're probably lacking free events at this point, but what about boosting the point totals for capital cities?
Or, if you have events, having EEV variable tied to NATO signing a detrimental peace treaty if it goes too high (i.e. OV for the WP). Or simply having each capital city (i.e. surrender trigger city) also reduce force supply levels.
I was just wondering because many players tend toward playing scenarios by taking the shortest route to victory. And while this scenario has more color than most, it seems an ardent focus on Europe is all that's necessary.
I haven't been thorough in looking over all the units of all the countries, but it seems that the US uses Assault AT+ squads while the rest of its allies use Assault AT squads. Seems all of the WP uses Assault AT, with some using lesser squads. In keeping the number of theaters down, one can focus all the replacements into the European theater. So if you aren't burning up Assault Squads in Korea, then they can beef up your advance into W. Germany.
Also I noticed that the game starts off with a WP marginal victory. Is it possible for NATO to improve upon that?
These are really just discussion points...not suggestions. I love the variety here, but what I'm getting at is, I want strong reasons for choosing path X or choosing path Y. Maybe they are there. Maybe I just need a little coaching on how this game plays out since it can go in so many directions.
these are valid questions. Some of them are addressed in the briefing in more detail.
Russia is there simply because the other parts of the world need to be there.
Yes Europe is the main theater but the whole idea is to simulate a world conflict. The scenario is based on GDW board game WWIII series and my expansion to it. So every country/region has its own characteristics. It's up to you what you want to do. This way the game can be different every time you play it.
Some of the effects you mentioned are in the scenario in various forms. Not exactly as you suggested but in similar form (supply effetcs capitals etc).
The game starts off with a NATO marginal victory not WP.
Dan Neely
23 May 04, 01:21
Initial Comments:
I do want to ask about some of the interesting, but side, theaters of the game. What is the significance of N. Africa, the Middle East & Central Asia in this game...other than flair. More precisely, it seems victory is more or less decided in Europe and though these extra points play their part, what would be the reason for, say, activating any of the N. African nations...or attacking them?
If I activate Algeria and attack Morocco, I lose some 35 points in the activation and attack TOs and have the possibility of gaining 36 if I over run Morocco. Same with Isreal. Costs 60 to activate Israel, plus some 20-30 extra to DOW on Lebanon, Syria, etc. If the Israelis take all of Syria and Lenanon, I think they receive some 75 points.
alot more than that actaully. Lebanon has 27vp, syria 68. Remember that when you gain N vps your opponent looses that many as well. So that's 190 net vps before the value of the armies chewed up is added in which are annother 3/54 vp for the parts that can be disbanded. For morroco with 29vp of objectives and a 10vp army you're looking at a potential 68vp to gain, I'm doubtful that the Algerians can pull if off though unless the us player makes a blunder with the Morrocans. If you're forced to divert the heavy centcom units to Germany and Korea Iraq can do a similar ammount of damage to the gulf states, thier local militaries and the marine div with m60's aren't enough to stop them. Alternately the bulk of the iraqi military can be sent to Syria and if they arrive and digin before the Syrian front is broken can potentially stop the isreali's cold. In this case, one or two divs of m1's will be able to shred the iraqis in the south and pour north towards bagdad.
Korea has a total of 824vp in play: 127 + 221 + 2*(153+85)
I used disbanding to get the VP totals for each contries army and stuck them in a SS.
http://summoner.falldowngoboom.org/toaw/vps.xls
40% of the VP hexes are outside of Europe and Turkey, and the lower unit densities in most of that area make grabbing a large number of them much easier. The pact countries in north africa have obsolete tanks, a few US regular divisions there could potentially have a much larger impact as they munched thier way from Casablanca to Cairo than in the meatgrinder of Germany.
I haven't been thorough in looking over all the units of all the countries, but it seems that the US uses Assault AT+ squads while the rest of its allies use Assault AT squads. Seems all of the WP uses Assault AT, with some using lesser squads. In keeping the number of theaters down, one can focus all the replacements into the European theater. So if you aren't burning up Assault Squads in Korea, then they can beef up your advance into W. Germany.
I haven't payed much attention to rifle squad replacement rates, but the attack/def levels of modern armor are high enough that they don't really have that large of an impact. And armor replacement rates are far below losses. Nato will get about 33% of it's inventory replaced by the end of turn60, the pact more like 10% or 15%. A battalion-regiment of tanks/day isn't really significant when each attacking division is taking heavier losses in every attack. I'm not sure if LOK messed with the attrition divider or not, but by turns end, most engaged divisions will have had the majority of thier armor destroyed or damaged and cycle into the replacement pool.
I haven't payed much attention to rifle squad replacement rates, but the attack/def levels of modern armor are high enough that they don't really have that large of an impact. And armor replacement rates are far below losses. Nato will get about 33% of it's inventory replaced by the end of turn60, the pact more like 10% or 15%. A battalion-regiment of tanks/day isn't really significant when each attacking division is taking heavier losses in every attack. I'm not sure if LOK messed with the attrition divider or not, but by turns end, most engaged divisions will have had the majority of thier armor destroyed or damaged and cycle into the replacement pool.
As usual Dan eloquently illuminated the impact of the other theaters. Thanks Dan.
Hust to confirm. I have not played with the attrition divider. The replacement rates are supposed to represent the ability of countries to repair and maintain equipment. The problem is you can not do it by country which is what we really need. I think the fact that most divisions gets chewed up by turn 60 is realistic.
Menschenfresser
23 May 04, 10:39
Sorry, I meant NATO MV. Is it realistically possible for them to improve upon this?
Ah, yes, I always forget some small detail like that, like subtracting from the other guy. D'oh! Thanks for the answers. I can better see the significance of the various nations. It's starting to come together in my mind. :)
[QUOTE=Menschenfresser]Sorry, I meant NATO MV. Is it realistically possible for them to improve upon this?
QUOTE]
Yes I have been able to obtain a significant victory against Wp in earlier playtesting. It depends on a million factors as t should
Dan Neely
23 May 04, 11:12
Sorry, I meant NATO MV. Is it realistically possible for them to improve upon this?
Yes I have been able to obtain a significant victory against Wp in earlier playtesting. It depends on a million factors as t should
Just a wild guess, you swept the mideast. A major counterattack in Europe's possible I suppose, but somewhat predicated on the pact player pushing too long and depleting himself to the point that one's viable.
Just a wild guess, you swept the mideast. A major counterattack in Europe's possible I suppose, but somewhat predicated on the pact player pushing too long and depleting himself to the point that one's viable.
Correct. Syria/Lebanon were gone (thanks to the IDF) and Iraq was mostly wrapped up by CENTCOM units. Algeria had surrendered after leaving Algiers exposed and a landing by Italian/frencj units.
The pact had made limited gains in central Europe and I was able to counter attack in certain places.
But again that was a long time ago with a different version.
Dan Neely
26 May 04, 12:35
If anyone's interested, I've got time to take up a 2nd game. I'd prefer to go allies this time to see if my ideas about convoy defense work as well in practice as theory.
Dan,
I'd love to play you. I prefer to play USSR/Pact anyway. I can do 1-2 turns/week max. If that is too slow you may want to pick another playtester. Let me know.
Dan Neely
26 May 04, 22:13
Dan,
I'd love to play you. I prefer to play USSR/Pact anyway. I can do 1-2 turns/week max. If that is too slow you may want to pick another playtester. Let me know.
Sounds good to me, that's about what Viridomaros is doing, the two of you combined should fill most of my play time.
viridomaros
27 May 04, 01:14
dan could you please send me your other email add again because i lost it thanks
Dan Neely
27 May 04, 02:22
dan could you please send me your other email add again because i lost it thanks
Replying in thread so it'll last longer. Hopefully the compsim account will be back soon. I was told to expect it back yesterday and then again today. It's a problem with the operators isp not something he can fix himself.
danst31 @ myrealbox . com
Sounds good to me, that's about what Viridomaros is doing, the two of you combined should fill most of my play time.
Great! I will send you my turn in a day or so.
Menschenfresser
27 May 04, 12:50
Started a second hotseat game now that I know a little bit more about the system.
T1 & 2: Mobilized WP West/SW & Southern groups. Also mobilized Iraq, Syria and Lebenon. While I don't have an end game strategy since I don't know how the game plays out, I plan to initially attack Western Europe & Turkey. The Turkish invasion will come from three sides: Balkans to Istanbul, Caucasus/Iraq/Syria and a seaborne invasion aimed north of Ankara. Europe, I hope to push hard in the center, largely ignoring Austria, Yugo, etc. The WP thrust into Europe is going to see one of the largest airborne drops ever! Once the Balkan forces retake the continent, most will peel off and hit Greece. If that goes off without too much loss. The WP will be ready for a sea invasion of either Italy or Egypt. Haven't decided.
NATO mobilized as well as US reserves, I think. Also mobilized Austria to better defend Vienna. The French forces remain in France for the moment on a rail line to function as mobile reserves. Paratroopers, SEAL teams, and other elite units are staying put to deal with WP paras, etc. Greeks pulled back to guard Thessoloniki even though the WP isn't headed that way yet. The Israelis will probably mobilize on T2 seeing the mobilization of its Arab neighbors, and Centcom is debating releasing its forces in case Iraq tries to slip into Kuwait. The pacific is quiet.
I'm not really playing with points so much in mind this game. Just trying to keep to the rules.
And DAMN! there are a lot of WP air units. I noticed at least one WP air unit that has a large range difference in the two types of planes comprising it. I don't have the unit ID in front of me.
Dan Neely
27 May 04, 14:09
Started a second hotseat game now that I know a little bit more about the system.
T1 & 2: Mobilized WP West/SW & Southern groups. Also mobilized Iraq, Syria and Lebenon. While I don't have an end game strategy since I don't know how the game plays out, I plan to initially attack Western Europe & Turkey. The Turkish invasion will come from three sides: Balkans to Istanbul, Caucasus/Iraq/Syria and a seaborne invasion aimed north of Ankara. Europe, I hope to push hard in the center, largely ignoring Austria, Yugo, etc. The WP thrust into Europe is going to see one of the largest airborne drops ever! Once the Balkan forces retake the continent, most will peel off and hit Greece. If that goes off without too much loss. The WP will be ready for a sea invasion of either Italy or Egypt. Haven't decided.
You might want to reconsider not mobilizing the north command, north fleet naval aviation has several more long range naval bomber units to harras the convoy routes with.
A general comment on Central Europe, a longer front is generally to the soviet advantage since it forces farther nato breakdowns to cover, and you can't stack divs without a loss penalty. The exception is if it gets to the point you have to begin breaking down yourself Depending on how hard you push in Turkey you may/not have enough troops to stretch it.
You've got about 2x the available airborne as you do transport to drop them, be sure to keep that in mind while planning your strike.
For the naval attack, italy's a safer target, the Egyptian army's big enough to squash the small force you could land, and has relatively few ports to defend. Italy's also far more vulnerable to blown bridge pralysis. The bigger problem is that you don't have supply points in any invasion hexs.
NATO mobilized as well as US reserves, I think. Also mobilized Austria to better defend Vienna. The French forces remain in France for the moment on a rail line to function as mobile reserves. Paratroopers, SEAL teams, and other elite units are staying put to deal with WP paras, etc. Greeks pulled back to guard Thessoloniki even though the WP isn't headed that way yet. The Israelis will probably mobilize on T2 seeing the mobilization of its Arab neighbors, and Centcom is debating releasing its forces in case Iraq tries to slip into Kuwait. The pacific is quiet.
Unless nato pumped alot of troops into austria, whacking it quickly should be to your advantage since covering it's entire border will require alot of troops. Yugo's very weak, asside from it's handful of armor bdes most of it's troops are very prone to being aved by a fresh division, the force you need to screen your border against a nato mobilization and the railing of a halfdozenish divsions to strike at your flank's almost large enough to pull off a one turn smash, and afterwards the same force will should be able to screen the italian border keeping them tied down. Unless you've stripped the border to the bone, or don't have enough troops facing the greeks to hold thier army down, there's really little to loose in a strike. Even if you can't one turn the capital, you can bomb out enough bridges to prevent any rapid reinforcement.
I'm not really playing with points so much in mind this game. Just trying to keep to the rules.
And DAMN! there are a lot of WP air units. I noticed at least one WP air unit that has a large range difference in the two types of planes comprising it. I don't have the unit ID in front of me.
It's probably in strategic avaiation, there're several mixed units there, although I think one or two balkan units with m19's might have the same problem since they've got a much longer range than most other soviet fighters. The NK airfarce is organized with mixed units as well. NK's the one that bugs me more since I'd like to split alot of the 'fighter' units in half and use the obsolete mig17/19's for air to mud actions. Nato has a disgusting number of air units as well, it's less apparent since they're largely based at the border.
EDIT: just fixed quoting
Menschenfresser
28 May 04, 09:25
Thanks for the advice, Dan.
I was planning on moving into Austria, but the bulk of my forces are headed up the gut. Yugo might come as an after thought...haven't decided. Although it would be nice to have a port on the Adriatic to reinforce the invasion of Italy. I'll have to look over the supply points and see if I can't grab something. If the main Euro thrust weakens the Italian position, the invasion might come in N. Italy in an attempt to crack open the southern front. Yea, I probably will mobilize N. Command if it adds more antishipping capabilities. The WP doesn't like the reports its getting of the Europe bound 2nd Fleet.
LOK, I'm a little confused about Israel as a part of the larger middle east. Since Egypt is an ally of the US, can Israel come to their aid? I know they can't stack or attack together, but can they enter friendly territory. I might have missed this in the briefing.
I second everything that Dan said about strategy.
As far as the air units go: I had to make some compromises. Generally I tried to follow the OOB for each nation. Also I tried to put one A/C type per unit bu that was not always possible since some units fly several types. I also tried to merge units that flew the same type of A/C to minimize the total number of units.
Apparently there is feeling that the number of air units is "disgustingly" high. (Am I right guys?). Would you like me to reduce it?
For Egypt: Egypt is included under the Arab-Israeli house rule, no enetering each other's hexes, stacking etc. (see briefing for exact details)
I hope this helps :)
Menschenfresser
28 May 04, 10:11
For my part, I'd like to see some reduction in the number of air units. But I'm not so sure it's desired what with the way one can batter airfields with those long range missiles. A little consolidation might be a good thing.
For my part, I'd like to see some reduction in the number of air units. But I'm not so sure it's desired what with the way one can batter airfields with those long range missiles. A little consolidation might be a good thing.
OK I will see what I can do while preserving the OOB and single A/C type per unit.
Dan what do you think?
Dan Neely
28 May 04, 13:59
For my part, I'd like to see some reduction in the number of air units. But I'm not so sure it's desired what with the way one can batter airfields with those long range missiles. A little consolidation might be a good thing.
AFAIK missle bombards are a strait percentage loss, the number of units in the stack is irrelevant. Most nato AC have the range to operate from beyond scud range, and the attack1 heavy missles are irrelevant as bombards, in any event they're primarily nuke carriers and won't be deployed by default in the next version. A few places like isreal, South Korea, and possibly Greece (not sure if they have enough safe fields) are vulnerable to missle strikes, but otherwise all the modern AC can safelty pull back. Isreal's not a major concern since even with both iraqi scud batteries in support suppressing thier large airforce is easier said than done. Short range ac like the alphajet are screwed by scud attacks though.
Personally, I don't think the total number of air units is too high. If you try and cram them all into Germany at the expense of every other theater it's alot, but covering down into the balkans and up into scandanavia it's more reasonable. Otherwise a single reorg would have too large a proportional impact IMO.
Large scale consolidation of modern units would produce excessively powerful single units. Modern attack units already have good chances of wasting a bridge regardless of weather. Further consolidation would only reduce the number of bridges I could frag in a single turn. I'd like to add that while keeping every bridge up's near impossible, keeping the rail routes you actaully use for reinforcements up despite crazy bombing isn't difficult. The only problem is when a minor area suddenly becomes important and you don't have major engineering support handy.
AFAIK missle bombards are a strait percentage loss, the number of units in the stack is irrelevant. Most nato AC have the range to operate from beyond scud range, and the attack1 heavy missles are irrelevant as bombards, in any event they're primarily nuke carriers and won't be deployed by default in the next version. A few places like isreal, South Korea, and possibly Greece (not sure if they have enough safe fields) are vulnerable to missle strikes, but otherwise all the modern AC can safelty pull back. Isreal's not a major concern since even with both iraqi scud batteries in support suppressing thier large airforce is easier said than done. Short range ac like the alphajet are screwed by scud attacks though.
Personally, I don't think the total number of air units is too high. If you try and cram them all into Germany at the expense of every other theater it's alot, but covering down into the balkans and up into scandanavia it's more reasonable. Otherwise a single reorg would have too large a proportional impact IMO.
Large scale consolidation of modern units would produce excessively powerful single units. Modern attack units already have good chances of wasting a bridge regardless of weather. Further consolidation would only reduce the number of bridges I could frag in a single turn. I'd like to add that while keeping every bridge up's near impossible, keeping the rail routes you actaully use for reinforcements up despite crazy bombing isn't difficult. The only problem is when a minor area suddenly becomes important and you don't have major engineering support handy.
Thanks for the feedback.
I think I may have misunderstood your orginal "disgusting" comment about the number of air units then.
I am manily of the same opinion on most of the points you made. I found that having more air units (although they are pain to keep track of) is actually beneficial for a variety of reasons. I will still try and consolidate some small units when appropriate.
Dan Neely
28 May 04, 15:56
Thanks for the feedback.
I think I may have misunderstood your orginal "disgusting" comment about the number of air units then.
I am manily of the same opinion on most of the points you made. I found that having more air units (although they are pain to keep track of) is actually beneficial for a variety of reasons. I will still try and consolidate some small units when appropriate.
yeah, I was using a combo of hyperbole and sarcasm in that comment, nato's no worse than the pact, and they do need that many units for the same reasons. Also, if air units were several times as large you could have ludicrus situations like a thousand aircraft cap over the atlantic radiating from keflavik that would eat bomber strikes alive.
If possible, one thing that would make managing them easier would be to reorder the formations so that all the air units are in a single block. To avoid missing anything I generally start the turn by cycling through each formation to reset all the resting air units. being able to skip the mess of land formations while doing so would make it much faster. Or if you don't want to completely restructure it, at least move all the soviet units into blocks by tvd instead of interspersing them peicemeal between combat formations.
When will this scenario be available for all to download. Sounds like my kind of melee,
When will this scenario be available for all to download. Sounds like my kind of melee,
I'd be happy to e-mail it to you. Several people are playtesting it as we speak. Of course, with a scenario of this size, it is never "finished". I just want to make sure there are no glaring bugs.
Great, sent it to festrada26@hotmail.com Please send it on a zip file.
Dan Neely
24 Jun 04, 14:53
Great, sent it to festrada26@hotmail.com Please send it on a zip file.
make sure you've got the space free. even zipped the scen will be a ~.5meg email, annother ~100k for the breifing doc. The country colors pdf (which I personally didn't find useful) will be annother ~400k.
Great, sent it to festrada26@hotmail.com Please send it on a zip file.
OK I think I managed to send you the scenario and briefing. The unit colors may come later and is not needed to play the scenario.
I'd be happy to e-mail it to you. Several people are playtesting it as we speak. Of course, with a scenario of this size, it is never "finished". I just want to make sure there are no glaring bugs.
I would love to take a look at the scenario and I would probably want to playtest it with you if you are still interested!
Please mail to ds@mysoft.se
Thank you in advance!
/ratbag
I would love to take a look at the scenario and I would probably want to playtest it with you if you are still interested!
Please mail to ds@mysoft.se
Thank you in advance!
/ratbag
Given the limited time I can spend on this here is what I am planning to do with the scenario:
I will publish the current version of the scenario in the next couple fo weeks and let people check it.
I will continue support it if there is enough interest but frankly I think it has become too big and cumbersome and is more than the TOAW game engine can support.
I plan to split it in two (and may be later 3) scenarios: Europe/Middle east and Pacific (Central-South Asia may be added later).
I have 2-3 minor things to change and I will publish it in a week or so.
Thanks for your interest
Morgoth Bauglir
18 Oct 04, 13:24
Any chance someone mailing me the scenario please?
Northpole@Skynet.be
Thanks.
viridomaros
18 Oct 04, 14:11
one more from belgium hehe :nuts:
i will mail you the scenario if the designer doesn't show up, but i would prefer to let the designer send it to you
My apologies to any of you who have been waiting for the scenario. To be honest, I have not been able to do any work on any TOAW scenario the last three months (work, vacation, kids etc. etc.). I need a couple of days of work to finish off some details and the documentation. I hope to do that in the next week or so. Again, sorry for the long delay.
All
I have the scenario ready for upload. However, I seem to have some issues with uploading. As soon as I can iron those out I can upload the scenario and the briefing.
If I still have problems I'd be happy to email it to people. (total size is ~ 2 MB)
The 1988 Global Conflict scenario has been posted to the WarafareHQ scenario archives.
LOK,
I have a very detailed OB for the Soviet armed forces for 1988. How new is it?
Well, it was supposedly published this year and I am still waiting for my copy of the book from Russian, and I ordered it 3 months ago.
I have the electronic copy of it in draft form, but it's still usable.
Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the newest TOAW (I still have TOAW VOlume 1, version 1.0), so I can't really work with the scenario builder in TOAW. How do I get around that?
Regards,
Craig Crofoot
Editor,
THE JOURNAL OF THE SOVIET ARMY
(http://www.journalsovietarmy.org)
LOK,
I have a very detailed OB for the Soviet armed forces for 1988. How new is it?
Well, it was supposedly published this year and I am still waiting for my copy of the book from Russian, and I ordered it 3 months ago.
I have the electronic copy of it in draft form, but it's still usable.
Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the newest TOAW (I still have TOAW VOlume 1, version 1.0), so I can't really work with the scenario builder in TOAW. How do I get around that?
Regards,
Craig Crofoot
Editor,
THE JOURNAL OF THE SOVIET ARMY
(http://www.journalsovietarmy.org)
I think if you use the latest patch from TOAW Vol 1 then the scenario can be imported into COW. I'd be very interested in your Russian OOB.
Thanks
Hellfish6
24 Jan 05, 19:28
I'd also very much love to see this.
keenedder1 at yahoo dot com.
Thanks. :)
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.