DAK limitations

macgregr

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
142
Reaction score
1
Location
southwest Florida
Country
llUnited States
I want to thank everyone for their help so far and if I can get anyone with experience to help me make a naval database for this scenario, I have the numbers and am ready to get to work. Send me a pm.
I perhaps just broke house rules by landing German paratroops in Africa.:surprise: I know the Brandenburg regiment served with DAK and I believe the Fallshirmjager as well. My doc is labelled EA 3.4. Are these the latest rules? I don't think the Germans are getting a fair shake.:violin:
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Ramcke's Parachute Brigade (too small to be individually represented) certainly fought in North Africa, but as elite infantry: there was never any prospect of the Axis massing enough transport planes in the region to use them en masse in an airborne drop.

According to a Wikipedia article - I know, I know - there were four companies of Brandenburgers operating in a special forces role in North Africa: again, far too small to be represented in this scenario.

It should be difficult for the Germans/Axis: it was, and they lost. Arguably it was all over by Winter 1941 and after that it was just the details.

Plenty of players have won as the Axis, usually by taking Moscow and triggering a Russian surrender, which then causes the collapse of the Allied player's personal morale, or sometimes 'Sealion' can work.
 

macgregr

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
142
Reaction score
1
Location
southwest Florida
Country
llUnited States
I appreciate your response Mark. I guess I'm just a Wiffer trying to play TOAW. This limitation pretty much seals the deal for Germans in N Africa. The naval units are represented(sorry, that was a pun -though he has is able to mount a blockade which I am attempting to break, which to the extent this is realistic the DAK limitation is redundant and unnecessary. Then again I remember what you said: this scenario is mainly about the Eastern Front -lord knows there aren't enough scenarios emphasizing that). Next time I'll abandon Libya from the start like I imagine you think Hitler and Mussolini should've done. There's no limitation on Allied units. They were natural desert fighters I guess. I think I need to stop playing for awhile. There's simply too much that needs to be done to make TOAW effective at this scale. This is indeed sour grapes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. You've taken an option off the table for Germany, which I feel that, since they're under the gun to come up with a victory before Allied production renders the war moot, is a serious disadvantage.
 
Last edited:

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Sorry to hear it: all I can suggest is that, if you ever fancy another try, post a challenge here or at Matrix emphasising that you strongly disagree with the Desert limitations, suggesting some alternatives*, and asking whether there are any like minded players who's like to give it a try.

*But surely not unlimited Axis units in the Desert - even Kesselring and Raeder's Mediterranean strategy never envisaged that, and we've found from long experience that it just enables the Axis to swamp the area.
 
Last edited:

macgregr

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
142
Reaction score
1
Location
southwest Florida
Country
llUnited States
Well I certainly understand why the limitations were put in place; because the naval combat model in TOAW (or air transport) cannot effectively enough represent the situation in the med at the time. I laid out my ideas of how submarine warfare could work ; 1-hex islands with a convoy symbol every 300-400km attackable by air and sea including special submarine units appearing after a theater option is selected say..for the British to increase production by running convoys through the med To supply units transported to Africa would also require a theater option placing an Axis 1-hex island(convoy) in the med. Transported units could be forced to spend a turn next to that island . Since naval unit movement is not adjustable, allowances would have to be written in the title and enforced as house rules and naturally, a new naval database that brokedown the navies into at the most 2 capital and 3-4 escorts. I've given up on trying to get bioed or the scenario editor to work because no one appears willing to help me through it. It'll be TOAW's loss because once World in Flames is released, that will probably become my primary game.
 
Last edited:

Bdr.Mallette

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Hello,

haven't made a comment in awhile, but I must say the inadequacies if there are any, to EA is not primarily any design problems. It was a matter of choosing a 'best solution' sometimes I am sure. In regards to the sub warfare, I had used Bioed about 2 years ago whilst trying to develop a North Atlantic campaign game focusing mainly on Sub warfare and the transport system. I had created ships that were part of the fleets which were actually built using the artillery characteristics of the equipment database. so a BB would consist of 8 200mm guns, 10 105mm guns, 12 75mm guns etc...including the AAA and the main factor which always eluded me was the strength of the 'hull' unit which I decided to increse the defence strength of a unit and rebuild it. I did plenty of testing of such ships against each other.(i.e Hood vs Bismark)

What it was, was that england would be able to build a certain amount of 'hulls', guns and such as well as transport ships but the amounts would decrease with the lack of shipping if the subs Got them..... which were also built from scratch to be a unit composed of 1 105 mm gun and 4 'tubes' which had 240 anti-shipping power. They worked well but always lost the battle against a convoy (due to the escorts).

I had envisonged transports and convoys had to leave the west, south america, south africa and make their way to england...along the way picking the right path to home base or a port that it had been previously designated to reach. (altering the movement bias in editor can achieve proper or more realistic timelines for ship arrivals).
When a convoy has to reach a port, the hex which is owned by that port is reverted to axis control and does not change to allied unless convoy reaches it, then when and if it does change to allied again, certain units are built and the hull levels increase allowing more shipping to be built. HOWEVER, if that convoy does not reach port, in a reasonable time, the bonuses or production that may have arrived for that convoy are nulified. So not only does the convoy have to worry about reaching port, the proper port, but also a timeline and then of course the 'Wolf packs' and surface raiders. The only problem is that i did it all in CoW and bioed and my unit limitations was 1000 so I never bothered to complete it. I still have the map (300 x 300) and i do believe I still have the correct formations of ships and such but did not fully develop each countries navies. The map is not quite finished, I never finished the terrain for europe, africa, N.america or south america, caribbean is finished and so is the med I believe but I was unsure if the transporting of supplies could also mean men and equipment to somehow represent the ground warfare as well but then that would be huge.... Land and sea full battle representation...too much for my time and mind...lol.
I'm willing to share ideas and constructed items so far but.... no internet at home, only at work...chit.
I think an Atlantic campaign scenario would be cool and maybe satsfy the cravings of some.


bdr.mallette..... ubique
 

B-snafu

Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
245
Reaction score
0
Location
north carolina
Just my 2cents on North Africa as the Germans (from my limited games I have had & have going).

Not addressing the naval combat model --but in some games I had--due to combined factors of -- 1. using certain terrain choke points, 2. some luck (ie varibility) in some battles in Tunisa with the Vichy making some good scores there along w/ knocking some units into spanish internment, 3. extra naval transport from "air battle of Britain" win (without invading England), and 4. extra Dak units + supply point at Tunis from taking Malta & crete (almost had Gilbrater:()which also enabled baseing long range German air assets on crete to help out near Alexandria----Was possible to hold my own & even score some victories in N/A while during the same time I was making the huge Barb push in the east.

So I guess with some luck (battle varibility-good rsults- & some good positioning) It is possible to hold out in 41' with the Dak, Italians, & Vichy--then once Russia is Gone or Weakened--more Italians can be moved to N/A once replaced by German units on the main land. There also is the poosiblity of bringing in the Spanish to take "The Rock" & cancel a British Med blockade.


(Sorry 'bout posting on some old threads but been away from the EA boards for awhile)
 
Last edited:

B-snafu

Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
245
Reaction score
0
Location
north carolina
Might be a little OT--but when I was discussing My N/A experiences --brought up a thought I had when I talked about knocking units into Internment. In one game, my opponent & I knocked quite a few of each others units into Spanish Internment & disbanded them as per house rules.

Am I right in believing that we probably got that eqp back in the replacement pool after disbanding ?----(as long as that unit was bordering it's own territory-actually the hex it was in would be your territory I guess:hmmm:)


Wouldn't it be more detrimental to have a house rule that the player has the keep that unit in nuetral territory--(In a non supply, non city nor non vp hex) and not move any more in the game so as to better simulate the Internment--Ie. not getting any of the eqp back instead of disbandment?----- I know the loss of the unit is bad enough but just wondering?


(Or am I off base in how the 'under the hood' works)
 

Veers

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
3,413
Reaction score
8
Location
Kelowna, BC
Country
llCanada
you are correct, you are correct, you are correct. Look for more of an answer later.
 

macgregr

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
142
Reaction score
1
Location
southwest Florida
Country
llUnited States
IMO, in order to effectively represent sub warfare, there has to be a designated anti-submarine warfare value for units. In lieu of this, I don't see why the anti-armor value cannot be incorporated to represent this. It actually makes perverse sense that AC with good anti-armor would likewise be effective against subs, though not exclusively. It's all about measuring up the A/D values to get the right results. I've been using 'World in Flames' for my naval unit values as it has tried and tested values that interact well. There are accurate ASW values that could be incorporated. Getting subs to behave more realistically will undubtedly require Ralph's help a t some point, though if they have a high enough reconnaissance value, they should be rather difficult to spot if moved defensively. House rules would have to be employed until Ralph can come up with a more accurate model. I've come up with some that I feel work pretty well. I've also come up with what I feel are very good ship models if anyone is interested. Though since I still have been unable to get any kind of editing software to run with any stability, I've been able to implement none of my research. Here are some examples;
UK BBs (# of ships in class) hits/ Att-Def-AA (movement allowance-EA) /# of planes
Queen Elizabeth(5) 5/5 150 -160 -48 (48)
Nelson(2) 6/6 146 - 161 -33 (46)
Revenge(4) 4/4 180 -181 -42 (42)
King George V(5) 6/6 146 -163 -57 (57)
Hood(1) 6/6 146 -141 -44 (64)
Renown(2) 4/4 172 -166 -66 (64)
Vanguard(1) 6/6 146 -181 -89 (59)
CVs
Ark Royal(1) 4/4 31 -121 -100 (62) /72
Furious(1) 4/4 62 -121 -66 (59) /60
Courageous(2) 4/4 31 -121 -83 (59) /48
Indomitable 4/4 31 -151 -100 (62) /60
Eagle(1) 3/3 83 -161 -44 (48) /21
Argus(1) 2/2 30 -60 -30 (42) /18
Hermes(1) 1/1 125 -363 -60 (50) /22
Unicorn(1) 2/2 62 -181 -133 (48) /70
Implacable(2) 4/4 31 -121 -83 (64) /80
CAs
York(2) 2/2 156 -242 -66 (65)
Dorsetshire(2) 2/2 187 -242 -133 (65)
London(4) 2/2 187 -242 -83 (64)
Kent(5) 2/2 150 -242 -93 (64)
Cavendish(3) 2/2 104 -181 -88 (64)

Germany BBs
Sharnhorst(2) 5/5 138 -169 -53 (63)
Bismarck(2) 7/7 134 -138 -38 (58)
Lutzow(3) 2/2 250 -181 -88 (52)
Deutschland(Old)(2) 2/2 125 -181 -66 (37)
CAs
Hipper(3) 2/2 187 -242 -83 (64)

Italy BBs
Veneto(3) 6/6 167 -161 -44 (62)
Doria(2) 3/3 229 -202 -66 (42)
Cavour(2) 3/3 208 -202 -32 (44)
CAs
Bolzano(1) 2/2 250 -242 -133 (72)
Zara(4) 2/2 172 -302 -133 (64)
Trento(2) 2/2 219 -242 -133 (70)
My plan is to represent smaller vassels and subs with 5-10 generic classes each. Units would be arranged to represent 1-3 capital ships including 3-9 escorts to allow the fastest groups to be formed first. Some escort groups would be ASW oriented and subs would of course be grouped as wolfpacks. Hopefully the new patch will include a more windows-friendly stable editor.
 
Last edited:

Veers

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
3,413
Reaction score
8
Location
Kelowna, BC
Country
llCanada
Might be a little OT--but when I was discussing My N/A experiences --brought up a thought I had when I talked about knocking units into Internment. In one game, my opponent & I knocked quite a few of each others units into Spanish Internment & disbanded them as per house rules.

Am I right in believing that we probably got that eqp back in the replacement pool after disbanding ?----(as long as that unit was bordering it's own territory-actually the hex it was in would be your territory I guess:hmmm:)


Wouldn't it be more detrimental to have a house rule that the player has the keep that unit in nuetral territory--(In a non supply, non city nor non vp hex) and not move any more in the game so as to better simulate the Internment--Ie. not getting any of the eqp back instead of disbandment?----- I know the loss of the unit is bad enough but just wondering?


(Or am I off base in how the 'under the hood' works)
This is a questionable House Rule as you'll get the equipment back and (as long as the unit reconstitutes, which most do) you'll get the unit back. This should probably be changed to just having to leave the unit in the neutral country, as you suggest.
 

Veers

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
3,413
Reaction score
8
Location
Kelowna, BC
Country
llCanada
IMO, in order to effectively represent sub warfare, there has to be a designated anti-submarine warfare value for units. In lieu of this, I don't see why the anti-armor value cannot be incorporated to represent this. It actually makes perverse sense that AC with good anti-armor would likewise be effective against subs, though not exclusively. It's all about measuring up the A/D values to get the right results. I've been using 'World in Flames' for my naval unit values as it has tried and tested values that interact well. There are accurate ASW values that could be incorporated. Getting subs to behave more realistically will undubtedly require Ralph's help a t some point, though if they have a high enough reconnaissance value, they should be rather difficult to spot if moved defensively. House rules would have to be employed until Ralph can come up with a more accurate model. I've come up with some that I feel work pretty well. I've also come up with what I feel are very good ship models if anyone is interested. Though since I still have been unable to get any kind of editing software to run with any stability, I've been able to implement none of my research. Here are some examples;
UK BBs (# of ships in class) hits/ Att-Def-AA (movement allowance-EA) /# of planes
Queen Elizabeth(5) 5/5 150 -160 -48 (48)
Nelson(2) 6/6 109 - 161 -33 (46)
Revenge(4) 4/4 180 -181 -42 (42)
King George V(5) 6/6 146 -163 -57 (57)
Hood(1) 6/6 146 -141 -44 (64)
Renown(2) 4/4 172 -166 -66 (64)
Vanguard(1) 6/6 146 -181 -89 (59)
CVs
Ark Royal(1) 4/4 31 -121 -100 (62) /72
Furious(1) 4/4 62 -121 -66 (59) /60
Courageous(2) 4/4 31 -121 -83 (59) /48
Indomitable 4/4 31 -151 -100 (62) /60
Eagle(1) 3/3 83 -161 -44 (48) /21
Argus(1) 2/2 30 -60 -30 (42) /18
Hermes(1) 1/1 125 -363 -60 (50) /22
Unicorn(1) 2/2 62 -181 -133 (48) /70
Implacable(2) 4/4 31 -121 -83 (64) /80
CAs
York(2) 2/2 156 -242 -66 (65)
Dorsetshire(2) 2/2 187 -242 -133 (65)
London(4) 2/2 187 -242 -83 (64)
Kent(5) 2/2 150 -242 -93 (64)
Cavendish(3) 2/2 104 -181 -88 (64)

Germany BBs
Sharnhorst(2) 5/5 138 -169 -53 (63)
Bismarck(2) 7/7 134 -138 -38 (58)
Lutzow(3) 2/2 250 -181 -88 (52)
Deutschland(Old)(2) 2/2 125 -181 -66 (37)
CAs
Hipper(3) 2/2 187 -242 -83 (64)

Italy BBs
Veneto(3) 6/6 167 -161 -44 (62)
Doria(2) 3/3 229 -202 -66 (42)
Cavour(2) 3/3 208 -202 -32 (44)
CAs
Bolzano(1) 2/2 250 -242 -133 (72)
Zara(4) 2/2 172 -302 -133 (64)
Trento(2) 2/2 219 -242 -133 (70)
My plan is to represent smaller vassels and subs with 5-10 generic classes each. Units would be arranged to represent 1-3 capital ships including 6-18 escorts to allow the fastest groups to be formed first. Some escort groups would be ASW oriented and subs would of course be grouped as wolfpacks. Hopefully the new patch will include a more windows-friendly stable editor.
Good work Mac.
 

Polynike

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
717
Reaction score
1
Location
Gibraltar
Country
llGibraltar
I want to thank everyone for their help so far and if I can get anyone with experience to help me make a naval database for this scenario, I have the numbers and am ready to get to work. Send me a pm.
I perhaps just broke house rules by landing German paratroops in Africa.:surprise: I know the Brandenburg regiment served with DAK and I believe the Fallshirmjager as well. My doc is labelled EA 3.4. Are these the latest rules? I don't think the Germans are getting a fair shake.:violin:
Might be late to the party, but FJ units were involved upto the end in Tunisia. Ramcke's Brigade, that retreated with Fologre from El Alemain, was absorbed by thenm. If you need the FJ OOB in Tunisia i may be in a position to help just dnt PM me as the inbox insists its full when there are no messages in it!
 

macgregr

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
142
Reaction score
1
Location
southwest Florida
Country
llUnited States
I just noticed my value for Nelson class is wrong. The attack strength should be 146.
To supplement my other list, you may as well see this, though keep in mind Japanese ships' movement are in the 'Zero Hour' scale.

France BBs
Richelieu(2?) 6/6 146 -181 -66 (64)
Dunkerque(2) 5/5 125 -145 -67 (60)
BRETAGNE(3) 3/3 222 -202 -30 (43)
COURBET(3) 3/3 208 -202 -30 (42)
CV
Bearn(1) 4/4 31 -91 -33 (42) /?
CAs
Algerie(1) 2/2 187 -242 -133 (64)
SUFFREN(4) 2/2 140 -181 -66 (62)
TOURVILLE(2) 2/2 156 -121 -44 (67)

USSR BBs
Gangut(3) 3/3 194 -202 -30 (46)
CAs
MAXIM GORKIJ(4) 2/2 156 -181 -66 (72)
KIROV(2) 2/2 125 -181 -66 (72)

USA BBs
Iowa(4) 7/7 161 -156 -100 (66)
SOUTH DAKOTA(4) 6/6 172 -161 -94 (55)
North Carolina(2) 6/6 167 -161 -78 (56)
Colorado(3) 5/5 175 -169 -62 (42)
NEVADA(2) 4/4 187 -181 -83 (40)
Tennessee(2) 5/5 175 -169 -67 (42)
New Mexico(3) 5/5 175 -169 -62 (44)
Pennsylvania(2) 5/5 175 -145 -62 (42)
New York(2) 4/4 187 -151 -50 (42)
WYOMING(2) 4/4 156 -151 -50 (42)
Alaska(2) 4/4 187 -212 -133 (66)
CVs
Lexington(2) 6/6 52 -101 -66 (69) /90
Ranger(1) 2/2 62 -181 -133 (60) /80
Yorktown(3) 3/3 36 -161 -103 (68) /100
Wasp(1) 2/2 62 -181 -133 (59) /85
Essex(10) 4/4 47 -151 -120 (66) /100
TICONDEROGA(14) 4/4 71 -151 -123 (66) /100
CAs
Pensacola(2) 2/2 187 -181 -100 (65)
Northampton(6) 2/2 187 -181 -122 (65)
PORTLAND(2) 2/2 187 -242 -133 (65)
New Orleans(7) 2/2 187 -242 -161 (65)
Wichita(1) 2/2 187 -242 -133 (65)
Baltimore(14) 2/2 201 -302 -142 (66)
ATLANTA(4) ?

Holland CAs
Java(2) 2/2 144 -181 -33 (61)
De Ruyter(1) 2/2 62 -141 -66 (64)

Japan BBs
Fuso(2) 4/4 234 -212 -33 (22)
Ise(2) 5/5 188 -169 -27 (23)
NAGATO(2) 6/6 156 -141 -33 (25)
KONGO(4) 5/5 156 -145 -33 (29)
Yamato(2) 9/9 153 -134 -52 (27)
CVs
Akagi(1) 5/5 50 -121 -53 (31) /91
Kaga(1) 6/6 62 -101 -44 (28) /90
Soryu(1) 2/2 62 -181 -133 (34) /73
Hiryu(1) 2/2 125 -181 -133 (34) /73
Shokaku(2) 4/4 62 -181 -83 (34) /84
Junyo(2) 3/3 42 -81 -89 (25) /53
Shinano(1) 9/9 28 -40 -29 (27) /47
Taiho(1) 5/5 25 -97 -27 (33) /61
Unryu(3) 3/3 63 -121 -89 (34) /64
Hosho(1) 1/1 63 -121 -67 (25) /21
Ryujo(1) 2/2 62 -121 -62 (24) /?
Zuiho(2) 2/2 62 -60 -100 (28) /30
Ryuho(1) 2/2 62 -126 -66 (26) /31
Chitose(2) 2/2 62 -60 -66 (34) /30
 
Last edited:
Top