DnO Bug??

[Kraut]

On top of my head: airforce needs an overhaul, while most german units are OK most soviets units (especially the fighter units) are problematic because their assigned equipment consists of planes with a very different combat range. Example: while most fighters have a range of 35 there is also the P-40 with its range of 61 in that unit. As a result the unit will often be called into missions beyond the combat range of most planes (everything beyond 35 hexes) and due to a TOAW bug fight at an efficiency of 1% and be massacred. Simple solution: just remove the P-40 from all soviet fighter units, they appear in so low quantities that it should have no noticable impact.

I'd vote for a change in events, the activation of a factory shouldn't eleminate the german bonus for it's destruction, otherwise the soviet could, even if completely surrounded or if all rail lines are cut, activate the factory and thereby magically safe it, even if the fac unit is later destroyed.

Factories should be heavier, I am pretty sure if you evacuate the entire heavy factories of a region you'll need a lot of rail capacity to do it (tracked tractors are good, they have no combat ability but add a lot of weight), factories should also have a small deley from hitting the TO to activate them until they become ready for transportation (1-3 for smaller facs, 2-5 for huge complex) this seems closer in touch with reality (or were the soviets able to load the entire factories of a region onto rail in just 3,5 days?) and will put the soviet commander under greater strain as to when to activate his factories. As it stands now he can wait almost to the last minute before he releases his facs.

 

[Menschenfresser]

S: Thanks for the clarification and dedication and increased monster-fication of your scenarios. Us junkies really appreciate it.

Kraut, the problem I see with tying the replacement reduction to the factory units' destruction is that the Soviet player can just activate all of them on T1 and ship them to the Urals long before the Germans have a chance at getting them. I suppose the point reduction events for factory destruction could be changed to replacement reductions, thus splitting the reduction--3% & 2%...dunno. Just thoughts.

I'm also not sure about their weight (although a possible delay sounds intriguing...I'm thinking 1 to 2 turns for small...1 to 3 for large. That way it "could" happen in one turn...or it might take three. Your wager. I'm shying away from the larger delays like 5 turns, because that just seems too long.) In a game I have going now as the Soviets, I foolishly waited to activate the factories until the Germans started sweeping in a broad swath across the south. Now I have to transport some 4-6 factories and keep up the flow of fresh units to the Moscow front. Just not enough rail movement. It's going to make the Russian position impossible if it takes an entire turn's worth of rail movement to move two factory units. Three or four more divisions can mean the success or failure of a line the Soviets are trying to build.

S: In our Multiplayer game, the Finns moved several of the coastal Finnish units by sea to the Soviet beach hexes just south of the Soviet start position on the Gulf of Finland. We didn't find anything in the briefing about it (might have missed some other limitation...not sure if it's a legal play what with the Soviet navy inches away), but it completely foiled the forward defense of our opponent. FYI.

PS: I actually think the additional supply shock turn is a good idea, and in our present game, it came right at the time when the German units were looking mostly orange with some red.

 

[Kraut]

Kraut, the problem I see with tying the replacement reduction to the factory units' destruction is that the Soviet player can just activate all of them on T1 and ship them to the Urals long before the Germans have a chance at getting them. I suppose the point reduction events for factory destruction could be changed to replacement reductions, thus splitting the reduction--3% & 2%...dunno. Just thoughts.

No, what I meant was keep it as it is right now (activation of a factory: -5%, destruction of a factory: -8%) but at the moment it's enough to just activate a factory to avoid the additional -3% penalty even if the factory is later destroyed. So -5% for the activation, -3% if an activated factory is destroyed and -8% if a not activated factory is destroyed. Dont know whether that's possible with TOAWs event system but it would be nice to have.

I'm also not sure about their weight (although a possible delay sounds intriguing...I'm thinking 1 to 2 turns for small...1 to 3 for large. That way it "could" happen in one turn...or it might take three. Your wager. I'm shying away from the larger delays like 5 turns, because that just seems too long.)

Well, think about it, how long would it take to disassemble an entire factory complex and load it onto trains ? The heavy machinery alone would probably require days, not to mention the logistical chaos trying to load everything into trains, trying to keep factories together, ... I really doubt it is doable with todays technology in under a week even if you had month for planing, the soviets had to do it without any planing, during the chaos of war were every train was needed to ship troops to the front with limited heavy equipment to assist in loading the factory parts onto the train. 5 turns might sound harsh but if you imagine the mammoth task 2 1/2 weaks doesn't sound like to much. All you have to do is activate the factory early enough and not wait until the germans come knocking on your door
And the weight: Well, I am sorry that you wanted to transport your troops in comfartable trains to the front, but the heavy industry is just that: heavy The entire Kiev industry complex should require mor transport capacity than 3 soviet infantry divisions. Guess your troops have to march to the front now

 

[Menschenfresser]

I completely agree that it would take multiple turns (i.e. weeks) to dismantle and cart off an entire factory. I'm speaking from the playability side of the issue, not the historical. Five turns just seems too long to plan ahead for factory dissembly. And consider the turn range 2-5. Five turns is a lifetime at the outset of DnO. Players would have to at least allow for four turns. You might end up having to activate Kiev before the Germans break your defense at the Stalin Line. The spirit of such a delay, to me, would be, not just to simulate history, but also to add in a little random flavor to the activations. Keep idiot players like myself from waiting until the Germans are on top of me to cart off my factories.

It's a helluva long march from Stalingrad to Leningrad. Again, it's playability. Granted, the Soviet player should plan his factory evacuations better than I have, but coupled with an additional replacement loss due to destruction, evacuating all the factories west of Rostov shouldn't tie up every ton of rail movement for 10 turns. Otherwise, plan on drawing up your first line of defense at Stalingrad.

 

[Cmdr_Vessery]

I completely agree that it would take multiple turns (i.e. weeks) to dismantle and cart off an entire factory. I'm speaking from the playability side of the issue, not the historical. Five turns just seems too long to plan ahead for factory dissembly. And consider the turn range 2-5. Five turns is a lifetime at the outset of DnO. Players would have to at least allow for four turns. You might end up having to activate Kiev before the Germans break your defense at the Stalin Line. The spirit of such a delay, to me, would be, not just to simulate history, but also to add in a little random flavor to the activations. Keep idiot players like myself from waiting until the Germans are on top of me to cart off my factories.

It's a helluva long march from Stalingrad to Leningrad. Again, it's playability. Granted, the Soviet player should plan his factory evacuations better than I have, but coupled with an additional replacement loss due to destruction, evacuating all the factories west of Rostov shouldn't tie up every ton of rail movement for 10 turns. Otherwise, plan on drawing up your first line of defense at Stalingrad.

What about having it take 1 or 2 turns to dismantle and some additional turns for travel and even more turns to "rebuild" it in the Urals..?

just an idea... It should work, the dismantle event would trigger the "travel" event and then the "rebuild" event...

~Vessery

 

[Menschenfresser]

What about having it take 1 or 2 turns to dismantle and some additional turns for travel and even more turns to "rebuild" it in the Urals..?

just an idea... It should work, the dismantle event would trigger the "travel" event and then the "rebuild" event...

~Vessery

Given how vicious the German interdiction can get, travel time does take several turns.

 

[Cmdr_Vessery]

Given how vicious the German interdiction can get, travel time does take several turns.

Well, that would make senses... But, does it take too long for the gameplay sake, to have the factory out of commission for 1 game week? Once the factory is dismantled, then the events take place in the background.. no managing by the player..

 

[Kraut]

Given how vicious the German interdiction can get, travel time does take several turns.

Are you playing a different DNO than I do ? German interdiction NEVER got over 1%, even with all planes (including fighters) set to interdiction !
And as soon as the soviet fighters are corrected and the efficiency trap no longer exists they should be easily capable of punishing any long range german bomber who tries to fly interdiction far behind your lines. And german Me109 have a combat radius of 28... not really impressive

 

[Menschenfresser]

I'm playing a game of 3.5 and I've never had more than just a few fighter units out of reorg. This last turn only two air units weren't reorging and that's cause one was in the Caucasus and the other down in the Crimea...and they were both bombers!! I have thousands of planes but none of them are mobile. This is T17 or 18. I can't move ten hexes on the rail lines without getting clobbered.

 

[Kraut]

Quite possible because of the efficiency trap, let them react to an interdiction strike 40 hexes from their air base and all planes will be at 1% efficiency and

This means that for practical reasons, a drunk, armless, blind person in an old zeppelin, with a frozen water pistol, can shot them all down. And he will.

That's probably why your airforce is constantly in ReOrg, but if this is corrected in 3.7 your trains should be a lot safer.

 

[JAMiAM]

That's probably why your airforce is constantly in ReOrg, but if this is corrected in 3.7 your trains should be a lot safer.

They still need to get over the bridges, and a dedicated policy of keeping the rear area bridges blown, and interdiction, can stall the factories long enough to be overrun by ground forces.

Keep in mind that the 1% interdiction rate is a map wide average, and the actual levels near the front lines is higher than that. Plus, an entrained unit (or factory) that has to take a roundabout path of 60-80 hexes, to move 20 hexes Eastward, is by odds, going to be shot at once at least given adequate numbers of German air units on interdiction and AS missions.

The Soviets can somewhat counter this by setting up roving CAP umbrellas with massive numbers of fighters, to help the movement of entrained units throughout their rear area transportation corridors, but have to be diligent with avoiding the range problem that Kraut mentions. And the 61 hex-ranged fighter units that are left in reorg during the Soviet turn, will be thoroughly thrashed by a competent German player in his next fresh turn, when the Soviet fighters reset to AS missions and begin flying missions within the "donut of death", i.e., the operating range between those of the Migs and I-16's and that of the P-40's which don't appear until much later on.

 

[Dicke Bertha]

Jeez, I think I'll avoid you boys in gaming .

I have great respect for you analyzing things, I like it and it really is wonderful, but a question: in your opinion, playing super-analyzing on the one hand, and just according to some general principle without to much micromanagement on the other hand, how great is the difference? Will it be offset by chance or the opponent?

Rephrasing, will a super-analyzing player handle an intuitive opponent better than a micromanaging opponent better in your experience, regardless of scenario? I tried to go over the ladder results to see, based on knowledge of players and posters, but couldnät really make anything stringent out!

Anorther question, for those of you that feel to be rather 'intellectually assessing things as opposed to playing with the vertebra', do you feel you manage to keep this up for the duration of these monster scenarios?

 

[Kraut]

Keep in mind that the 1% interdiction rate is a map wide average, and the actual levels near the front lines is higher than that. Plus, an entrained unit (or factory) that has to take a roundabout path of 60-80 hexes, to move 20 hexes Eastward, is by odds, going to be shot at once at least given adequate numbers of German air units on interdiction and AS missions.

entrain lots of lightweight expandable units (for example AA), setup all your available fighters nearby this unit, move it up and down and wait for the german bombers to fly interdiction attacks (out of german fighter range of course) your fighters will chew up the german bomber units and hopefully force them into ReOrg, do this until interdiction attacks have noticable decreased, than move your factory (still under air cover), be happy

 

[JAMiAM]

entrain lots of lightweight expandable units (for example AA), setup all your available fighters nearby this unit, move it up and down and wait for the german bombers to fly interdiction attacks (out of german fighter range of course) your fighters will chew up the german bomber units and hopefully force them into ReOrg, do this until interdiction attacks have noticable decreased, than move your factory (still under air cover), be happy

Counter-counter...

As Germans, keep your 110's close to the front, to fly escort for the bombers that are being pounced by Soviet rear-area CAP traps, and keep your interdiction bombers in three general ranks in your own rear. The furthest back, should roughly range to the point where your 109's can escort them. The next rank should range to the point where your 110's can escort them, and the closest to the front should be your deep penetration interdiction units.

You'll find that though the He-111's have the longest range, the Ju-88's have the advantage in air-air combat and in replacement numbers.

The Ju-88's should be your primary airbase attackers, and interdiction bombers, while the He-111's excel at blowing bridges. I try to keep my deep interdiction units strictly the Junkers, while preserving the Heinkels for a dedicated bridge blowing program.

 

[Kraut]

I have great respect for you analyzing things, I like it and it really is wonderful, but a question: in your opinion, playing super-analyzing on the one hand, and just according to some general principle without to much micromanagement on the other hand, how great is the difference? Will it be offset by chance or the opponent?

In my opinion, analyzing the game engine (understanding and utilizing it) and lots of micromanagement is a MUST for scenarios as complex as DNO (at least for the germans), you simply wont survive otherwise against a halfway competent soviet player.

I should know, I played 4 DNO so far, 2 as the germans and surrendered after the soviets managed to put up an impressive defence (with hindsight I probably surrendered too soon but the situation didn't look to good, thats for sure) and I myself as the soviets managed to stall 2 german attack pretty early on.

In my latest game vs Raver I try to use as much micromanaging as possible, I carefully think about every move so that I am not wasting movement points/combat phases and only this last game of DNO seems to go the historical path (turn 6 so Raver can still stall me )

With micromanagement and optimized movement/combat a good player is often able to advance TWICE as fast! Thats quite decisive

 

[Mark Stevens]

In my opinion, analyzing the game engine (understanding and utilizing it) and lots of micromanagement is a MUST for scenarios as complex as DNO (at least for the germans), you simply wont survive otherwise against a halfway competent soviet player.

QUOTE]

By which you mean a Soviet opponent who's entraining lots of expendable AA units then railing them up and down near his own fighter units so as to draw your bombers...(see earlier post for full details), not necessarily one playing like a good Red Army general.

I think there's a point at which one or both players start fighting the engine rather than their opponent and you lose the flavour of warfare on the Eastern Front, or anywhere else for that matter. The danger is that the winner will be the player who's micromanaged the game best.

The problem comes when you give players ladders to climb, and points to be earned: it can't help but encourage over-analysis of the game, and the development of tactics designed to beat the system, not simulate what was happening sixty years ago.

My personal opinion is that if you ever find yourself making a move, or positioning units in a way that you know full well is unhistorical - and most wargamers are interested enough in the periods they play to realise the difference - because you know that it will give you an advantage under the game system, then it's time for a long, hard think about what you're hoping to get out of the experience. If the answer is to move one rung further up a ladder, that's fair enough.

I want playing a game like DnO to be like reading Alan Clark's book 'Barbarossa', but with me as Stalin, or Zhukov, or whoever.

It's the same as the famous ten round soak-off attacks... :hush:

 

[Menschenfresser]

Yea, I'm on Mark's side on this one. I think that would be one way to cure my TOAW habit--study the engine to such a degree the illusion of pushing clusters of men and equipment around become a mathematical equation.

 

[Kraut]

By which you mean a Soviet opponent who's entraining lots of expendable AA units then railing them up and down near his own fighter units so as to draw your bombers...(see earlier post for full details), not necessarily one playing like a good Red Army general.

I think there's a point at which one or both players start fighting the engine rather than their opponent and you lose the flavour of warfare on the Eastern Front, or anywhere else for that matter. The danger is that the winner will be the player who's micromanaged the game best.

Sorry Mark, but I disagree.

OK, problem: german interdiction strikes are interrupting your rail transportation, solution? protect your rail network with fighter. Problem with the TOAW game system: german bombers will only appear during an attack, they can't be intercepted flying over your terrain while they are looking for jucy targets, so the ONLY way to lure them into a trap is to give them something to attack and let your fighters respond. So, you need a bait to lure the german bombers deep into your set-up trap but as there are no empty trains in TOAW you have to load something into trains for this to work. OK, if you want to you can entrain your elite guards but I prefer something small and expandable. Is this unhistorical/gamey? Setting up a trap, luring your opponent into it ? I don't think so. Otherwise you might find the british ghost army which they used to lure the german reinforcements away from Normandy gamey, or the german Greif commandos which they used to confuse the US and send them in the wrong directions during the Ardenne offensive. Tricking and ambushing the enemy has always been part of war (even on an operational level) so I see no problem with using similar tactics in TOAW

The problem comes when you give players ladders to climb, and points to be earned: it can't help but encourage over-analysis of the game, and the development of tactics designed to beat the system, not simulate what was happening sixty years ago.

I've never played for ladder point, I don't care for my ladder position at all, in fact I haven't reported many games (which I've won) to the ladder at all, simply because I play to have fun with the game, not to climb up a ladder.

My personal opinion is that if you ever find yourself making a move, or positioning units in a way that you know full well is unhistorical - and most wargamers are interested enough in the periods they play to realise the difference - because you know that it will give you an advantage under the game system, then it's time for a long, hard think about what you're hoping to get out of the experience. If the answer is to move one rung further up a ladder, that's fair enough.

Well, we aren't replaying history here, because otherwise the soviets would have to counterattack immediately at the beginning of Barbarossa and throw all their tanks into these battles, loosing them quickly instead of running and trying to form a solid defence We are trying to do better than our historic counterparts using the same assets they had. Is having a lonely soviet recon unit that slipped through the german line destroying 100km of rails 'unhistorical'? Sure, but should a soviet player therefore avoid using his recon unit this way? Or attacking/moving with units at 1% supply, sounds unhistorical, doesn't it? Well, problem is, if you ever want to get even close to moscow you have to continue attacking, even at 1% supply. Otherwise you'd end with having every Luftwaffe unit only beeing available for 2 attacks/week! Or it would take your panzers (even without any resistance) 2 month just to drive up to Moscow! Well, does that sound realistic/historical? No way, it does not, It's simply a fact that the TOAW supply model is pretty weak and in no way capable of simulating a real supply situation/shortage of supplies (there isn't even a distinction between fuel and ammunition).
Or encirceling and preventing the escape of an infantry division by using split up ponton units? sounds crazy, but it's equally crazy if you surround the same InfD deep behind your line with strong infantry divisions of your own only to see half the equipment of the destroyed enemy InfD finding it's way back into the enemys OnHand pool regardless.
The TOAW system has far to many weaknesses to allow for a truely historical gameplay, its I-Go-You-Go after all, only a realtime WeGo system would probably be able to realistically simulate all historic aspects but who would like to 'play' such a monstrosity ?
But by accepting these weaknesses and not trying to alway 'play historical' (if that means using tactist that dont work with the TOAW game system even tho they worked/were essential historical) you get a far better historical feel out of the game! I know, sounds crazy, but it isn't OK let me explain: if a german player in DNO tries to play 'historical' (resting his units if they are at 1% supply until they are back to at least say 50%, don't attack with your Luftwaffe if they are at 1% supply, don't use arty at 1%,...) I guarantee you that even a newbie soviet player will be able to stop your Wehmacht at the old polish/soviet border... does that sound historical?
On the other hand, if you micromanage a lot and keep attacking at 1% suppy, optimizing your combat rounds, it might sound to you like 'playing the engine and not history' but it will result in quick panzer breakthroughs, fast advances and a front that almost exactly copies the historical front! In my ongoing game vs Raver I discovered that I am advancing at similar paths the germans did back in 1941, I see similar pockets forming, similar situation at the front and it's a really great feeling to look at a map, to compare the historical advances with yours and to see that they almost match !
Now, which game sounds more 'historical' ???

 

[Mark Stevens]

Kraut,

Well argued, and there was nothing personal in my original comments, but I still think that the most satisfying way of playing TOAW is to treat the units as you would those cardboard counters of old, just let the engine do the bookkeeping.

So a '4 - 5' armoured unit with a move of ten is best in the open, while a '2 - 2' infantry with a move of five should be best in rough or urban terrain, which should also provide defensive benefits and slow most troop types. Either should be better supplied the closer they are to roads or rails leading to supply sources. Artillery, air or naval support can change the figures. Don't send your bombers or paratroops up in the face of overwhelming enemy fighter superiority. 'I Go - You Go' is a pity, but you've got the Tactical and Local Reserve functions. Some unit nationalities or types are better than others, whatever the raw numbers say. Don't get cut off and surrounded. If you play every turn as though you'll get one round, but you're lucky enough to be offered another after the combat results, lucky you and maybe there's your armoured breakthrough, or escape from a trap.

Then you just play, and let the engine do the number-crunching for you. Speaking from several year's experience, provided that you're playing a like-minded opponent this will produce a more than satisfactory game, with as good a nod in the direction of historicity as any other PC wargame I know, and far better than most.

Once you look too deeply into the mechanics of the thing and adjust your style to compensate, it just doesn't work. But you will exterminate someone playing (and that's the important word) like me.

I fear that we'll have to differ on this.

 

[Foggy]

I'm going to have to agree w/Mark. Many of my games are played on intuitive
guesses - If I ever got to the point where every last detail was thought of -
that would be the end of TOAW for me I love trying to get the historical details correct - I've even entertained counterattacking thoughts early in DNO
but the reduction of TOAW to mathematical formulas based on the scenario -
I'd be back to DOOM!