Having just received a couple of thrashings from Pelle...

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
I'm ready for another beating. Does anyone fancy a game?

OK to use most of JAMiAN's House Rules - although open to discussion - but I'd prefer:

Entrenching - limited to adjacent to, or one hex from, enemy units; along riverlines; in ports, beachheads, towns or cities, rather than completely unlimited

Rumanians and Hungarians can't stack together

British and French can't stack together until after the Fall of France

Most important for me - no 'soak-off', 'supply drain', 'probing' or whatever attacks by tiny little units artfully timed to reduce the readiness of defending stacks over nine-tenths of a turn.

Don't mind which side, two or three turns a week, I've lost far more than I've won.

If anyone's got the time let me know, I'd like to use a very marginally updated 3.4 (b) which has a slightly better Portuguese OOB and which I can send if you want to be the Axis.
 

JAMiAM

TOAW III Project Manager
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
1
Location
Standing in the way
Mark, sorry to bother you in this thread, but I figured it was a sure place to grab your attention. I noticed that there are some units that are overassigned equipment, and this is causing a problem. Examples being the two German West Wall fortresses that start the game in hexes (68,59) and (70,61). The reason that the overassigning of equipment is such a problem, is because the game treats this as a negative need in the doling out of replacements and the 499 extra LRS's that are in each of them, subtract from what would otherwise be called for during the replacement cycle. Therefore, until the total losses of LRS's of all other units requiring them is greater than the sum of all overassigned LRS's - in this case, nearly 1000 - there will be no doling out of LRS's to the Axis units which require them. If total needs are greater than 1000, then only the difference between the overassigned, and the total needs is considered as an actual need.

An example being the five Bulgarian Inf and Mtn Corps losing 200 each of their 648 - 972 LRS's. They will not gain any LRS replacements as long as the German Fortresses are still at full complement of 999/500 LRS's. If each of the Bulgarian lose 400 LRS's, then they will only gain 1000 back, instead of the 2000 that they are short.

I don't know if there are other units that you have given overages to, but any that are, should be adjusted either down to the regular assigned amount, or have the assigned brought up to the number that it is currently overassigned.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Some of these TOEs I've sort of inherited, and I'm not sure of the logic behind them, but I'll try to take a swing through the lists and bring the assigned strength up to whatever it is at the start, unless I can see a definite reason why it should be overstrength.

Do please keep pointing out these sorts of anomalies.

Ben's idea, that I think he implemented in his version, was that the whole TOE for EVERY unit ought to be looked at again from top to bottom, but tempus fugit.
 

Panzerpelle

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
439
Reaction score
0
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
JAMiAM said:
Mark, sorry to bother you in this thread, but I figured it was a sure place to grab your attention. I noticed that there are some units that are overassigned equipment, and this is causing a problem. Examples being the two German West Wall fortresses that start the game in hexes (68,59) and (70,61). The reason that the overassigning of equipment is such a problem, is because the game treats this as a negative need in the doling out of replacements and the 499 extra LRS's that are in each of them, subtract from what would otherwise be called for during the replacement cycle. Therefore, until the total losses of LRS's of all other units requiring them is greater than the sum of all overassigned LRS's - in this case, nearly 1000 - there will be no doling out of LRS's to the Axis units which require them. If total needs are greater than 1000, then only the difference between the overassigned, and the total needs is considered as an actual need.

An example being the five Bulgarian Inf and Mtn Corps losing 200 each of their 648 - 972 LRS's. They will not gain any LRS replacements as long as the German Fortresses are still at full complement of 999/500 LRS's. If each of the Bulgarian lose 400 LRS's, then they will only gain 1000 back, instead of the 2000 that they are short.

I don't know if there are other units that you have given overages to, but any that are, should be adjusted either down to the regular assigned amount, or have the assigned brought up to the number that it is currently overassigned.
I have just sent you the first turn. If you want to edit thoose forts and other units that are overstrenght before we start its OK with me...I just play the first turn with the edited scenariofile....
 

Panzerpelle

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
439
Reaction score
0
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Mark Stevens said:
I'm ready for another beating. Does anyone fancy a game?

OK to use most of JAMiAN's House Rules - although open to discussion - but I'd prefer:

Entrenching - limited to adjacent to, or one hex from, enemy units; along riverlines; in ports, beachheads, towns or cities, rather than completely unlimited

Rumanians and Hungarians can't stack together

British and French can't stack together until after the Fall of France

Most important for me - no 'soak-off', 'supply drain', 'probing' or whatever attacks by tiny little units artfully timed to reduce the readiness of defending stacks over nine-tenths of a turn.

Don't mind which side, two or three turns a week, I've lost far more than I've won.

If anyone's got the time let me know, I'd like to use a very marginally updated 3.4 (b) which has a slightly better Portuguese OOB and which I can send if you want to be the Axis.
I am going to miss our game...we have been playing each other since 2004 04 19 on the last scenario. Add the 2 and half years it us to complete the first....see you around in the forums! And thanks for the good fun we have had...
 
Last edited:

JAMiAM

TOAW III Project Manager
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
1
Location
Standing in the way
Panzerpelle said:
I have just sent you the first turn. If you want to edit thoose forts and other units that are overstrenght before we start its OK with me...I just play the first turn with the edited scenariofile....
Okay Pelle. Here is the file that I edited. In the case of the Siegfried Line units, I dropped the 999/500 down to 500/500 for the LRS's. This includes the units that are placed by event. This seems to be the intended amount based on the number in most of the Ostwall forts, too. They had a problem as well, with some of the units having 50/500 (looked like a typo) and so I adjusted those upward to the 500. There were some Maginot Line Forts that had Heavy MG's overassigned, so I dropped them down to the presumed default assignment levels. A quick look through the Moscow Fort units showed that some of them had too many 85mm AT guns, so I dropped them from 100/50 to 50/50. Three of the Soviet city garrisons (Rybinsk, Vologda, and Gorki) were overassigned Rifle Squads at 400/36! I dropped them to 36/36. Likewise they had 60/4 for the 75mm AA guns. I dropped that to 4/4.

I didn't have time to go through every unit with a fine-tooth comb, but instead focused on units that were more likely to have been overlooked, and due to their nature of generally avoiding combat, more likely to exert their negative influence over replacement distribution over the course of the game.

If you'd like, you can use this file, or give it another quick check for anomalies. Notice the second "b" in the rev version. This is to differentiate it from Mark's official version. Thanks.
 

Panzerpelle

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
439
Reaction score
0
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I went through every unit...only minor changes apart from from the Soviet Osoaviakhim units wich had 200/84 Rfl squad. I changed them to 84/84... and I added yet another b to the file. :laugh:
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Oh goodness - James, did you use the version that had all the forts and such set to ingore losses/fortified, that Mark made just recently? Hate to see that work get lost as well...
 

JAMiAM

TOAW III Project Manager
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
1
Location
Standing in the way
I used whatever was the most recent file at the time. I always go through and change everyone to ignore losses anyways. Unless I know every unit is already like that, it is SOP.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
I know that I've been a bit lax about this in the past, but the sticky at the top of this forum should always be up-to-date and incorporate whatever the latest changes are, even if the file hasn't been renumbered.

For example, I wouldn't have used a new letter for fixing the Potuguese OOB, or setting forts and garrisons to Ignore Losses, or rationalising the assigned equipment, but it will be in the sticky.
 

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
Secadegas said:
Are you a reliable player?...
No need to answer... checked your WARS report... definitively reliable...

Want to play? I can manage 3/4 turns a week.

You can pick side... (and version)

jrrusso(at)mail(dot)telepac(dot)pt
 
Last edited:

Bdr.Mallette

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
5-6 turns?
At this size still?

Sorry man! we've dropped down to about 2 a week. I guess I have made you look for other players.
I will endeavour to increase turn rate!!!

heh!

:smoke:
 
Top