US-USSR scenrio playetesters needed

[Menschenfresser]

Thanks...reading the briefing now.

 

[Menschenfresser]

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...

 

[LOK]

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

 

[Menschenfresser]

Oh definitely. I love complication.

Are you still looking to chop this momma in half and do two separate scenarios?

 

[LOK]

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]

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.

 

[LOK]

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]

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.

 

[LOK]

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]

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.

 

[LOK]

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]

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.

 

[LOK]

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]

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.

 

[LOK]

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]

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.

 

[LOK]

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]

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]

dan could you please send me your other email add again because i lost it thanks

 

[Dan Neely]

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