1943-45 Campaign Revised

[JJKettunen]

Ok, just tested and it shouldn't happen with the latest patch upcoming shortly.

[vaned74]

I didn't see it with 1.04.028?

[vaned74]

Keke,

So is the bug Del reporting an execution file bug or a scenario bug? Just curious if you are referring to a patch for the scenario or otherwise. Note I did not see this with 1.04.28 but I haven't looked real hard either. I don't know what in the executable would change with 1.04.30 that would cause what Del is reporting.

Nice work by the way on the scenario. I am eager to give it a go.

[Richrd]

In the after picture for 5th Gds Tank Corps you have 50, as in fifty, 85mm AA guns. Could you say, please, what unit they were attached to? I know that after the Tiger was introduced the Russians added special battalions (of 12 guns each) of these 85mm to some units, specifically to combat the tigers, but 50?!?!?!.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: vaned74

Keke,

So is the bug Del reporting an execution file bug or a scenario bug? Just curious if you are referring to a patch for the scenario or otherwise. Note I did not see this with 1.04.28 but I haven't looked real hard either. I don't know what in the executable would change with 1.04.30 that would cause what Del is reporting.

Nice work by the way on the scenario. I am eager to give it a go.

It shouldn't be a scenario bug. I haven't seen that sort of weirdness ever, but I have always used latest development exes, so I can't be sure if there was a problem with 1.04.30.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Richrd

In the after picture for 5th Gds Tank Corps you have 50, as in fifty, 85mm AA guns. Could you say, please, what unit they were attached to? I know that after the Tiger was introduced the Russians added special battalions (of 12 guns each) of these 85mm to some units, specifically to combat the tigers, but 50?!?!?!.

That could be a good catch. I have to check my sources to see where that number comes from.

[vaned74]

You might also check the import max on various aircraft Germany exported to Hungary, Rumania, and Finland. I seem to recall that in the 43 scenario there are some cases where the Axis Allies field German aircraft but there are none ever exported because the editor field is set to 0 for the maximum imports.

I can't remember which aircraft right now but I will check shortly and see if I can dig it up.

[JJKettunen]

Any help is appreciated. Exports have worked so far, but I haven't checked them all.

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: vaned74

Keke,

So is the bug Del reporting an execution file bug or a scenario bug? Just curious if you are referring to a patch for the scenario or otherwise. Note I did not see this with 1.04.28 but I haven't looked real hard either. I don't know what in the executable would change with 1.04.30 that would cause what Del is reporting.

Nice work by the way on the scenario. I am eager to give it a go.

It shouldn't be a scenario bug. I haven't seen that sort of weirdness ever, but I have always used latest development exes, so I can't be sure if there was a problem with 1.04.30.

I can verify that it doesn't happen with the stock 1943 scenario, and vaned74 says it doesn't happen with the prior version of the exe (1.04.28) so perhaps it's a combination / incompatibility?

Perhaps it's worth posting to the tech support forum to get one of the developers to take a look.

I am seeing similar crashing CV values with other scenarios in 1.04.30. I had assumed it was just higher attritional losses but in some cases in the 1942 scenario I have now seen units that are static and have been sitting in forts adjacent to enemy units reduce to disrupted mode and CV 0 then displace away from the enemy unit spontaneously. Also a lot of units falling to unready state after being left in forts adjacent to enemy units with no combat happening. However there is nothing in the 1.04.30 release notes about increased attrition.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: Richrd

In the after picture for 5th Gds Tank Corps you have 50, as in fifty, 85mm AA guns. Could you say, please, what unit they were attached to? I know that after the Tiger was introduced the Russians added special battalions (of 12 guns each) of these 85mm to some units, specifically to combat the tigers, but 50?!?!?!.

That could be a good catch. I have to check my sources to see where that number comes from.

OK, it turned out to be an embarrassing mix-up. [:o]

As you can see from here http://militera.lib.ru/h/zamulin_vn/21.html (Table 20), the 5th GTC had on 6th July fifty 82mm mortars, not fifty 85mm AA/AT-guns, which it had none. I haven't yet figured out where that current number for 82mm mortars come from.

Thanks for bringing this up!

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: vaned74

Keke,

So is the bug Del reporting an execution file bug or a scenario bug? Just curious if you are referring to a patch for the scenario or otherwise. Note I did not see this with 1.04.28 but I haven't looked real hard either. I don't know what in the executable would change with 1.04.30 that would cause what Del is reporting.

Nice work by the way on the scenario. I am eager to give it a go.

It shouldn't be a scenario bug. I haven't seen that sort of weirdness ever, but I have always used latest development exes, so I can't be sure if there was a problem with 1.04.30.

I can verify that it doesn't happen with the stock 1943 scenario, and vaned74 says it doesn't happen with the prior version of the exe (1.04.28) so perhaps it's a combination / incompatibility?

Perhaps it's worth posting to the tech support forum to get one of the developers to take a look.

I am seeing similar crashing CV values with other scenarios in 1.04.30. I had assumed it was just higher attritional losses but in some cases in the 1942 scenario I have now seen units that are static and have been sitting in forts adjacent to enemy units reduce to disrupted mode and CV 0 then displace away from the enemy unit spontaneously. Also a lot of units falling to unready state after being left in forts adjacent to enemy units with no combat happening. However there is nothing in the 1.04.30 release notes about increased attrition.

CV values shouldn't crash so dramatically without actual combat. The stock version haven't been updated for a while (I believe) so it sounds like an incompatibility issue. Has anybody else experienced it?

[delatbabel]

I am seeing similar things in the stock 1942 scenario with 1.04.30. I am going to post to the tech support forums about it shortly once I have some dumps.

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: vaned74

Keke,

So is the bug Del reporting an execution file bug or a scenario bug? Just curious if you are referring to a patch for the scenario or otherwise. Note I did not see this with 1.04.28 but I haven't looked real hard either. I don't know what in the executable would change with 1.04.30 that would cause what Del is reporting.

Nice work by the way on the scenario. I am eager to give it a go.

It shouldn't be a scenario bug. I haven't seen that sort of weirdness ever, but I have always used latest development exes, so I can't be sure if there was a problem with 1.04.30.

I have now confirmed that this is not a problem with 1.04.28 and only with 1.04.30.

[DrewBlack]

Hi
 
Did this scen ever get updated?
 
Thanks

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: DrewBlack

Hi

Did this scen ever get updated?

Thanks

Work in (slow) progress. Latest playtest gave a lot of data to be considered.

[Wild]

Thanks for your efforts Keke.

[dassie]

Hi Keke [:D]
Sorry to ask you this but could you give me the file or the book name which you got the TOE for the Pgd div Grossdeutschland.[&o]

Thanks [:)]
ps:
i can't find any major book on TOE development for german Pgd div any where. all the book is about panzer or ss panzer, but not inf or Pgd div.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: dassie

Hi Keke [:D]
Sorry to ask you this but could you give me the file or the book name which you got the TOE for the Pgd div Grossdeutschland.[&o]

Thanks [:)]

Sure, it's Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis by Zetterling and Frankson. I have also used Dupuy's Kursk database for finer details.

[delatbabel]

IMHO this is a very good scenario and much better than the stock 1943 scenario.

After having played it a few times I think it should be played with version 1.03 of the game and not 1.04. The 1.04 version fixes many bugs and makes the first winter easier for the Germans, but "first winter" isn't an issue in the 1943 game. The attrition breakage in 1.04 is too much for either side to cope with in the 1943 game, it isn't a problem with 1.03 (or 1.04 betas below about 10 or so).

Even against the AI this is a much more challenging scenario for the Germans or for the Soviets than the stock 1943 scenario. That is to say it makes you think harder and plan more turns ahead than you otherwise would. I would like to congratulate keke on a very good effort with this scenario so far.

I will say one thing to anyone who plans playing this as the Germans against an experienced Soviet PBEM opponent. It is possible for you, on the first turn of the game, to break through the Soviet lines with your SS Panzer units and encircle the entire Soviet front line at Kursk. If you do that, however, you will suffer a fate worse than the Germans did in the real 1943 campaign -- the Soviets can break your encirclement reasonably easily and the Soviet counter-strike on turn 3 or 4 will basically doom your best units to destruction. Play it safe, however, and it's possible to stop any Soviet breakthroughs right until the winter of 43/44.

[JJKettunen]

Any fans of this mod out there? It is my understanding that after some fine-tuning by our scenario master Trey, this scen will become the official version. [8D]