FITE MOD 2010

[Karri]

Well, the problems is that one camp wants it historical and the other wants it playable. Personally I think that history has to give way to gameplay.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Karri
Well, the problems is that one camp wants it historical and the other wants it playable. Personally I think that history has to give way to gameplay.

I'm pretty sure we're doing this ( changes to FITE )to improve the gameplay. So anything that tends to give historical results is a bonus and not the goal in my opinion. So I'm in favor of changes that improve game play also.

[fogger]

I am with you Larry. To quote Veers "To repeat history in a game is to be predictable". However, us FITE fans are are a rare breed (my wife of 26 years can not see what I enjoy in it) so I would not like to turn anyone away /off. What we could do is have V5 run as close as possible to being historical and buzz's mod as playable as possible. Any comments?

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: fogger

I am with you Larry. To quote Veers "To repeat history in a game is to be predictable". However, us FITE fans are are a rare breed (my wife of 26 years can not see what I enjoy in it) so I would not like to turn anyone away /off. What we could do is have V5 run as close as possible to being historical and buzz's mod as playable as possible. Any comments?

No offense but Buzz's mod uses the sledgehammer approach. If a nail is sticking up you hit it as hard as possible with the biggest hammer available.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Panama
No offense but Buzz's mod uses the sledgehammer approach...

Could you provide us with an example of what you mean? Too many Soviet 'enhancements' ?

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: Panama
No offense but Buzz's mod uses the sledgehammer approach...

Could you provide us with an example of what you mean? Too many Soviet 'enhancements' ?

I'm not a big fan of negative shock values. I realize everyone and thier brother uses them. It's just my opinion. Opinions and belly buttons, everyone has one.

[fogger]

None taken and none given, but if the nail is no longer sticking up where is the problem.

[morleron1225]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: Panama
Any thoughts on what to do with the Soviet air units? They're a mish mash of multiple air types. Fighters, bombers and attack all in the same counter. Doesn't work real well. The author even thinks so.

I had speaks with the author ( via email ) and turns out that it was done that way to save on the number of counters used since the total number of counters per side is limited and it was a tight squeeze as it is to get all the different types represented. Personally I would rather that the counter represent equipment of the same range and mission ( fighters only, or bombers only, etc. ) so that you don't have any bad surprises. It is possible in FITE to put a counter on AS missions thinking the counter has only fighters and your bombers are on AS missions too...just to see them melt away quickly.

Also, may I say for the record that I really like the idea of having to chase down partisans. The scenario Directive 21 has abstracted them and I miss it. Having to come up with a strategy to get to each random appearing partisan quickly and destroy it before too much mayheim is done all the while having to fight a major war in a different AO sort of stretches the players ability to multi-task and keep a lot of details in mind simultaneously. I like it.

I'm also in favor of keeping the criminals, er, partisans in FiTE. As Larry says it puts the Axis player into an altogether different head space when chasing "ghosts" through the woods and swamps than when fighting off hordes of T-34s elsewhere. I've developed a method whereby I move the vast majority of my security and MP units every turn so as to "patrol" as much area as possible. The electrons sometimes complain of being footsore but such is life.

One thing that I've been wondering regarding partisan placement: does the presence of Axis units affect where the partisans appear? In other words, if I can keep MPs and security divisions relatively evenly spaced around my rear areas does this restrict where the little buggers pop up at?

Are we having fun, yet?

Ron

[morleron1225]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: Karri
I guess you could combine some of the german air units...they are considerably smaller than the soviet ones.

Yes, Soviet air units typically number in the hundreds of aircraft and German squadrons are about 42 assigned. I say "assigned" instead of authorized because most German squadrons operate at less than authorized strength. That's a good idea.

Another thing we might do is eliminate the partisans. That way we could do away with the MP and security units.

And another thing: we don't need the garrison units until late in the game when the Soviets are pressing toward Berlin. Maybe we could invent an event trigger thing to make the garrison unit appear in the threatened hex(s) just before it's needed. This scheme may need more events than we have so we may need to have ALL the garrison units appear when the first threatened hex is threatened, so that only one event is needed.

And do we really need the Italians to be represented? Do we need the Slavic units?

One thing to consider is that amalgamating the German air units would, I suspect, limit the German ability to project airpower in the interdiction mode, if nothing else. I tend to keep almost all of my German bomber units on interdiction and move them around as needed to inhibit Soviet movement in areas that I consider important. However, it is rare that I will leave some area totally denuded of interdicting units as it's hard to tell where the Soviets may be coming from and it's nice to be able to hold up the rail movement of units from Gorki to Kiev without leaving the Soviets with a free hand around, say, Leningrad and Finland. That said, if we could make significant gains in others areas of the game by making this change I'd support it. My main concern is that the Axis player may end up having a useful weapon, albeit one over which he doesn't have full control so far as effects are concerned, removed or restricted without some offsetting gain in another area.

So far as removing the Axis MP units, with the thought that this will make it impossible for the Axis player to use them as spearhead units I'd suggest holding off on that until 3.4 comes out so that we can evaluate whether or not Ralph has solved the "ant unit problem". Another possibility would be to establish a house rule along the lines of "No MP unit or Security Division unit may be voluntarily moved forward of the main battle area." I realize that defining exactly what should constitute the FEBA would require some work, but I'd rather see that done than to eliminate the units entirely. Perhaps I'm unusual, but I try very hard not to indulge in "gamey" use of units - preferring to restrict them to more-or-less their historical uses. After all, if we're really playing these games to try to learn something from history - whether or not we are "repeating history" in Veers' sense of the term - then we should not indulge in making use of science fiction to convert small military police units (by way of example) into some sort of super Brandenbergers and run them hundreds of klicks into the enemy rear to raise hell. These games are called "historical simulations" for a reason and, it seems to me that deliberately using limitations of the game engine in order to achieve an ahistorical use of units violates at least the spirit of the hobby, even if it doesn't technically violate the rules of the game. This is obviously just my opinion, but I think that sometimes, in our desire to rack up another win, we lose sight of what we're supposedly spending all this time for. Personally, I'd rather lose a game in which I developed a deeper understanding of the historical constraints under which the original participants had to function, than to win a game and leave it wondering, "Why the hell didn't Manstein just send out his MP units to show him the way to Stalingrad during Wintergewitter." just my $.02 on this subject.

I agree with the idea about the garrison units. Is there any way to condition the appearance or strength of Axis garrison units upon the availability of the requisite number and type of components in the replacement pool?

So far as the Italians are concerned I suppose it depends on whether or not we come up with changes to FiTE that make the Axis side viable into 1942. It was only the presence of Italian, Romanian, Slovakian, etc. units that allowed Fall Blau to get as far as it did. Without those types to guard the flanks there will not be enough German units to adequately handle that task, while at the same time opening them up to the type of disaster which ultimately befell the Wehrmacht. I know we're not talking about removing the Romanians but I think the point still stands.

I'm glad to see this discussion and process get rolling after all the talk in other threads. I suspect that we'll be able to make significant improvements to the original scenario and that will be good for all of us.

Ron

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: morleron1

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: Panama
Any thoughts on what to do with the Soviet air units? They're a mish mash of multiple air types. Fighters, bombers and attack all in the same counter. Doesn't work real well. The author even thinks so.

I had speaks with the author ( via email ) and turns out that it was done that way to save on the number of counters used since the total number of counters per side is limited and it was a tight squeeze as it is to get all the different types represented. Personally I would rather that the counter represent equipment of the same range and mission ( fighters only, or bombers only, etc. ) so that you don't have any bad surprises. It is possible in FITE to put a counter on AS missions thinking the counter has only fighters and your bombers are on AS missions too...just to see them melt away quickly.

Also, may I say for the record that I really like the idea of having to chase down partisans. The scenario Directive 21 has abstracted them and I miss it. Having to come up with a strategy to get to each random appearing partisan quickly and destroy it before too much mayheim is done all the while having to fight a major war in a different AO sort of stretches the players ability to multi-task and keep a lot of details in mind simultaneously. I like it.

I'm also in favor of keeping the criminals, er, partisans in FiTE. As Larry says it puts the Axis player into an altogether different head space when chasing "ghosts" through the woods and swamps than when fighting off hordes of T-34s elsewhere. I've developed a method whereby I move the vast majority of my security and MP units every turn so as to "patrol" as much area as possible. The electrons sometimes complain of being footsore but such is life.

One thing that I've been wondering regarding partisan placement: does the presence of Axis units affect where the partisans appear? In other words, if I can keep MPs and security divisions relatively evenly spaced around my rear areas does this restrict where the little buggers pop up at?

Are we having fun, yet?

Ron

If I recall correctly, if you have a unit on a hex where a partisan is to appear as a reinforcement then it will appear in an adjacent hex. This is contrary to the way normal units behave.

If a partisan unit is eliminated and returns as a reconstituted unit it appears in whatever hex it is assigned to by the scenario designer.

With the above two cases being true it is a simple matter for an Axis player to determine precisely where the partisans appear. They can easily be boxed in. Once boxed in the scenario rules prohibit their disbandment. Partisans remain because they operate under different supply rules. Partisan problem solved.

For this reason and because the Soviet side needs as many unit places as possible for more important things I would suggest forgetting about the partisans.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: morleron1

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: Karri
I guess you could combine some of the german air units...they are considerably smaller than the soviet ones.

Yes, Soviet air units typically number in the hundreds of aircraft and German squadrons are about 42 assigned. I say "assigned" instead of authorized because most German squadrons operate at less than authorized strength. That's a good idea.

Another thing we might do is eliminate the partisans. That way we could do away with the MP and security units.

And another thing: we don't need the garrison units until late in the game when the Soviets are pressing toward Berlin. Maybe we could invent an event trigger thing to make the garrison unit appear in the threatened hex(s) just before it's needed. This scheme may need more events than we have so we may need to have ALL the garrison units appear when the first threatened hex is threatened, so that only one event is needed.

And do we really need the Italians to be represented? Do we need the Slavic units?

One thing to consider is that amalgamating the German air units would, I suspect, limit the German ability to project airpower in the interdiction mode, if nothing else. I tend to keep almost all of my German bomber units on interdiction and move them around as needed to inhibit Soviet movement in areas that I consider important. However, it is rare that I will leave some area totally denuded of interdicting units as it's hard to tell where the Soviets may be coming from and it's nice to be able to hold up the rail movement of units from Gorki to Kiev without leaving the Soviets with a free hand around, say, Leningrad and Finland. That said, if we could make significant gains in others areas of the game by making this change I'd support it. My main concern is that the Axis player may end up having a useful weapon, albeit one over which he doesn't have full control so far as effects are concerned, removed or restricted without some offsetting gain in another area.

There's really no reason to bother with the Axis air units. That force has more than enough unit spaces available. Heck, you could take away the Swedes and/or Turks if you really wanted unit slots.

ORIGINAL: morleron1
So far as removing the Axis MP units, with the thought that this will make it impossible for the Axis player to use them as spearhead units I'd suggest holding off on that until 3.4 comes out so that we can evaluate whether or not Ralph has solved the "ant unit problem".

The ant problem's solution has already been explained. It has only to do with the little trick of a very small unit attacking with a mass of artillery against a larger unit. That's about the extent of it. You know, to be honest there never was a problem with small units being in a scenario. The problem was with people's opponents. Some go on and on about an 'ant unit' problem when it was a people problem. It could have been solved by communication. Also, if someone has a problem with a scenario simply because it has alot of small units change it and put it out there. If you look at most significant battles there are many, many 'ant' units. [;)]

ORIGINAL: morleron1
Another possibility would be to establish a house rule along the lines of "No MP unit or Security Division unit may be voluntarily moved forward of the main battle area."

The Germans actually did use the Security divisions in combat, on purpose. What they didn't do was send MP and Corp/Army/Army Group HQ into the hinterlands ahead of the army. Nor did they use them to close a pocket. Manstein was not seen running through the woods chasing down partisans. I don't think any of his staff was either. Now if someone said they saw Patton doing this I wouldn't be a bit surprised. [:D][/quote]

ORIGINAL: morleron1

So far as the Italians are concerned I suppose it depends on whether or not we come up with changes to FiTE that make the Axis side viable into 1942. It was only the presence of Italian, Romanian, Slovakian, etc. units that allowed Fall Blau to get as far as it did. Without those types to guard the flanks there will not be enough German units to adequately handle that task, while at the same time opening them up to the type of disaster which ultimately befell the Wehrmacht. I know we're not talking about removing the Romanians but I think the point still stands.

I don't see any point for removing any Axis minors. They need all the help they can get.

Too bad there's no way to delay reconstitution in a scenario to something more reasonable.

Replacement 9.1.8 When units are Reconstituted, there is a one to four week delay in their appearance.

Forming, getting the pieces together and training a division to fight as even a somewhat cohesive unit takes alot longer than one to four weeks unless an existing unit was given the destroyed unit's number.

[morleron1225]

I just finished uploading the results of a project that I've been working on for a couple of months: mods to the Buzz mods for FiTE.  The files - FITE Rons mod v1.1.1.eqp and FITE Rons mod v1.1.1.sce are the game files.  I've also uploaded the notes that I've made as I went through this process "FITE Notes" (which also incorporate the original Buzz mods house rules - which remain unchanged).  Those are available in both Open Office and M$ Word formats (the Open Office version is native).  Bear in mind that this project is on-going, though that may change depending on what goes on here.  If our combined efforts come up with a better result I will be the first to cheer.  If anyone does decide to either playtest these mods or simply load them up in the editor and look through them I am definitely interested in your comments and observations.  As I'm just getting used to the Event Editor I won't be at all surprised if I've inadvertently hammered something there.  I've tried to avoid mucking about with the original events, instead adding my own if possible so as to lessen the chances of contaminating the original.

Have fun,
Ron
P.S.  Thanks to Larry Fulkerson for making the file upload space available.
P.P.S. Here's the link to the files: http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=d47f ... c9e6d81d20

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: morleron1

I just finished uploading the results of a project that I've been working on for a couple of months: mods to the Buzz mods for FiTE.  The files - FITE Rons mod v1.1.1.eqp and FITE Rons mod v1.1.1.sce are the game files.  I've also uploaded the notes that I've made as I went through this process "FITE Notes" (which also incorporate the original Buzz mods house rules - which remain unchanged).  Those are available in both Open Office and M$ Word formats (the Open Office version is native).  Bear in mind that this project is on-going, though that may change depending on what goes on here.  If our combined efforts come up with a better result I will be the first to cheer.  If anyone does decide to either playtest these mods or simply load them up in the editor and look through them I am definitely interested in your comments and observations.  As I'm just getting used to the Event Editor I won't be at all surprised if I've inadvertently hammered something there.  I've tried to avoid mucking about with the original events, instead adding my own if possible so as to lessen the chances of contaminating the original.

Have fun,
Ron
P.S.  Thanks to Larry Fulkerson for making the file upload space available.

Is there a linkage for this?

[morleron1225]

See the link in Larry's original post regarding the upload space. Sorry, it's getting late and my brain is about to quit for the day. [;)]

I've now edited the post in which I made the announcement to include the link to the files.

[morleron1225]

Hi Panama,
Thanks for clarifying how the partisans work. I have to agree with you about getting rid of them if that is the case - that would at least free up a few slots for the Soviet OOB. I think you and I are largely on the same wavelength regarding the "ant" issue. While I didn't mention them specifically in my OP I have the same issues with using German Corps and Army HQs as combat units as you have. So far as I can recall I think the only time those type of HQs got into combat was in North Africa where the Afrika Corps HQ nearly got over-run during one of the battles - Gazala I think. F.W. von Mellenthin makes mention of it in his memoirs - he didn't seem any too thrilled about the incident. That said, some players will still do their utmost to squeeze through every little crack in search of victory and it seems that making their "ant tactics" less effective would be a big step toward eliminating one source of frustration that folks seem to have with TOAW. Thanks for the clarification about the German use of the Security Divisions as general combat units - I'd thought that was the case, but couldn't quickly find any references so I included them in my original suggestion for a house rule.

I agree about the Axis minor allies. One of the things I like about the Buzz mods is the changes he made to the equipment file to break out their infantry components so that he could set separate replacement rates for them. The Finns in particular are brittle because of their low replacement rate - 25 infantry squads per turn, IIRC - which makes it difficult for them to mount a sustained offensive without significant aid in the form of German combat units.

I can see removing the Swedes from the OOB but it seems to me that the Turks should stay, at least through 1942. IIRC, the Soviets left significant forces along their border with Turkey for fear that German success might make them want to get in on the action. I doubt that there was much danger from that quarter after 1943 but, again, the Buzz mods (and I think the original FiTE 5.0) allows for the Germans to try to bully the Turks into joining in on the fun, which acts to inject some uncertainty into the Soviet player's otherwise near-perfect hindsight.

I've probably forgotten something that I meant to say here but it's after midnight here and I'm going to go turn into a pumpkin. See you tomorrow, or rather later today. [>:]

[larryfulkerson]

The FITE-MOD shared folder can be found here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=d47f ... c9e6d81d20

Here's a small html file that will allow people to upload their files to the shared folder:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/zmfdhq2jm ... older.html

[Panama]

Either this is a very popular scenario or there are a handful of very crazy FitE'ophiles. I've seen several people modify parts of this scenario to make it 'work' better. There are a lot of man hours put into it. This is not counting the huge amount of time the original designers must have burned.

I quite agree that unless this thing is fun to play then it's not worth the effort. The greatest challenge is to make it fun and historically accurate at the same time.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Too bad there's no way to delay reconstitution in a scenario to something more reasonable.

Replacement 9.1.8 When units are Reconstituted, there is a one to four week delay in their appearance.

Forming, getting the pieces together and training a division to fight as even a somewhat cohesive unit takes alot longer than one to four weeks unless an existing unit was given the destroyed unit's number.

But elimination in TOAW doesn't represent the complete annihilation of the unit - after all, only the forward combat elements are usually modeled. It only represents a temporary loss of "cohesion" - the ability to function as a effective unit. Units can recover that relatively quickly.

[morleron1225]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: Karri
Well, the problems is that one camp wants it historical and the other wants it playable. Personally I think that history has to give way to gameplay.

I'm pretty sure we're doing this ( changes to FITE )to improve the gameplay. So anything that tends to give historical results is a bonus and not the goal in my opinion. So I'm in favor of changes that improve game play also.

I think that to some extent we can do both. As was pointed out in the FiTE Opinions thread that Bibbo began a couple of years ago the big problem seems to be that the Soviet player has more-or-less perfect knowledge of what happened historically and what works in the game. This has resulted in the development of the Russian strategy of simply retreating immediately and establishing a two-deep defensive line that is just beyond where the Germans can realistically expect to be able to get reasonable supply levels. Since the mechanics of the TOAW game engine make it virtually impossible to create a breakthrough of such a line: the Soviet player may have to retreat but he should be able to avoid a German breakthrough on a scale large enough to be dangerous.

It seems to me that at least a partial solution to this problem to remove as many of the original FiTE "house rules" which limited the options available to the Axis player as possible. As I've mentioned in our private correspondence I think that the single best feature of the Buzz mods is the removal of limitations on what can be done with the Finns - including limits on how many German units can be sent to that front. This change means that the Soviet player can no longer safely strip every unit from the Finnish front for use elsewhere as the Finns are now capable of doing damage to Soviets. While some may, rightly, decry this as being an ahistorical option this change goes a long way toward re-introducing the uncertainty which confronted the Soviet high command in WWII. This is a case of using an option which was not available in reality to produce a more realistic result in the game.

It seems to me that allowing the Turks to join in the fun (as a Theater Option in the Buzz mods does) is another way of forcing the Soviet player to have to pay attention to other areas of the front and not be able to simply pile all of his units in front of the German drive on Moscow. Perhaps what we need to concentrate on is figuring out ways to eliminate the advantage of hindsight that the Soviet player has in the original FiTE. While it would definitely be non-historical allowing the German player an option to "declare peace" with the British and thus free up a lot of units and resources for use on the Eastern Front could be worked out. I would think that an Axis player taking advantage of such an option would need to achieve a higher level of victory or have some other sort of penalty attached. As Panama has mentioned in relation to the "ant problem" the difficulty is not so much how TOAW works as how players act - so we need to figure out how to change the way the Soviet player typically reacts to the German invasion.

As always, the above is simply my opinion and I will deny ever having written it if quizzed about it. [;)]

Ron

[morleron1225]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Either this is a very popular scenario or there are a handful of very crazy FitE'ophiles. I've seen several people modify parts of this scenario to make it 'work' better. There are a lot of man hours put into it. This is not counting the huge amount of time the original designers must have burned.

I quite agree that unless this thing is fun to play then it's not worth the effort. The greatest challenge is to make it fun and historically accurate at the same time.

Hey, what's the point of having a hobby if one can't get totally carried away with it and devote seemingly ridiculous amounts of time to its pursuit? [:)] You are correct, though, in that it would be great if we can come up with a set of changes that makes the FiTE scenario more playable.