East & West Front 1942-1945 scenario

[demyansk]

I downloaded the scenario and after reading the direction can I play against the computer in this game?

[USXpat]

Current downloadable version is only for PBEM and will be updated very shortly.  PO is not set up.  I would not recommend starting a new game with the existing files at this time.  New files for the PBEM version are no more than 2 weeks away.  Axis PO version -- may set up beta version for download in two weeks. 

[demyansk]

thanks for the quick reply

[USXpat]

I'm hoping to get a little bit of help here on an Event Loop.  The idea is that if Force 2 attacks a specific hex that it will reduce Force 1's Replacement Rates (or Supply) by "x amount" for "y turns".  After y turns - replacement/supply returns to normal.  During y turns - if the hex is attacked again - there will be no effect; but afterwards - it can be repeated. 

This is in the context of a direct air attack on a hex for which there has to be a unit in the hex - which will need to be seen by Theater Recon.

I know that to be "realistic" the replacement rate would need to "increment" back to normal, but looking to keep this simple with the fewest # of events possible - and just use "averages".  Also - this doesn't allow any means of tracking the "strength" of the attack on the hex, but can accommodate that with an honor rule. 

Any help is greatly appreciated!

[Telumar]

As the trigger 'Force 1/2 attacks' triggers only once and not repeatedly it is very simple. You just have to enable the trigger and its effects after y turns:

#1 2 attacks x/y
#2 EvAct 1, supply1-
#3 EvAct 1, supply1+, delay=y

#4 EvAct 1, Enable 1, delay=y
#5 EvAct 1, Enable 2, delay=y
#6 EvAct 1, Enable 3, delay=y

[LLv34_Snefens]

Does that work now?
In the EvEd document it says that:

"Force Attacks events cannot be recycled with Enable Event. There is something in TOAW that flags an attacked hex and prevents a recycled event from activating. (Curt)"

I haven't tested if that still holds true in 3.4.

[Telumar]

I have just tested it in 3.4 before i posted my initial post. Works now. A test scenario is attached.

I will have to correct the EvilEd Article i posted on my blog, btw. I didn't even know that the EvilEd states that ForceAttack is buggy.. [:D]

[USXpat]

Most Excellent - thank you very much Telumar. I see what you did that got it to work right with the event activate > event enable with 3T delay. I used only 1 and... didn't quite work.

This however, works like a charm - repeatedly, too. Very happy with this! I have a lot of tests to run now. This might be the boost on the strategic level that I was looking for - as it plays off several elements of the game engine - vs abstract handling.

It adds more importance to Theater Recon for starters. The attack on the unit/hex can also be tied to a percentage chance for inflicting damage. There's the Anti-Aircraft plus local air superiority issues. Plus, there's the potential to evap the unit in the hex for greater effect.

So... will be looking at testing the impact of AA - interceptors - bomber escorts - and come up with a means of "simulating" an industrial complex. Probably going a bit overboard, but further experimentation won't hurt... and if in the end it doesn't come close to "feeling right", it can be backed out. Of course, that's a bit subjective - but there are plenty of statistics to compare against.

Thanks again, Telumar!

[requiem72]

i would like to add my 2cents to the pbem version.

being on t15 as axis player i miss some kind of a reward in taking murmansk.
at least nothing about it shows up in the scenario briefing.
some kind of replacement reduction would make it a target.
without it there is no real sense in keeping units there.

also, there should be any kind of guarding unit in and espacially around Stalingrad to prevent it taken by parachute on t1 or t2.[X(]

[USXpat]

Thanks for giving it a try Requiem and thank you for the feedback!

There are no events set for Murmansk presently. I routed all of the Lend Lease into Archangelsk. I'll revise that, at least, so that summer months go to Archangelsk and winter months go to Murmansk. I was playing pretty stingy with events until confirming that the PO version will require a separate file. Was hoping to have pbem/po versions use the same file, but not possible.

In the next version, Allies will be going first - coupled with a 1 turn cease fire at start to allow for any redeployments for both sides. There are quite a few changes in the next version. Will post any developments here.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: USXpat

I routed all of the Lend Lease into Archangelsk. I'll revise that, at least, so that summer months go to Archangelsk and winter months go to Murmansk.

My understanding was that Archangel was kept open year-round by using icebreakers.

[USXpat]

That was my impression, too - but am researching it further. My initial impression was that Archangelsk was the primary destination especially for having the safest rail line; that Archangelsk was the German stop-line for northern Russia, and the interest in Murmansk was to serve as a forward supply head.

Resorting to Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II - destinations for 41 of 72 convoys are outlined, with 11 going to Murmansk, 17 to Kola Inlet, and 13 to Archangelsk. I guess Kola Inlet refers to Kandalaksha which has port/rail facilities.

My inclination though, is that if the convoys had made it through the U-boat/Luftwaffe/Raider gauntlet, that if one port was not available, they'd move onto the next - if conditions permitted.

Leastwise, appropriate to add an Axis supply point at Murmansk (not 100%... but something); and consider what additional impact control of one or both points might have - without using a lot of events. It would stand to liven up the Karelian campaign. As it stands, there's 1 LL disband cadre for almost every month.

Actually pretty interesting information.

And a funny story - I moved to Ukraine six years ago and one of the first people I met upon learning I'm from the US, responded, "Oh, you're from the bean country! Everyone eats beans in America!" That had me scratching my head for a while - but then I came across the Lend Lease Program statistics - we shipped Russia 492,521,079 pounds of beans. That's gotta be worth at least 1 point of supply...

[sPzAbt653]

Beaners ?? I thought we were Ham'n'eggers !!

[LLv16_Justus]

Hello USXpat and thank you for an excellent scenario. We’ve been playing it for 47 turns now and it really has been a fun and exiting game for both sides so far. I expect it to be like that until the bitter end. Unfortunately I haven’t got enough time to write a proper AAR but I could send you the axis pbl or the end_of_turn file instead in case you want to keep an eye on our on going game.

I think you have broaden the scope of Art of War with this scenario and if you ever plan on doing a longer, say 41-45 version, I'll be the first volunteer for play testing.

p.s

It is true that the Port of Argankhelsk could be kept open for traffic during the winter months with ice breakers but that was exactly the kind of ship type they did not have, especially the more modern and more powerfull ones. After the war the bulk of Finnish ice breaker fleet was handed out to the Soviets as war indemnity and a few dozen more were build in Finnish shipyardrs and delivered in late 40's and early 50's.

[requiem72]

[font="Verdana"][/font]
Sorry to mention it:

your disband cadres are all messed up ( Complete verson 1.1 )
supply instead of airtrans ( the last two )[:@]
seatrans instead of supply ( both )
after that i didn´t check any further.

any way to correct that ingame ????
i could use airtrans right now[:D]


Edit: Panzer Divisionen upgrades are also messed up [X(]
Numbers don´t match

[USXpat]

Thank you for the compliments on the scenario, Justus.  I definitely welcome seeing any .pbl files - free free to send them to MWDabbs (at) gmail (dot) com. 

The seemingly small points like Murmansk/Archangelsk can really add a lot of flavor to the scenario as a whole.   A lot of the event structure in the initial version was kept as simple as possible (and I still managed to mess a few things up).  Telumar's helped with the best and most involved events.  Now that I'm more comfortable with the event structure and how some other things work, it's worth the effort to replicate some of the finer details.  

Other projects would be possible if we see a TOAW 3.5+ with significantly upgraded parameters (unit/formation/event count) and the like. 

[USXpat]

I was aware of a couple events being broken, but will get you some details shortly (2-3 hours)....

[USXpat]

Sometimes I could shoot myself... shifting any units/formations around changes things in the event editor and I don't think I realized that at the time of the last update (1.1)...

So - a lot of errors, but it looks like many can be resolved - will have a spreadsheet posted very shortly... extreme apologies.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: USXpat

shifting any units/formations around changes things in the event editor

Welcome to the club! [;)] Heads up, you've done a great job so far.

[USXpat]

Okay - hopefully the file is attached here - I'll be posting it in full on the support web site.

Very disappointing and very sorry - though I know that probably offers little in the way of consolation. Impact is on the Wehrkreis, Panzer Upgrades and TO Disbands - but only for the Axis; all Allied TO's are intact.

The attached file summarizes the impact and correlates the "Effects" to the real units that you need to disband to get that effect. I don't think they combine to "kill" a game or render an existing game in progress completely untenable for the Axis but still... FUBAR. Most painful impact is for 4th/5th/6th Panzer Divisions - which won't be able to upgrade until very late in the war. However, there may be 2 early SS divisions running alongside their later counterparts; and possibly a third. Still FUBAR.

Thanks Telumar! Will keep marching - lesson learned, playing the game is one thing... the Evil Ed isn't named the Evil Ed for its exemplary behavior... heh...