Directive 21: thread for questions - feel free to add yours

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: jzardos
What is the rule of thumb for stacking air units on an airfield? Max seems to be 3 air units. Efficiency lose?

There is no detramental effect of stuffing an airfield with the max number of planes. I've lobbied for a higher
max number for planes at an airfield to no effect. I've been reticent in the past of basing planes in an airfield
adjacent to an enemy unit but I've discovered that there's no detramental effect of having enemy units adjacent.

I like to park an HQ at my important airfields to help keep the planes in tippy top shape. Those pilots just love
patriotic lectures and long-winded speaches by the Rear Area Mothers.

thanks for this tip
what type of HQ ? Corps?

Yes, Corps HQ's is what I'm using at the moment.

[jzardos]

Is it just me or does air support seem to be not much of a factor in Directive 21? Battle odds don't seem to change much or at all?) even if you add in many groups (hundreds of planes). Also, even attacking units that don't have much or any AA doesn't seem to do anything. Unless I'm doing something wrong, this is very unhistorical. Have combat air support could be decisive in a battle. I have to be missing something because I just can't imagine this big a fail on this aspect of WW2 battles.

[larryfulkerson]

In order for the development staff to be convinced of the veracity of your opinion they're
going to need some proof I'll bet and so maybe if there's a sandbox test scenario that you
could put together with a stack of targets that aren't hit by aircraft and one stack that
is and we could compare the results of say, 10 such tests to get an average number and
use that for our proof. Cool?

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

In order for the development staff to be convinced of the veracity of your opinion they're
going to need some proof I'll bet and so maybe if there's a sandbox test scenario that you
could put together with a stack of targets that aren't hit by aircraft and one stack that
is and we could compare the results of say, 10 such tests to get an average number and
use that for our proof. Cool?

Yes, good idea. I will do that. Has anybody else that plays Directive 21 had the same feeling about air support on ground combat? Air strikes against airfields seems to be work as far as I can tell. Just air ground support is where I'm questioning an issue.

[Oberst_Klink]

I played it as CinC Luftwaffe, but TOAW III. As for Onkel Larry's suggestion, use my Tutorial '41 as sandbox scenario; will save you time.

Klink, Oberst

[jzardos]

What is a 'Soviet Furball' in the combat report? Can't find it in the manual or what is new doc.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: jzardos
What is a 'Soviet Furball' in the combat report? Can't find it in the manual or what is new doc.

An event upon which opposing sides have aircraft in a swirling, churning, dogfight between multiple
aircraft and may the best pilots win.

[jzardos]

Do engineers repair these bridges when on the hex for a turn?

[jzardos]

The rail is also destroyed in my previous post, so that example might require the rail to be fixed. But what about the below bridge on a road that is destroyed. How does on repair it as the Germans?

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: jzardos
Do engineers repair these bridges when on the hex for a turn?

Right click on the engineer unit while it's on the bridge and there's a menu
pop-up that will have the choice "repair bridge" or wording to that effect.

[jjdenver]

What are "new mud and snow rules" in options when you start a scenario? I searched the manual for mud and snow and don't find this option. Should it be on for this scenario?

[TPOO]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

What are "new mud and snow rules" in options when you start a scenario? I searched the manual for mud and snow and don't find this option. Should it be on for this scenario?

Select the PLAY drop down window while playing the game and choose GAME OPTIONS. It is down at the bottom of the list. Even though this scenario has adjustments for mud turns It is ok to turn this option on.

[jjdenver]

Thanks but I wasn't asking how to find the option. I was asking "what does this option mean or do in the game? i.e. what is its' effect on the game? How is it different from old mud and snow rules?"

[TPOO]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

Thanks but I wasn't asking how to find the option. I was asking "what does this option mean or do in the game? i.e. what is its' effect on the game? How is it different from old mud and snow rules?"

From the Whats New 4.0 Doc file which is in the Manuals folder of your TOAW IV folder. "VII. NEW MUD AND SNOW RULES: If this advanced rule is optioned, when snow melts, it is converted to mud. Furthermore, mud dries out proportionate to temperature. (Cold: very little; Hot: very fast). This will facilitate the creation of mud seas."

I have not seen its effect in the game yet but as soon as I get to that point I will post something here.

[jjdenver]

Thanks I hadn't noticed that document.

[sPzAbt653]

I have not seen its effect in the game yet

I haven't had time to mess with it either, but I recently started a game of Bocage Hell and turned ON the Mud & Snow rules, and the map was top to bottom mud for the first thirty turns. At that point I turned OFF the Mud & Snow rules and things quickly cleared up. My first guess is that the scenario's Climate Settings don't mix well with the M&S rules, but for now I see no reason to turn them on unless the scenario briefing says to use them.

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: gbaby

ORIGINAL: jjdenver
I think I've created a pocket here just using overrun attacks. So now it's safe to overrun and attack everything inside this pocket and any equipment/troops that are taken as casualties by the Soviets will not go to their replacement pool?

Is this a worthwhile use of a mot & pz division's action points in the first turn or should they just be charging ahead to take river crossings and not worrying about creating pockets like this?

It might look like it from boundaries, but no, you have not created a pocket and cut off supplies. You will note it on next turn and see the russian units still are supplied. They can trace communication through your possessed territory, which is only what the borders are showing.

To create a pocket and cut off supply, you must do it with your units. Their ZOC blocks supply lines one hex away. So that means one of you units, two empty hexes, then another of your units, will block between them.

You will need to cut supply lines to ensure that no losses will go to replacement pool.

So in your example, no enemy units have blocked supply line, so some losses will still go to the replacement pool.

Do all units have a ZOC or only some units? If some how do you tell which have and which do not have?

[demyansk]

Larry, with the Engineers, I played the Korea tutorial, U.N. engineer forces didn't have the repair function. Maybe some didn't have the ability

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: demyansk
Larry, with the Engineers, I played the Korea tutorial, U.N. engineer forces didn't have the repair function. Maybe some didn't have the ability

What's the exact name of the scenario, I'll go check it out and give you a full report.

[sPzAbt653]

Do all units have a ZOC

Yes [except air units].