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

[larryfulkerson]

Try "secure" and "screen". When attack and advance are used the units concentrate. That can be effective to take an objective but you had better have others on secure and screen or you will be cut off.

I'll try that. Thanks muchly.

[TPOO]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Try "secure" and "screen". When attack and advance are used the units concentrate. That can be effective to take an objective but you had better have others on secure and screen or you will be cut off.

I'll try that. Thanks muchly.

We have at least one Soviet formation in each Army set to screen and secure and it helps "Elmer" much better recognizing deficient areas.

[TPOO]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

jzardos: I think your vision of the importance of close air support in WW2 is wildly exaggerated, but we can discuss that later.

Now, your example. More details are needed: what was the terrain? What was the soviet units entrenchment level? You should also check the toaw log to find some answers.
So, 1600 planes and 94 losses (losses, not shot downs), less than 6%. That's very reasonable, specially considering the number of destroyed planes, only 21, which is little more than 1%. Don't know what's the problem here.
I would guess that the rifle squads have some anti-air rating. You could edit that out to 0 if you want.
The level of losses of the soviets doesn't seem unreasonable, that could be much different depending the circumstances. About the "moral" effects, we can't see it here, but I bet there were effects on the red units (again, toawlog [:)], and also that could be very different for different units (proficiency)

Directive 21 uses the stock generic equipment from the TOAW4 Database so whatever stats it has is what is incorporated. We have modified some units when necessary and it appears that the generic stats for the JU 87 B and Ju 87 D are not correct. The JU 87 B should have a 500 KG shell weight and not 250 KG and the Ju 87-D should have a 1000 KG shell weight and not 500 KG. That is what we used for statistics in FITE2 for those same aircraft. I will adjust the stats to match. Hopefully I can get it done before the 1st patch goes out.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: TPOO



Directive 21 uses the stock generic equipment from the TOAW4 Database so whatever stats it has is what is incorporated. We have modified some units when necessary and it appears that the generic stats for the JU 87 B and Ju 87 D are not correct. The JU 87 B should have a 500 KG shell weight and not 250 KG and the Ju 87-D should have a 1000 KG shell weight and not 500 KG. That is what we used for statistics in FITE2 for those same aircraft. I will adjust the stats to match. Hopefully I can get it done before the 1st patch goes out.

Thank you for your efforts. Now, we don't have the date of the battle in the example we are discussing, I guess it's summer of 1941, but looking at the scenario I see that Stuka units are equipped with "Ju 87 late" at the very beginning.
Assuming that in TOAW database terms, Ju 87 "early" equals Ju-87 A or R, and "late" means Ju-87D; I have to say that the D version did not see combat until january 1942, so air units should start with "early" Stukas*
So the results would not differ from the example.

*I understand that using the "late" units at the start could be a decision related to some compromises that you do in designing an scenario, if that's the case I didn't say anything [:)]

[Teemu1986]

There are spelling issues with Finnish names in the scenario. I can tell how to correct them if you'd appreciate help. For example, the Finnish Navy's ships should be called Väinämöinen and Ilmarinen.

They are also not battleships but smaller ships.

[Teemu1986]

I'm unable to fortify the coastal forts which I receive as reinforcements. What's the problem? (As Axis)

[DanNeely]

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986

I'm unable to fortify the coastal forts which I receive as reinforcements. What's the problem? (As Axis)

AFAIK not being able to entrench move 0 units is something that's been on the bug/feature wish list since TOAW1 20 years ago....

[Teemu1986]

ORIGINAL: DanNeely
AFAIK not being able to entrench move 0 units is something that's been on the bug/feature wish list since TOAW1 20 years ago....

I see. Would the scenario designer kindly consider giving the coastal batteries some form of transportation? Just a few horses, enough for 1 movement point.

[DanNeely]

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986

ORIGINAL: DanNeely
AFAIK not being able to entrench move 0 units is something that's been on the bug/feature wish list since TOAW1 20 years ago....

I see. Would the scenario designer kindly consider giving the coastal batteries some form of transportation? Just a few horses, enough for 1 movement point.

Wouldn't help. The 0 move points is set by the icon.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986

ORIGINAL: DanNeely
AFAIK not being able to entrench move 0 units is something that's been on the bug/feature wish
list since TOAW1 20 years ago....

I see. Would the scenario designer kindly consider giving the coastal batteries some form of
transportation? Just a few horses, enough for 1 movement point.

Wouldn't help. The 0 move points is set by the icon.

I'm wondering if the scenario designer could have used a secondary icon with some kind of movement
ability just so the unit can be dug in. Or maybe the scenario designer could have deployed it as
already dug in. I'm not sure.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986

I see. Would the scenario designer kindly consider giving the coastal batteries some form of
transportation? Just a few horses, enough for 1 movement point.

Wouldn't help. The 0 move points is set by the icon.

I'm wondering if the scenario designer could have used a secondary icon with some kind of movement
ability just so the unit can be dug in. Or maybe the scenario designer could have deployed it as
already dug in. I'm not sure.

Reinforcements can't arrive dug in. And I think the coastal icon's 0 MPs feature would trump any secondary icon's movement ability, but I haven't tested that idea.

[TPOO]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

Wouldn't help. The 0 move points is set by the icon.

I'm wondering if the scenario designer could have used a secondary icon with some kind of movement
ability just so the unit can be dug in. Or maybe the scenario designer could have deployed it as
already dug in. I'm not sure.

Reinforcements can't arrive dug in. And I think the coastal icon's 0 MPs feature would trump any secondary icon's movement ability, but I haven't tested that idea.

We have units on the map with the secondary fort icon to simulate no movement and to act like a fortification but you cannot entrench or fortify these units either in the editor or during game play if they arrive on the map as replacements. We have tried.

[Teemu1986]

Why is the Soviet Navy a sitting duck which the Germans can cheaply sink with JU-87's?

The Soviets should be able to move it to "safety". The Baltic Fleet under the cover of Leningrad's AA defenses and the Black Sea Fleet even far to the east.

BTW, what happens to the Baltic Sea ships in the case that Germans take Leningrad but they haven't been sunk?

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986
Why is the Soviet Navy a sitting duck which the Germans can cheaply sink with JU-87's?

Elmer can move the BBs to Leningrad and park them there but Elmer hasn't figured that
out yet. I've seem Elmer move them there before but so far it's been rare.

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986
The Soviets should be able to move it to "safety". The Baltic Fleet under the cover of Leningrad's AA defenses and the Black Sea Fleet even far to the east.

And the DD group near Murmansk. Elmer hasn't figured that out yet.

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986
BTW, what happens to the Baltic Sea ships in the case that Germans take Leningrad but they haven't been sunk?

My understanding is that they are withdrawn from the game.

[TPOO]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986
Why is the Soviet Navy a sitting duck which the Germans can cheaply sink with JU-87's?

Elmer can move the BBs to Leningrad and park them there but Elmer hasn't figured that
out yet. I've seem Elmer move them there before but so far it's been rare.

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986
The Soviets should be able to move it to "safety". The Baltic Fleet under the cover of Leningrad's AA defenses and the Black Sea Fleet even far to the east.

And the DD group near Murmansk. Elmer hasn't figured that out yet.

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986
BTW, what happens to the Baltic Sea ships in the case that Germans take Leningrad but they haven't been sunk?

My understanding is that they are withdrawn from the game.

They were sitting ducks. Hans Rudel sank the battleship Marat near Leningrad on Sept 21 1941 in a JU-87. Until late in the war the Soviet fleets were mostly retreated to safety when possible.

If Leningrad is captured the Baltic Fleet is withdrawn

[Teemu1986]

Well, Rudel's feat was not easy. The Soviet Navy helped to supply the Oranienbaum bridgehead in the Baltic Sea. And the Soviet forces in the encirclements of Odessa and Sevastopol were as well supplied by the Navy.

If Germany somehow manages to send the Soviet fleet to the bottom of the sea, the strategic picture changes considerably.

[Teemu1986]

Can we have a theater option to remove the exclusion zone in the middle of Finland? For example, Infantry Division 163 of the Wehrmacht was on the bänks of the Svir river in 1941 but later it was transported to the north.

[Teemu1986]

Not a big deal but what I wonder what is the logic with sprinkling those victory points around the map? Why don't the Baltic countries have any VPs? Or the Crimea?

It would be good to indicate strategically important cities with VPs. For example, put 10 VPs to Tallinn. After all, the Soviet supplies to Hanko get cut off after it's captured.

It would be nice to split a couple of Finnish divisions to regiments as well. There are too few of them to cover the entire front. I know that I could divide them myself but they would lose proficiency.

[TPOO]

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986

Can we have a theater option to remove the exclusion zone in the middle of Finland? For example, Infantry Division 163 of the Wehrmacht was on the bänks of the Svir river in 1941 but later it was transported to the north.

There is a theater option for the Axis player to move the 163rd Infantry Division to the north in 1942.

[TPOO]

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986

Not a big deal but what I wonder what is the logic with sprinkling those victory points around the map? Why don't the Baltic countries have any VPs? Or the Crimea?

It would be good to indicate strategically important cities with VPs. For example, put 10 VPs to Tallinn. After all, the Soviet supplies to Hanko get cut off after it's captured.

It would be nice to split a couple of Finnish divisions to regiments as well. There are too few of them to cover the entire front. I know that I could divide them myself but they would lose proficiency.

The victory points do not have any effect on the game except to show your progress in the weekly turn news window. The important cities to capture are those with the asterisks, * City Name*.

We have tried using the Finns in regiments but they are not strong enough to keep the Soviets at bay and get beat up quite a bit. They are much more formidable as an entire division. The Finns can accomplish their historical goals in 1941 if used correctly and then hold the lines until 1944.