FITE2 how to tweak the units movement points?

[gliz2]

After several runs including a dummy run (with no enemy interferance) I have concluded that the units have to low MP values thus coming anywhere close to real German achievements (in terms of advancing speed) is very very though (so far was impossible even in the dummy run).

Could someone point me into the right direction:
1. Where are the MP values?
2. What should I be aware of when changing them?

From my observation the required changes should come to:
1. Armoured recon +25% MP
2. Mechanized, Cavalry and Panzers +15%
3. Light infantry +10%

For Soviet the recon MPs should also be increased by 10%.

[r6kunz]

gliz2,
I also had problems with the MP.
When designing Road to Moscow Vol I. Crossing the Border I found the Germans were not able to reach the historic Berezina River crossings during the twelve days of the scenario.

Fortunately, TOAW has a solution: Movement Bias (50-150%). I tinkered around with the percent until I found a number that allowed the Germans a chance to take the historic crossings: 105% (panzer regiment 140km/day and leg infantry 60km/day.) Those numbers seemed somewhat excessive, but they rapidly drop with off-road movement in hostile territory and consumption of supplies.

TOAWIV has a further improvement: Event Variable Movement Bias. During the course of a scenario, the percent can change depending on the conditions. In Ardennes 1944 the Allied counterattack bogged down during January 1945 and they did not reach Hoffalize by the scenario end (16Jan). Yet to handicap the Allies parameters from the start gave the Germans an overwhelming advantage. Now the Movement Bias can replicate the Allies slow progress (25 km from Bastogne to Hoffalize in over a week).

I suggest you take a look at the Movement Bias. You can test the changes you suggest without going through the Force Editor.
Keep us posted on your findings.

It would be interesting to see the daily rates of march in various East Front scenarios for the initial phases of the war. And more to the point, what other players have found the rate of reaching historic objectives.

[gliz2]

Thanks Kuntz.
Sounds like an idea but where is this coded? [8|]

The Movement bias is for the whole force? So increasing it by 10% would mean it would go across the board infantry and tanks?
Cause the problem is the infantry is almost fine (while increase of 10% would not mean much in practice maybe extra 2 hexes per turn) but the armor and mechanized are the issue.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: gliz2
Thanks Kuntz.
Sounds like an idea but where is this coded? [8|]

The Movement bias is for the whole force? So increasing it by 10% would mean it would go across the board infantry and tanks?

Cause the problem is the infantry is almost fine (while increase of 10% would not mean much in practice maybe extra 2 hexes per turn) but the armor and mechanized are the issue.

I think the movement bias [ you can change it for the scenario in the editor ] affects all the moving units equally. So increasing it for the tanks would neccessarily increase it for the infantry as well.

[Curtis Lemay]

Don't forget about the "Divisor of Improved Road Motorized Movement". That can give motorized units a boost over foot units. (Assuming the terrain contains some Improved Roads).

[TPOO]

You have to tweak the the Enemy Hex Conversion ratio in the Editor. You also have to tweak the Supply and Readiness Cost of Movement as well. Bob pointed this out in another thread on this topic as it is a glitch with 5KM hex scenarios. We have done this for the next version of FITE2 when it is uploaded. It will allow the mechanized units to move more correctly. It has been tested and works perfectly when adjusted.

[gliz2]

@TPOO
Any ETO on where the new FITE2 will be uploaded?
Does this means that tanks and recon will be able to match the top advancing speed of 200 km per turn?

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

@TPOO
Any ETO on where the new FITE2 will be uploaded?
Does this means that tanks and recon will be able to match the top advancing speed of 200 km per turn?

And what about the Hitler no retreat rule?

Also on turn one the Soviets should be under computer control and advance because of the total loss of C&C by the upper echelon command. This would simulate the divisions/corps using the standing orders they all had to move forward to the frontier, not back as all human players tend to do.

I've often wondered if these scenarios shouldn't start after the first two or three days instead of 22 June.

[gliz2]

I really don't get people gripping all the time about so-called historical accuracy. You want to reply the history or you wanna play a wargame? If the latter than the probability rule and quasi-historical options should be prevailing.

You don't mind, being on God mode, moving 300+ which perfectly execute your orders (Hitler's wet dream). That's "historical"? Of course it's not. Is utter rubbish. However no one came close to designing one Elmer who could do at least as half-decent job as AI is doing in Combat Ops (I'd love to see a TOAOW with such AI controlled option).

I would love to see the ability to use paratroopers (bypassing historical Hitler orders) for Germans, possibility of setting puppet governments in Baltic countries and Ukraine or deciding not to proclaim war against USA.

History already happened. I want to play plausible alternatives of it

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I really don't get people gripping all the time about so-called historical accuracy. You want to reply the history or you wanna play a wargame? If the latter than the probability rule and quasi-historical options should be prevailing.

You don't mind, being on God mode, moving 300+ which perfectly execute your orders (Hitler's wet dream). That's "historical"? Of course it's not. Is utter rubbish. However no one came close to designing one Elmer who could do at least as half-decent job as AI is doing in Combat Ops (I'd love to see a TOAOW with such AI controlled option).

I would love to see the ability to use paratroopers (bypassing historical Hitler orders) for Germans, possibility of setting puppet governments in Baltic countries and Ukraine or deciding not to proclaim war against USA.

History already happened. I want to play plausible alternatives of it

Uhm...you were the one wondering why the Germans couldn't repeat some of their historical advances and wanted a way to accomplish that. [&:]

[gliz2]

Lobster
I think you misunderstood and mixed up things.
An Infantry Division on avarage was able to cover 20km per day (30km on a strategic march).
A recon detachment could easily covered 180-200km per day.
This are the operational values and equipment limitationd. Has nothing to do with the strategic and politics.
I'm not expecting nor wishing to have Tiger battalions in mid 1942 but I do expect the historical equipmemt capabilities. So Infantry moving into enemy territory at almost the same pace as tanks or recon is absurd.
On the other hand whether the Germans were allowed to use paradroops was a strategic decision made by Hitler. As since, more or less, you are a strategic overlord I'd wish to have this decision to myself rather than hardcoded. After summer 1941 the strategic situation is usually different one from historical.

So to sum up. I should have a technical possibility to achieve the historical results (like a 200km recon rush) and not seeing them on half of the historical values.

Anyway it is a clear bug and will be changed.