FITE 2

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: gliz2

According to my measurements the Recon have 33%, Pz/Mech Div have 20% and Mot 10% too little MPs compared to what were Germans achieving during Barbarossa.

I'd suggest giving all German tanks a recon value. This should lead to realistic behaviour when it comes to slipping through gaps in the enemy line.

Note that I followed Ben's good advice on this with my Soviet Union 1941 scenarios.

[governato]

one could also

- decrease ZOC MP cost for the Germans for the first few turns (or for as long they enjoyed a C&C advantage at scales below the hex grid). It's easy to do that with events

- at the start add more trucks to Panzer divisions than the max allowed i the TOE (say 96/64) to model an unrepeatable speed advantage that fades with time as trucks get sent back to the pool.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Well you do not have enough MPs as Germans to reach Daugvapilis within 2 turns.
Means something is wrong in the setup.

Then change the scenario so they can reach whatever point you want in whatever time you want. If you don't like the scenario then change it. It's entirely in your hands. Larry has done that I don't know how many times.

You're complaining about not being able to achieve historical results and you say it's because something is wrong with the scenario. Read your own bloody posts mate.

If you don't like it change it. Simple as that.

[gliz2]

@Lobster

How not having enough MPs is about historical results?
Not having enough MPs is about historical operational capabilities. If a tank division could do a 300km march in 3 days and in game this is not possible (that sort of move) than the operational capabilities are messed up.

Once again: I don't care about being able to reach Daugvapilis in 4 days in the scenario but I should have at least technical possiblity to do so (when moving my units on the roads and not meeting enemy units).

Also for some strange reason foot infantry can achieve on major roads 60% of daily movement of Pz units.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Once again: I don't care about being able to reach Daugvapilis in 4 days in the scenario but I should have at least technical possiblity to do so (when moving my units on the roads and not meeting enemy units).

Then change the scenario to your liking.

ORIGINAL: gliz2
Also for some strange reason foot infantry can achieve on major roads 60% of daily movement of Pz units.

Yes. Not sure why. Maybe something to do with operational friction. You don't typically drive down the lane like it's holiday time. Have to stop and rest, refuel, sleep. Have to preserve situational awareness. Worry about flanks. Keep contact with other formations. Stuff like that. But it's all assumption on my part. [;)]

On the other hand, if you want to race down the road like a certain German officer maybe you should have that option?

[Zovs]

You have to remember that TOAW is primarily a war game construction set. Norm originally created it to be a WW2 operational level construction kit. He expanded in in II and III to cover a century of warfare from 1900 to 2000s. Ralph took over for IV and based on Bob's opinions tried to make it more than what is was originally intended to be and added and expanded it to almost be trying to everything and not achieving that at all.

The TOAW system's sweet spot (and what it was originally designed for) is roughly 2 to 10 km per hex, 1 day to 1/2 week turns and battalion to regimental level operational combat with ranged artillery.

Due to thousands of amateurs game designers pushing the system and with the expansions of IV there is now thousands of scenarios out there from platoon level to army level from 0.25 km to 50 km from 1 hour turns to seasonal turns.

What that all means is that the TOAW system is primarily a war game construction set and not a specialized war game system so it will always lack specific things such as production, strategic political rules and specific time period items.

To play games that have those missing or items one has to go to other game systems. For example any Civil War or Napoleonic game systems are much better covered for example by the John Tiller games for those two eras and not TOAW. Likewise for highly detailed, historical and fun recreation of both the ETO and MTO in 1943-45 and the Eastern Front 1941-1945 your better off with War in the West and War in the East II. Also for production, political and divisional level combat in Europe I still stand by Decisions Games Computer War in Europe II. For tactical games (squad and or platoon level) your best best is the Steel Panthers (Shrapnel) series and the Campaign Series (JTS) and for modern tactical MBT (shrapnel). And lastly for modern combat operational combat I think the best out there is Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm Rising and Germany Reforged.

TOAW can't (and should not) try to compete with the more specialized gaming systems, it was never intended for that. What it was designed for it does best WW2 battalion to regimental combat from 1 day to 1/2 week at 2.5 to 10 km per hex type of warfare.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

You have to remember that TOAW is primarily a war game construction set. Norm originally created it to be a WW2 operational level construction kit. He expanded in in II and III to cover a century of warfare from 1900 to 2000s.

Norm was involved in COW but not TOAW III.

Anyway, you make a good summary. It's human nature to use things other than the purpose for which they were intended; it's what got us where we are today. Who hasn't used their house keys to cut open the tape on a package, or used a screwdriver to pull a staple out of wood?

However, while there's absolutely no problem in going off the map like this, what is problematic is when 1) you call up the key manufacturer and suggest it really needs a sharper edge to cut the tape more easily and even worse 2) the key manufacturer enthusiastically agrees

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
2) the key manufacturer enthusiastically agrees

[:D] Amen.

[Teufeldk]

I would just like to announce that FITE 2.0 probably is not seeing the light of day any time soon. Søren is very busy atm., so we cant really get it done. It will be made at some point though.

Just if anybody was sitting around waiting for it.

All the best
Kristian

[Khanti]

(...)
Just if anybody was sitting around waiting for it.

All the best
Kristian

I am waiting still

Some thoughts about it in the long run:

1. It's a pity that the game doesn't have the option to replace equipment in units. For example, the Romanian He-112 squadron will not have new planes because they are not produced. One could give it some version of the Me-109. There should be some Organizational Points or something to make such exchanges within units possible. This, of course, only matters in such long scenarios (a few hundred turns, an entire campaign or sometimes an entire war).
2. It is also a pity that the player has no influence on industry and industrial production. If there were such Organization Points, the player could use them to purchase these Me-109s for the Romanians.
3. I also miss the possibility of creating new troops during the game from the resources that are in the warehouse (replacements). Sometimes an ordinary infantry barrier battalion would come in handy. Historically, they could establish such new units when there were resources
4. I wonder about the randomness of events. Because this is where one can set everything up. So I'm wondering if I put all the events in the Fite scenario at 50-75% probability instead of 100%, whether the game will still work As for historicity: they didn't know historically whether a given event would happen or not. It is strange that the player always knows when harsh winter will come and how difficult it will be with mud on the steppes.

[fogger]

Soren has moved on to other ventures. He and Kristian have not worked on the game for a number of years and is unlikely that they will in the future if ever.