Popular Scenarios

[golden delicious]

What are people's favourite smallish, mid-20th century, land only scenarios? I'm thinking of doing a thing.

[rhinobones]

Crusader 41
Market Garden 44
Two Weeks In Normandy 1944
1942 Velikiye Luki
1941 Operation München

Regards

[golden delicious]

1941 Operation München

I had a look over this scenario, it appeals to me because I know very little about the campaign apart from what I've gleaned from more general works on Barbarossa and it feels like more of a fair fight than the typical RBC-fest that you get with Barbarossa scenarios. There are a few things on my mind before I start the scenario up:

1) I see that the units are mainly companies, and these are set to indivisible. This results in a lot of pieces on the map from the outset. I appreciate it's a big theatre and there's a lot of ground to cover, but it seems to make it more difficult to play than if we had battalions that we could sub-divide. Interested to know your thoughts here.
2) I notice that 4th Army HQ is by far the largest unit in the scenario, and this heavily skews the numbers displayed on the counters in the scenario. This might seem trivial but it makes it hard to know whether the 1-1 I'm handling is worthless or something I might just be able to hold a hex with; removing the unit would segment these two units into a 1-1 or a 2-3. If I were to play the scenario I would nerf this unit one way or another as these 120 support squads really add nothing to the scenario.

I also had a question about air units but I see you answered that in the briefing, much appreciated. I also learned thanks to "Infantry MG" that you can relabel the unit icons.

[rhinobones]

1) I see that the units are mainly companies . . .
2) I notice that 4th Army HQ is by far the largest unit in the scenario . . .

Operation Munchen is one of the few scenarios I’ve made which has a historical baseline. Even so, there are quite a few historical deviations made in order to make the game variable, challenging and interesting enough to play more than once.

#1, sounds like you are looking at v01. It became quickly apparent that company level formations resulted in excessive maneuver units. v02 recombined the Romanian infantry and artillery companies into their respective battalions which greatly reduced unit count and made the scenario much more playable. Supporting units remained as companies.
The Russian side, which is intended to be PO controlled, maneuver units remain deployed as companies. This seems to give the PO more ability to defend an area and concentrate for assaults. The computer doesn’t seem to mind pushing all those units around. Russian artillery companies were recombined into battalions. This enables Russian to concentrate their fire and reduces the number of minor/ineffective company artillery attacks.

#2, the 4th HQ does have a large number of support units bumping up the Attack and Defend calculations. Other than increasing static supply levels, I’m not sure what my logic was for their quantity. However, recombining the Romanian companies seems to have lessened the HQ’s impact. If there ever is a v03 I’ll evaluate their existence.

A copy of v02:

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... f#p5202389


Appreciate the input. Regards, RhinoBones

[golden delicious]

A copy of v02:

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... f#p5202389

Fantastic. When I searched for the scenario a v01 turned up and it didn't occur to me to keep looking for v02. You're right that the switch to battalions removes the problem with 4th Army HQ as it's no longer the largest unit in the scenario.

I do unfortunately have a (minor) issue with v02; when I open a unit I see some erroneous 2d equipment icons;

Munchen graphics error.jpg (24.19 KiB) Viewed 1261 times

The source of these icons is the file Equipment256.png; removing or renaming this file restores the default icons which hurt my brain a good deal less. I'm not sure what happened to this file to fill it with unit counter icons but it looks like an error.

[rhinobones]

The source of these icons is the file Equipment256.png; removing or renaming this file restores the default icons which hurt my brain a good deal less. I'm not sure what happened to this file to fill it with unit counter icons but it looks like an error.

Within the v02 scenario zip is a custom Equipment256.png file. It does not appear to be properly installed in the Graphics Overdrive folder.

Regards

Edit. Maybe you are still using the v01 Graphics Overdrive files. v01 did not contain the custom Equipment 256 file. Critical that we preserve the brain.

Equipment256.zip

(64.44 KiB) Downloaded 23 times

3rd Corps Artillery.JPG (69.53 KiB) Viewed 1254 times

[golden delicious]

Within the v02 scenario zip is a custom Equipment256.png file. It does not appear to be properly installed in the Graphics Overdrive folder.

Regards

Edit. Maybe you are still using the v01 Graphics Overdrive files. v01 did not contain the custom Equipment 256 file. Critical that we preserve the brain.

Equipment256.zip

3rd Corps Artillery.JPG

I suspect that what happened is that the game was picking up the old equipment file, which wouldn't have the reference IDs for the correct 2D equipment icons, so returned the wrong parts of the new image.

[golden delicious]

OK I actually started the scenario. One more comment, there seem to be a very large number of units which will only have a marginal impact in their nominal roles and might be tidied up to prevent them being used as auxiliary infantry:
Transport units (not supply units, so have no local effect)
MP units (there is very little motor transport, I would omit these entirely)
AA units (there are no Soviet air units, could roll this into HQs or AT)
HQs (every division has 4-5 HQs, which feels excessive for the number of actual combat units)
Rail Repair units (Rumanian rail damage is zero so this will only matter if the Soviets retake a hex)

Edit: sorry, one more;

Munchen Infantry Gun error.png (140.02 KiB) Viewed 1170 times

I noticed that the support units in the German infantry regiments had a range of 7, which seems like a lot. I checked and the culprit is the 150mm Gun, which I'm sure in the regimental infantry gun companies would have been 15cm sIG 33 with a range of 4.7km (150mm Light Gun in vanilla TOAW with a range of 5km or 3 hexes).

[golden delicious]

I started a special AAR of Munchen here:
https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=418689

[rhinobones]

OK I actually started the scenario. One more comment, there seem to be a very large number of units which will only have a marginal impact in their nominal roles and might be tidied up to prevent them being used as auxiliary infantry:
Transport units (not supply units, so have no local effect)
MP units (there is very little motor transport, I would omit these entirely)
AA units (there are no Soviet air units, could roll this into HQs or AT)
HQs (every division has 4-5 HQs, which feels excessive for the number of actual combat units)
Rail Repair units (Rumanian rail damage is zero so this will only matter if the Soviets retake a hex)
I noticed that the support units in the German infantry regiments had a range of 7, which seems like a lot. I checked and the culprit is the 150mm Gun, which I'm sure in the regimental infantry gun companies would have been 15cm sIG 33 with a range of 4.7km (150mm Light Gun in vanilla TOAW with a range of 5km or 3 hexes).

I can see that a v03 is rapidly becoming a reality. The Pindus scenario is based on the same unit/formation design and probably would benefit from the same analysis. Below are some brief replies to your suggestions:

Transport units are actually supply units (secondary icon). Romania has a few at division level, Russia has quite a few supply units to give the PO an edge. As a scenario with a short time frame, I prefer not to make supply an issue.
Regimental level HQs were more important before Romanian companies were consolidated into battalions. Since they also have supply functions, I hesitate to delete them and only have divisional HQs.
AA and MP units are present to maintain fidelity with actual TO&Es (Niehorster). I use MP/AA units to secure rear areas and AA units to support assaults. Doubt that I’ll fold them into the HQs as I like to keep support units visible.
The 150mm Gun does have a long reach for a weapon intended for the direct fire mission. Will be replaced with the 150mm Howitzer, range 3.

I won’t be making any changes until after you finish your AAR.

Best Regards, RhinoBones

[golden delicious]

Transport units are actually supply units (secondary icon). Romania has a few at division level, Russia has quite a few supply units to give the PO an edge. As a scenario with a short time frame, I prefer not to make supply an issue.
Regimental level HQs were more important before Romanian companies were consolidated into battalions. Since they also have supply functions, I hesitate to delete them and only have divisional HQs.

I would eliminate the Artillery Brigade HQs

AA and MP units are present to maintain fidelity with actual TO&Es (Niehorster). I use MP/AA units to secure rear areas and AA units to support assaults.

The MP units are particularly bad, as these are semi-motorised and even have armoured cars assigned, which makes them quite good as light cavalry for scouting ahead and exploring flanks.

[golden delicious]

OK, I noticed that both sides have 100% force supply, and formation supply levels seem to be 100% as well. I know you said you didn't want supply to be an issue but, well, supply is an issue. I assume this is an oversight but it does suggest the scenario hasn't been playtested much.

I'll edit this down for my current playthrough if I take it any further.

[rhinobones]

OK, I noticed that both sides have 100% force supply, and formation supply levels seem to be 100% as well. I know you said you didn't want supply to be an issue but, well, supply is an issue. I assume this is an oversight but it does suggest the scenario hasn't been playtested much.

Incorrect assumptions. Supply is intentionally set at a high level so that players can enjoy solving the military issue, not the logistics. Making units bleed red and yellow indications will not, in my opinion, make the scenario any more enjoyable.

Regards


Edit: The comment seems to imply that a unit receives 100 supply when force/formation supply is set to 100%. Not true. The unit receives the supply value shown in the supply bubble and modified as required for the presence of a friendly HQ. If the supply bubble value is X, the unit receives X supply. Simple as that. Force supply levels can easily be changed using events and/or initial force supply settings.
When force/formation supply levels are other than 100%, supply absorbed by the unit becomes X modified by force supply setting then modified by formation supply setting. X can be calculated, but I doubt that players actually take the time to determine the degraded level of supply. I don’t see the value in confusing the supply issue, much easier and more informative to just look at the supply bubble and know that is the supply is received.

Russian Supply.JPG (320.52 KiB) Viewed 591 times

[golden delicious]

Incorrect assumptions. Supply is intentionally set at a high level so that players can enjoy solving the military issue, not the logistics. Making units bleed red and yellow indications will not, in my opinion, make the scenario any more enjoyable.

Regards

Edit: The comment seems to imply that a unit receives 100 supply when force/formation supply is set to 100%. Not true. The unit receives the supply value shown in the supply bubble and modified as required for the presence of a friendly HQ. If the supply bubble value is X, the unit receives X supply. Simple as that. Force supply levels can easily be changed using events and/or initial force supply settings.
When force/formation supply levels are other than 100%, supply absorbed by the unit becomes X modified by force supply setting then modified by formation supply setting. X can be calculated, but I doubt that players actually take the time to determine the degraded level of supply. I don’t see the value in confusing the supply issue, much easier and more informative to just look at the supply bubble and know that is the supply is received.

I think the net effect of your settings actually make managing logistics vastly more important. A higher effective supply level means it make much more of a difference to fight near the rail line; units engaged in heavy combat will mostly fight at low supply whether they get 1 or 10% effective supply, but if they're getting 50% then they will find themselves at or close to full supply every turn. Under typical circumstances, an operational pause where units are pulled back to resupply isn't normally worth the loss in tempo of operations, but here the speed at which units will reach 100% supply is so fast (likely 2 turns) that it's going to be very rewarding for players to move units back and forth from the rail line during the scenario. You've also added a lot of supply units and HQs to the scenario, each of which is then a decision for the player to make every turn as to where the best location for these units would be. This would seem to be the opposite of your stated design intention of de-emphasising logistics.

This is also a strongly pro-Soviet design decision, since the Soviets start on low supply, which in a more typical scenario would remain low for the whole match. With these settings, the Soviets would do well to pull back everything to the rail line for about 2 turns, avoiding combat until supply has rebuilt. Assuming readiness recovery is limited, unit morale (used as a multiplier of effective strength) will increase from 55+55+40+40 = 190 to 55 + 55 + 60 + 100 = 270, so Soviet units will be almost 50% more effective as a result. This must be unbalancing, giving further suggestion that the scenario hasn't been much tested.

If you want to make logistics less important, boost the supply radius, which seems on the low side for a scenario of this scale, while eliminating the supply units and possibly even HQs. This will reduce the difference in effective supply for different locations on the map, reduce the number of supply-related decisions a player will have to make and so make logistics less of an issue. However, I think that attempting to separate military matters from logistics is ahistorical and not likely to lead to plausible (and therefore satisfying) outcome.

[rhinobones]

I think that attempting to separate military matters from logistics is ahistorical and not likely to lead to plausible (and therefore satisfying) outcome.

You’ve provided a number of recommendations, of which several I will surely incorporate, however this obsession with supply goes beyond my stated goals. This is not a McBride quality simulation and we certainly have different opinions on what constitutes a satisfying outcome, so it is probably best that you’ve abandoned the scenario. No sense in taking the abstract nature of TOAW supply and making it more abstract.

However, I am disappointed that you terminated the game prior to experiencing the features I find most important. I was delighted that you used the scenario as a test vehicle for developing your game engine but since it does not have a working PO you missed variables built into the Russian PO. You missed the Russian opponent randomly using one of the five objective tracks, you missed random deployment of Russian formations and you missed assignment of primary Romanian objectives. Maybe if you had used TOAW IV as the scenario intended your reaction might have been a bit different.

You are correct that the scenario was never subject to a formal time consuming test program. It has been played numerous times to verify Russian PO programing and a number of comments/suggestions received from players. Comments were generally concerned with game mechanics, PO random events and strategy. No comments were received concerning supply, supply distribution or logistics.

Regards