Unlimited Pz divisions?

[Don Shafer]

Is this just showing up in the 42 scenario, does anyone know?

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mist:
Ed, I partialy agree with your "draconian" suggestion. The only thing that I can not agree is disability to entrench for weak armies. There were workers and civilians building fortifications around Leningrad and Moscow and other cities.

Define "weak armies"? Remember, my rule requires just one division in a corps to allow entrenchment.

Yes there were civilians, but how many? Anyone got numbers on this? For example, how many Leningrad civilians worked on the defenses and how many combat personnel were in Leningrad at this time? Doesn't the combat units end up doing most of the work even with civilian help?

Besides this certainly doesn't apply to non-city hexes as there aren't enough available workers to help. Since cities already have a fortification bonus, I don't see this as a major problem. We could, if its possible for Arnaud, apply this rule only in non-city hexes as a compromise. If a compromise isn't possible though, I'd still vote for this rule, even in cities.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Don Shafer:
I need to go back and test this, since we had eliminated the possibility of these things happenning. I would go even farther in a draconian measure, go back to not being able to create empty shells at all.

I don't remember these things ever being stopped. In 3.002 you can still create a panzer korps and immediately transfer an infantry division into it, and in the next turn it can plot 5 moves. Existing panzer korps can do the same thing.

For one thing, I don't think you can close all the loopholes at the moment of corps transfer or creation, to many possibilities. You can simplify this dramatically just by having one test, at the time of plot movement, for the presense of an infantry type division in the corps. If an infantry type is in the corps, just erase its last 3 plots, leaving only the first 2 plots. With this the player won't bother doing this anymore since there is no longer an advantage.

I've never tried that single battalion in Leningrad trick before, I may have to add that to my arsenal. Thanks for the tip, Ed.

NO!!! NO!!! NO!!!! You sound like Lorenzo on this, thinking of this as a tactic or strategy. Please chant with me:

"Exploit! Exploit!, Die! Die! Die!"
"Exploit! Exploit!, Die! Die! Die!"

[Don Shafer]

Oh yeah, we had this all hashed out last winter, since one of the loopholes was that players could create all kinds of panzer units and run around like crazy behind the lines. So we had decided to make it so any panzer/tank army had to consist of at least one armored division. We also had locked down the ability for air supply to increase the supply level of the hex at that time. My confusion is what happened to that fix? I haven't tested for it in along time, since we had squashed that roach. I had specifically tested for it during RickyB's and my test game when we discovered the rail conversion issues for the German blitzkreig and at that time, you could not create an empty shell or create a panzer army without transferring in at least one armored division.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



NO!!! NO!!! NO!!!! You sound like Lorenzo on this, thinking of this as a tactic or strategy. Please chant with me:

"Exploit! Exploit!, Die! Die! Die!"
"Exploit! Exploit!, Die! Die! Die!"

Sorry, Ed. You're protestations have fallen on deaf ears. Especially when we're talking about a name of a unit. How many German divisions in late 44/early 45 were created that truly were of division strength? I can name myself an Army but I doubt I could last long against a platoon. Especially against a platoon of large breasted women of Nordic descent.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Don Shafer:
Sorry, Ed. You're protestations have fallen on deaf ears. Especially when we're talking about a name of a unit. How many German divisions in late 44/early 45 were created that truly were of division strength?

I'll take an understrength division any day over an artillery battalion, but alas, WIR could care care less of the differences.

I sincerely hope Gary takes a fresh look at the idea of a "unit" on the map being a container composed of units picked by the player. The WIRIII features list mentions "division size manuever elements" and independent battalions so the same problem might end up existing in WIRIII.

Especially against a platoon of large breasted women of Nordic descent.

To me, losing here sounds like just as much fun as winning.

[Don Shafer]

I would surrender so fast, it would make the Iraqis in Desert Storm look like the defenders of the Alamo.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



To me, losing here sounds like just as much fun as winning.

[Don Shafer]

I would surrender so fast, it would make the Iraqis in Desert Storm look like the defenders of the Alamo.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



To me, losing here sounds like just as much fun as winning.

[Lorenzo from Spain]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



You sound like Lorenzo on this, thinking of this as a tactic or strategy. Please chant with me:

"Exploit! Exploit!, Die! Die! Die!"

Hey! May be my English it́s no so good as I wish, but I hate bugs and exploits. I think it́s clear: at the first article, I said “may be bugs” and I proposed how correct them.
I think nobody likes exploits. We´re arguing how correct them. And too, what is a “realistic” tactic or what is “unrealistic” exploit.
And even more, if somebody (not me) likes exploits, I´m really sure nobody likes loose because a “may be exploit”. And I´ve lost this game, so...

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:

Hey! May be my English it?s no so good as I wish, but I hate bugs and exploits.

Sorry, maybe I should have given the name of one of those who argued a German panzer korps going on indefinitely behind enemy lines receiving only air supply, was a valid tactic and not an exploit.

And too, what is a “realistic” tactic or what is “unrealistic” exploit.

An exploit, by definition, is unrealistic, since your using a weakness or bug in the game to achieve something that otherwise is not possible, either in the "fixed" game, i.e. without the exploit, or in Real Life(tm). Tactics can be both realistic and unrealistic. Sending an infantry division behind enemy lines on a suicide mission is a valid tactic. It could happen, but its an unrealistic tactic, given that in Real Life(tm) no one except maybe the Japanese of WWII would sacrifice an entire division like that, unless the payoff is huge.

[Don Shafer]

I'll take credit for that, but you've misrepresented the point I was trying to make, again.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



An exploit, by definition, is unrealistic, since your using a weakness or bug in the game to achieve something that otherwise is not possible, either in the "fixed" game, i.e. without the exploit, or in Real Life(tm). Tactics can be both realistic and unrealistic. Sending an infantry division behind enemy lines on a suicide mission is a valid tactic. It could happen, but its an unrealistic tactic, given that in Real Life(tm) no one except maybe the Japanese of WWII would sacrifice an entire division like that, unless the payoff is huge.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Don Shafer:
I'll take credit for that, but you've misrepresented the point I was trying to make, again.

Then help me out here and correct me, because I don't know what you're referring to here. Are you mixing up two different threads? This one started with you jokingly saying you would add the battalion-in-a-corps for entrenchment purposes to your book of tricks, and I joked about such an exploit needing to be killed.