Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Zort

My question is how many repair units did you have in one hex? Does more then one help with repair the line as you have set? If not then you really don't have 30 units but just 6 or 7 on the main lines of advance, so this could be a real handicap to the germans. Will be interesting to see the results of your next game.
[/quote]


I was using one unit per hex, if more than one has an effect is something I will have to try to monitor in my next game. So to try to clarify, I have 10 'rail movement' only rail repair units, I deleted 20 of the original 'bautrupps' and raised the auto-repair in the editor to 34 (based on the original number of 32-35 probable repairs each turn). Now the 10 units I have cannot actually repair a rail themselves, as they cannot move onto the broken line, but as we discussed earlier, by moving these units to a players 'priority' areas, the auto-repair would repair lines nearest these first (I think), but this is not guaranteed. In my COW Barbarossa experiment with this it worked well, I kept the initial auto-repair low to reflect the Germans difficulty in rail transport, and in the editor increased it in August and again in September so things got better.

ORIGINAL: LLv34_Snefens

We hadn't discussed other than all german units would be able to get the AT- squads, so it's 100% a bug. Looking back it's easy to figure out what have happend.
The editor is a dangerous equipment, so if a unit has 24 types of equipment and you add an extra it simply deletes the type at the bottom. At some point in one of the version we must have added new equipment to the PzG regs without checking if we had reached the limit and the Hvy Rifle AT- "fell off the table" so to speak.

It's a pity, and it means that late in the game the PzG regs will suffer a slow withering death. There still remains 27780 slots in the units (regular Inf regs)that DO have the AT- squads. With an replacement rate of 308/turn starting at turn 265, theoretical the Germans can run out of free slots on turn 355. But that's if they don't take any casualties at all. In practise it's not gonna matter that much.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess this kind of problem is bound to happen in a scenario of this magnitude.

The AT squads should definitely be added though. I've personally allowed 60 squads (0 assigned of course) in place of the 2x37mm AT guns. This doesn't change the unit initial stats.

Hey guys a question. Karri and I have been discussing reducing the cease fire in FITE to just a couple of turns. But to recreate the mud situation we are thinking of reducing supply to a very low number (15 maybe) and increase pestilance.

What effect has anyone seen with an increase in pestilance? Is it something we should do?

ORIGINAL: Zort

Hey guys a question. Karri and I have been discussing reducing the cease fire in FITE to just a couple of turns. But to recreate the mud situation we are thinking of reducing supply to a very low number (15 maybe) and increase pestilance.

What effect has anyone seen with an increase in pestilance? Is it something we should do?

No experience with pestilence level in a scenario, but it affects personel more than vehicles. Don't know if this is desired.

I think you should also lower the force supply radii for the mud season.

ORIGINAL: Zort

Hey guys a question. Karri and I have been discussing reducing the cease fire in FITE to just a couple of turns. But to recreate the mud situation we are thinking of reducing supply to a very low number (15 maybe) and increase pestilance.

What effect has anyone seen with an increase in pestilance? Is it something we should do?

I have no experience with pestilence either, and I hope I never do.

I'm thinking the effect of lowering overall supply might not be desired. Because of the mud the line troops experienced severe supply problems but the supplies being generated and delivered to the railheads were not affected. The strategy of both sides was planned around these mud periods, and the delivery of the railhead 'stocks' after the mud was the priority, determining when offensive operations would resume. So I think lowering and then raising wouldn't be as accurate as Telumar's suggestion of decreasing the supply radius. Still, I like the cease fires, without them I would never get any sleep.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

ORIGINAL: Zort

Hey guys a question. Karri and I have been discussing reducing the cease fire in FITE to just a couple of turns. But to recreate the mud situation we are thinking of reducing supply to a very low number (15 maybe) and increase pestilance.

What effect has anyone seen with an increase in pestilance? Is it something we should do?

I have no experience with pestilence either, and I hope I never do.

I'm thinking the effect of lowering overall supply might not be desired. Because of the mud the line troops experienced severe supply problems but the supplies being generated and delivered to the railheads were not affected. The strategy of both sides was planned around these mud periods, and the delivery of the railhead 'stocks' after the mud was the priority, determining when offensive operations would resume. So I think lowering and then raising wouldn't be as accurate as Telumar's suggestion of decreasing the supply radius. Still, I like the cease fires, without them I would never get any sleep.

Agree with sPzAbt653. Where there is rail there should be supply, dropping the supply radius would much more reflect the difficulties of motorized (and horse drawn) movement across muddy roads than simply lowering the supply level.

I think that's a good idea. The problem with ceasefire is, that while it represents the unability to fight, it still allows both sides to move at will behind the frontlines. And with 7 turns(or is it 8?) long mud period, you can reorganise the entire front....I'm pretty sure it's not ment to represent that.

IIRC the ceasefires are there because TOAW doesn't give a good enough weather model for mud aren't they?  Ie there's only relatively minor effects on movement from the existing "mud" weather options.
 
So until this is fixed anything is going to be a bit of a compromise.
 
However shorter supply distances are at least logical.  Possibly lowered rail allowances too, to at least slow down deployments - yes rail would not be as badly affected, but there's still troop assembly, loading and unloading areas that would be!

Historically Soviets destroyed as much as they could when retreating. So I was thinking, if the Soviet player withdraws much faster, ie. abandons everything and builds a line in Mother Russia, perhaps the Germans could receive
1)supply increase
2)extra RR unit
3)increase in replacements
4)extra units?

Personally I would choose supply increase. This would represent the fact that the railroads would be in better condition, depots etc. Soviets retreating faster would mean they can't destroy as much.

Perhaps assume that more industry gets captured - increase replacment rates by (some small)% for each of:
 
Kiev captured before T12
Kharkov captured before...
Minsk...
Riga....
Odessa....

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Perhaps assume that more industry gets captured - increase replacment rates by (some small)% for each of:
Kiev captured before T12
Kharkov captured before...
Minsk...
Riga....
Odessa....

Good idea but since personnel is tied to production then you will increase people too. I like the idea of giving the Germans some incentive in the Ukraine. Similar to DNO in one respect. Take all the cities/towns in the Urk, give them values and give the Germans points for capturing them. If the total points within a certain period of time equal a range of X, then the Germans get something. I am thinking of either a bunch of personnel via units to be disbanded or Urk units over the course of the game. Now I just have to figure out if this can work and how to do it.

Another idea is to take more % from the Sovs if the cities fall before the historical times (except for kiev and smolensk, I would reverse their dates). Again not sure if this can be done with the current event editor.

I don't think the Germans should get anything special for Minsk. Kiev and Smolensk are a wash since their captured dates are usually reversed compared to what really happened. That leaves the production cities in the south.

ORIGINAL: Zort


Another idea is to take more % from the Sovs if the cities fall before the historical times (except for kiev and smolensk, I would reverse their dates). Again not sure if this can be done with the current event editor.

Let's try this, using Zaporozhe (historical capture on turn 17) as an example:
In the editor currently event 98 = Soviets -5%, triggered by event 97 (the capture of Zaporozhe).

1. Add a turn activated event for turn 1, canceling event 98 (this makes the -5% event inactive).
2. Add an event #x the same as event 98 but make it Soviet -10% (or whatever you think will gain the desired effect).
3. Add a turn activated event for turn 18, 'cancel event' #x (as the Germans haven't captured Zaporozhe by this time, they get no -10% to the Soviet).
4. Add another turn activated event for turn 18, 'enable event' 98 (restoring the original -5%)

I know I don't have to say it, but these must be added after the last existing events, or babies will start flying from your ears.

Four events for each instance, how many cities do you want to do this for?

There are 16 cities that were captured that are scenario production cities. Not sure how many, will have to discuss this. This is a good way of doing this, thanks.

Wouldn't it be simpler jsut to put in 1 event with a 5% loss that is cancelled on T18?
 
However there's also major structural problems with the production system - mainly in that not all soviet cities had major armament plants.  Eg AFAIK there were 4 (FOUR) cities with tank factories - Kharkov, Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad.  Taking any other sity should have zero effect on tank production.  Kharkov's factories were successfuly evacuated to "the Urals", and Stalingrad's destroyed in the fighting.  The others remained intact.
 
There were simlarly limited production facilities for aircraft, artillery and trucks/tractors.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
However there's also major structural problems with the production system - mainly in that not all soviet cities had major armament plants.  Eg AFAIK there were 4 (FOUR) cities with tank factories - Kharkov, Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad.  Taking any other sity should have zero effect on tank production.  Kharkov's factories were successfuly evacuated to "the Urals", and Stalingrad's destroyed in the fighting.  The others remained intact.

There were simlarly limited production facilities for aircraft, artillery and trucks/tractors.

What would be nice if the game engine allowed for separating different types of equipment and personnel. Then for the large scenarios like this one where production matters more the game designers would have another tool. But for now it works.

Yes, a future wish certainly. I would assume that making a proper event engine would make the game much better than some tweaks on AI or something else.

Anyways, personally with how TOAW currently is, I would give the germans extra supply until the Soviet Winter Counter-Offensive.

Btw. Regarding the auto-repair. It seems to concentrate first on the hex the Railroad Repair units are in. Ie. if there are 20 unrepaired hexes, autorepair is 10 and 10 RR units are in 10 of those unrepaired hexes, the hexes where the RR units are get repaired.

Where can I get the latest mod at?

ORIGINAL: will5869
Where can I get the latest mod at?

I've got a version 5.0 that may be the latest version. I'm not sure. Zort ( Buzz ) is working on another version I'm sure. But I'd be glad to send you a copy of the one I have. Just gimme an email at larryfulkerson2002 (at) yahoo (dot) com and I'll attach the files and send them on their way. There's the scenario file and then there's the equipment file that goes with it. Both of them are too big to post here. Well, I guess I could zip up the equipment file and rename it as a *.txt file and post it here but it'd not be of much use without the scenario to go with it.

Thanks. sent you an e-mail