Matrix Games Forums

One big issue too is the Game engine reinforcement and SFT types; any new SFT types will have to be written into the program if they want to see any reinforcement [8|]

I did some extended playtesting yesterday with disasterous results. Cards reinforce with the wrong units, high command uses enemy units for reinforcements and build up a bunch of luftwaffe staff...[:@]

I have re-edited the SFTs back to their original sequence and will have to re-think the inclusion of any new unit types!

Vic replied to a few questions and confirmed what I suspected, that the order of units in the SFT types is critical to their use by the engine in reinforcments and such. It is a big issue that is forcing me to rethink my work to this point. I really need someone who has experience in the editing of events and rulevars to help out here or we are pretty much limited to vanilla with a new dress...

After extensive editing and testing of graphic overlays and not being happy with the results, (due to shrowd overlay) and to recreate the tactical use of German Panzer Bn, I have decided to show the Panzer Bn as separate counters in the division (for Panzer Divs that have more than 1 Bn) with the III regimental symbol on top but as I, II and III (if needed) battalion symbol on the side.

Currently the Soviet player enjoys an a-historical edge in tactical flexibility over the German player as the German has to employ a smaller number of huge regimental-sized tank units.

Allowing Tank Bn for the German player gives the flexibility currently missing and allows historic use of the Panzer bn as separate units (as was the case historically) The Infantry/Artillery do not get Bn status as they were usually employed as regiments.

The panzer Bns can still be stacked together as a regiment and moved with the 'g' group move for those cautious commanders who want their uber stacks.

As a German player, you will gain the ability to drive into the rear and create havoc with the smaller Bns but still face the same issues that the historic commanders faced when their smaller precious panzers Bns got cut off.

As to the Panzer Grenadiers, I am seeing the issue with the tracked/motor/foot cropping up in playtesting quite a bit when included in the Panzer Bns... Your idea of a Panzergrenadier SFT type (using the SFT slot for 251 to avoid any issues with the game engine!) is a good work around if we want them included in the Panzer Bn but if left in the Infantry regiments, the issue resolves itself.

Troy

I agree that modeling all recon/fusilier bns would be burdensome and not practical. I was thinking of having recon bns only for mobile formations such as Pz and Mot. That coupled with the breakup of Pz rgts into bns could provide the flexibility needed.

Not sure if it feasible, but it would be great if we could increase movement capability (by decreasing AP costs) for elements (FST subtypes?) within the recon bns

Are not the recon units represented already by the 'recon value' of a hex?

Troy

So, let me get this straight ...

You're saying that, for example, if I create a completely new sftype at the end of the sftype list and point its reinforcement type to the appropriate type, it won't work?

For example, say I have created (as I have) an sftype in slot 126, 105mm LeFH 18(m), which is the actual 105mm Howitzer used by most Divisional Artillery Regiments in real life (or closer than the one in slot 4, actually the 105mm K18 sFH and have set the Reinforcement Type to Medium Artillery[/i, it won't work? That, somehow, artillery reinforcements won't flow to it correctly?

That seems ... counterintuitive ... and makes the Reinforcement Type button selection ... pointless [X(][:(][&:]

Phil

ORIGINAL: Ritterkrieg
Are not the recon units represented already by the 'recon value' of a hex?

I don't know, I just like the idea of having an additional unit to use in a retreat blocking role. They would be fragile so, you would want to keep their retreat % low.

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

So, let me get this straight ...

You're saying that, for example, if I create a completely new sftype at the end of the sftype list and point its reinforcement type to the appropriate type, it won't work?

For example, say I have created (as I have) an sftype in slot 126, 105mm LeFH 18(m), which is the actual 105mm Howitzer used by most Divisional Artillery Regiments in real life (or closer than the one in slot 4, actually the 105mm K18 sFH and have set the Reinforcement Type to Medium Artillery[/i, it won't work? That, somehow, artillery reinforcements won't flow to it correctly?

That seems ... counterintuitive ... and makes the Reinforcement Type button selection ... pointless [X(][:(][&:]

Phil

No, those should be ok. As I stated, the order of units in the SFT types is critical to their use by cards and the engine in reinforcments and such. So dont move them from the original place unless editing the reinforcement scheduale and cards and probably some other stuff too!

Troy

OK. Just played several turns against myself, only combat in the Crimea, against Sevastopol, with some German and some Russian units set to "Priority" replacement ... and all seemed fine.

So, as you say, if you don't move them from their original slot, or if you add them at the end of the sftype list, all seems well.

I changed slot #4s name from the original, incorrect, one, and that seems to have no effect, either.

So, I am guessing what you may have done was to change the sftypes in existing slots *radically* ... say, changing Trucks to Panzer Vs or some such [X(]

What I have done seems OK, then <sighs with relief>

If we give each Panzer Division, those that had multiple Panzer Battalions, multiple Panzer Battalions in game, then, operationally, you really should have a separate Panzergrenadier Battalion with the Infantry mounted in Halftracks (and using my Panzergrenadier sftype, a combo of halftrack and infantry) for the Panzer and PanzerGrenadier divisions ... at the very least, on the same logic.

Unfortunately, on the same logic, I tend to agree with High Krausen, and think that all Divisions should, therefore, have separate Recon Battalions.

But I'd suggest we gp for two variants, as HK suggests, one with Panzer Regiments (including Panzergrenadiers) as a single Regiment, and the other with separate Panzer and PanzerGrenadier Battalions ... that should keep everyone happy(ish).

Note: I have German non-Panzer Divisions of types on map at start modded (but may need to go over them again), as well as all Romanian and Hungarian Divisions and will start on Italian Divisions sometime later today. Then I will have to have a serious look at the TO&E of non-divisional units and things like Luftwaffe units, Ersatz and Emergency units etc. for modding and, way at the end, mod the Corps and Army level units and organisations.

Getting there, slowly [;)]

Phil

ORIGINAL: High Krausen

ORIGINAL: Ritterkrieg
Are not the recon units represented already by the 'recon value' of a hex?

I don't know, I just like the idea of having an additional unit to use in a retreat blocking role. They would be fragile so, you would want to keep their retreat % low.

The only units in game that have any percentage chance of converting a Kill result to a Retreat seem to be Halftracks, Trains, Submarines and ... Staff ... which is crazy ... unless units transported by Halftracks are also subject to their Retreat to Kill conversion, which I doubt.

Staff should NOT have any such advantage for any reason that I can see.

Note: The Motorcycle Recon and Panzergrenadier sftypes I have added *do* have a Kill to Retreat chance, the same as for Halftracks ... I haven't deleted the Staff ability yet, but am seriously considering it ... I am of two minds as to whether to give it to the SdKfz 222 and Csaba Armoured Cars as, even though they were used for recon, they are both specifically mentioned as having short legs (very short range), which needs to be modelled somehow.

Phil

An armoured car only needs to be able to scuttle a couple of clicks in order to survive as a recon unit, so not giving the 222 etc. the retreat option would seem a bit odd to me.

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

An armoured car only needs to be able to scuttle a couple of clicks in order to survive as a recon unit, so not giving the 222 etc. the retreat option would seem a bit odd to me.

But these are basically armoured light trucks ... 4x4, but not much range and not great Xcountry mobility ... not like the 8Rad ones the Germans used later in the war ... still, I take your point, and I can change it easily enough.

Phil

How is this coming along?