Matrix Games Forums

yep, I agree...

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I like to have some artillery back from the front getting green. When others get red they can be rotated.

Yes, this is another cheesy reason I don't like those damned divisional -- oops, I almost forgot. I promised not to complain about this.

I'd like to join the fray, too.
 
morganb AT uhcl DOT edu
 
How's it goin' Larry?  Good to see the AAR's again.

... another cheesy reason I don't like those damned divisional ...

I was referring to artillery units. The HQ units are different. They stay up at the front, adjacent to their attached units, providing bonuses and combat support, as intended.

SPZABT653 do you have any problem with testers taking this on H2H? Thanks.

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan
I'd like to join the fray, too.
morganb AT uhcl DOT edu
How's it goin' Larry?  Good to see the AAR's again.

Hey BJ.....I sent it to you....did you get it yet? thanks for the kind words. I'll try to do a better job on the AAR's from now on. LOL

ORIGINAL: cesteman

SPZABT653 do you have any problem with testers taking this on H2H? Thanks.

I'm not a doctor or physician, but I would suggest that taking this on anything other than beer and nicotine could be harmful.

Hey sPzAbt653:

I've been giving your scenario to whoever asks for it. Is that a problemo? I can stop immediately if it is. And, while we're talking about your scenario.....how does a person tell which version of the scenario he/she has? I mean if the playtesting reveals something that needs adjustment and a new(er) version is produced how can a person tell from looking at the scenario which a person has ( to know whether or not to download / procure the newer scenario )?

I guess I'm suggesting some kind of versioning verbage in the scenario description or something.

Hey Mr. Fulkerson,

You have free distribution rights, no worries. We don't have different versions. We have only made some minor adjustments that do not affect play. The playtesting is to prove that we don't need any major adjustments. Once the playtest is done, then we will post a 'final' version (subject to revision!).

And, I'll take this opportunity to thank all those investing their time in this.

If possible, would someone be so kind as to forward a copy of the latest version to me? I'd be interested in giving it a whirl! 

Cheers!

Talk to SPZABT, he's in Charge.

Hey you guys....I sent out the version I have ( which is the one Steve Sill sent to me to playtest without any changes ) to so many guys I decided to upload it on a server so you can just retrieve it yourselves without any intermediary.  Steve says it's okay to do this.  You can find 28MAR09 Directive 21.zip at this url:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?3dyy5tjrg1y

enjoy.

EDITed to insert the latest version information instead of the old one.

EDIT: deleted this message since it's no longer relevent.

Just finished turn one. So far so good (I suppose).
 
Only one issue so far - Soviet units in the Finland/Romania regions seem keen on attacking, and thereby activating the whole fronts. Is there any way to prevent them from doing this?
 
The AI is a lot more aggressive (true to history), but I am wondering how this will play out in the long run. Will it be focussed on attacking, or will it recognise dangerous situations and retreat (a la Russian reaction to Case Blue)?

Soviet units in the Finland/Romania regions seem keen on attacking, and thereby activating the whole fronts.

We certainly made the effort to prevent this happening. However, even though Elmer is 'programmed', he doesn't always do the same thing. Feel free to send me the .sal file and I can take a look to see who the offending units are and what can be done.

Edit - The scenario should not be started in 'hotseat' mode, as the Soviet formation orders will not hold.

...will it recognise dangerous situations and retreat...

Yes. Elmer may not react as some human players would react in situations, but we all react differently at times, too. One thing we are looking for during the playtest period are situations that the players question. For example, several players noted that Elmer doesn't defend Minsk. We can adjust things so that Minsk is now defended. I won't claim that all possiblilties will be (or should be) covered.

Thanks OTZ.

We are interested in some stats if any of you can take a minute to post them here or e-mail them to me. We are looking for three things: current turn #, current Axis Heavy Rifle Squads 'lost', and current Axis Heavy Rifle Squads 'on hand'.

Thanks,
Steve

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
We are interested in some stats if any of you can take a minute to post them here or e-mail them to me. We are looking for three things: current turn #, current Axis Heavy Rifle Squads 'lost', and current Axis Heavy Rifle Squads 'on hand'.

Since I'm playing FITE as well as playtesting the D21 scenario I did a comparison of the losses between the two and thought you guys might find it interesting to see the results:

Larry,
 
This is due to the fact that Directive 21 has set the Attrition Divider = 6. 
 
I've been concerned that the AD=6 was going to make Directive 21 too bloody.
 
 

ORIGINAL: vahauser
I've been concerned that the AD=6 was going to make Directive 21 too bloody.

I'm concerned too. I am only on turn 9 and already find that I've run out of on-hand HRS's and the strength of the land combat units of my Axis army is decreasing since I've run out of HRS's. And I emphasize that I'm only on turn 9 of 400+ turns. Clearly something may be amiss. Thoughts?

I'm see that as well and I'm only on turn 7! Not good.