Page 2 of 3

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:25 am
by DanNeely
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
ORIGINAL: karonagames
This games is a continuation of the T46 that Larry pulished in his AAR so 70 turns have been played.
But you were complaining about lack of repairs in a game that you were up to turn 112. Why would you give us this one instead of the one that you complained about ?

He did. The save shared was from T115; so 3 more turns of minimal progress between the initial complaint and the save posting.

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:44 pm
by sPzAbt653
Ah, I misunderstood, I thought he was giving us a different game from a turn 70 !

Ok then, lets take a look at the file - below is the mini-map with each of the square black boxes centered on a Bautroop unit. Each represents a single unit. In no location is there more than one Bautroop. Can anybody see the issue that is the cause of the lack of rail repairs in this situation ?

Image

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:49 pm
by larryfulkerson
Can anybody see the issue that is the cause of the lack of rail repairs in this situation ?
I'm guessing that it takes more than a single RR engr unit to repair rail. So that it might make sense to have
just three routes with up to four RR engr units in each group.

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:52 pm
by sPzAbt653
WINNER !!

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:58 pm
by sPzAbt653
Trying to be like Hitler and doing everything at once sometimes doesn't work out too well [;)]
Focusing Bautroops in ONE AREA will greatly increase the chance that repairs will be made in that area. Spreading them all over means that you will have a very small chance of repairs all over.

Thanks for posting the save file karonagames. By way of compensation for your efforts I will give you some advice that you might want to try out. Keep your Axis units intact and defend every other hex [don't split them up in order to arrange a continuous front line]. Its a bit scary, so maybe try it in a quite first and see what you think.

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:47 am
by Teemu1986
Hi, what happens if I disband units which will be later withdrawed? Do I get an unfair advantage? Or will the equipment of withdrawn units be added to the replacement pool?

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:18 am
by sPzAbt653
It depends on the specific unit.

Some units are designed to be disbanded so that their equipment does show up in the replacement pool. Also, when some units are 'withdrawn' they are actually disbanded by the game engine.

Units that are disbanded and that are set to reconstitute will have their equipment deposited into the Replacement Pool, but then they will draw on that same equipment in order to reconstitute. [In this case it doesn't make much sense to disband such units].

Units that are disbanded and that are set to NOT reconstitute will have their equipment deposited into the Replacement Pool, and that equipment is then available for other units to draw on. [In this case it may make sense to disband such units. For example, it your Rumanian units are low on replacements, disbanding a few of their units will add to their replacements. Minors don't reconstitute, right ?].

Oh, and yes, if you are generally disbanding units that withdraw, you are considered to be a dick [;)]

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:23 am
by Teemu1986
In this scenario units withdraw by events. For example, I lose the 7th Flieger division in Dec 1941. So what happens if I disband such a parachute regiment beforehand?

EDIT: Heh, so I get that you are not supposed to disband any units that withdraw?

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:26 pm
by Teemu1986
Does anybody else think the 2% winter pestilence for the Axis is a little high? Here is data about Wehrmacht casualties on the Ostfront in 1941-1942. 195k men lost in Aug 41, 87k in Jan 41.

https://www.dokst.de/main/sites/default ... ermans.pdf

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:04 pm
by TPOO
ORIGINAL: Teemu1986

Does anybody else think the 2% winter pestilence for the Axis is a little high? Here is data about Wehrmacht casualties on the Ostfront in 1941-1942. 195k men lost in Aug 41, 87k in Jan 41.

https://www.dokst.de/main/sites/default ... ermans.pdf
Casualties figures are lower in those months because most of the front became more static/defensive after initial Soviet offensive. However, it has been lowered to 1 for when the next version is uploaded. Thank you.

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:16 am
by Cfant
Keep in mind, that in Jan '42 (I guess you mean 1942 ;)) the Wehrmacht had already somehow adjusted to the russian winter. It was mainly Nov, Dez '41 (iirc), that the wehrmacht was "out of order". Even more important: Tanks and planes were unable to be used. The winter stopped the Germans rather then making them bleed.

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:45 am
by DanNeely
Is there any significance to cities like Kazan (247,163) that are in all caps but which don't have a pair of *'s marking them as major industrial cities?

The attached scenario briefing document states that capturing (146,104) and (147,104) will cut all supply to Lenningrad. Both of those hexes are in the northern part of lake Ladoga and nowhere near any of the marked supply routes into the city.

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:39 pm
by TPOO
ORIGINAL: DanNeely

Is there any significance to cities like Kazan (247,163) that are in all caps but which don't have a pair of *'s marking them as major industrial cities?

The attached scenario briefing document states that capturing (146,104) and (147,104) will cut all supply to Lenningrad. Both of those hexes are in the northern part of lake Ladoga and nowhere near any of the marked supply routes into the city.

There is no significance to cities that are in caps.
The hex's are now a typo in the document. Should be 146,115. That hex was correct at one point but the map got extended and the document did not get updated. Will fix and upload the document with the next scenario version update. Thank you for pointing it out.

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:16 pm
by larryfulkerson
@Rick: Thanks for jumping on these problems almost immediately. It IS being noticed.
And thanks for all your hard work to make the scenario more perfect. It's one of the
better ones, I'm sure you've noticed by how many people have downloaded it already.
Anyway, thanks.

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:56 pm
by Teemu1986
Why does the Tiger I have less armor than the Panther, btw?

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:18 pm
by Nicholas Bell
Because the TOAW armor rating is based on the effective thickness of the armor which in the case of the Panther is 80mm glacis at 35% slope. The Tiger's 100mm front armor was essentially vertical.

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:09 pm
by larryfulkerson
I've noticed the hex 161,243 is a flooded marsh and no unit can enter the hex until it freezes and so I can't
repair the bridge and that's really unhandy. Anyway to fix that hex?

Image

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:34 pm
by TPOO
ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

I've noticed the hex 161,243 is a flooded marsh and no unit can enter the hex until it freezes and so I can't
repair the bridge and that's really unhandy. Anyway to fix that hex?

Image

It will be corrected in the next update which is coming soon. Thank you.

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:32 pm
by Teemu1986
The Finnish 3rd Air Regiment has Me-109 (late) planes in 1941.

RE: Directive 21 1941-1945 V4.45

Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:44 am
by Teemu1986
302. Harko has meager 12 210 cm guns but whopping 97 support squads. This composition seems strange to me.