Page 19 of 31
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 9:50 pm
by sPzAbt653
Please do send me the save file if you don't mind. I can take a look and see what is going on.
Going back two years to a FitE game, this screen shot shows that with the original Partisan and Security Unit configuration, Soviet units would pop up in the rear areas. While I didn't mind spending the time using the security units to round up the partisans, I didn't see where it was historical at all to have to round up entire Soviet armies that were popping up in areas that were converted/conquered. That was the reasoning behind making the changes that were made.
Sorry about the Wilderness terrain, but it is designed specifically to be painful.

RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:07 am
by fogger
have there been any updates since Larry's post of 28 march? Has anybody played the game by PBEM?
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:30 pm
by sPzAbt653
The 3-28 file was the last change to the 'easy' version, and currently we are working on 'phase 2', which is to make the scenario a little more difficult. Basically, in 3-28, the Soviet side was set to keep coming at you, with little regard for defensive positions. This 'phase 2' change gives Elmer defensive considerations. It should be ready soon.
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:43 pm
by fogger
Thanks for the update. On the second question has anybody played the game as a PBEM? I am just curious.
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:06 am
by sPzAbt653
Well, it is a solitaire scenario. I haven't heard of anybody trying Pbem, but I don't know why they would. There is an excellent Pbem scenario - 'Fire in the East' [:D]
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:06 am
by fogger
I know what you are saying. It is that I have seen many comments on the size of FITE it is just that the other day I noticed that Directive 21 could be PBEM. As there not as many units ie 1558 vs 1787 I was just wondering if anybody had given it a go. As I said, I was just curious. By the way I think what has been done to date is great [&o][&o] and I look for 'phase 2" and "3" etc.[:D]
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:08 pm
by TPOO
The Order of Battle for Directive 21 shows less units on the Axis side because the infantry regiments are combined into divisions. In its current status Directive 21 cannot be played PBEM because of the way certain formations are set to activate.
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:58 pm
by BigDuke66
Will we see the new version before or after the next patch?
Patch should change alot so maybe making use of those changes for the next version would be better.
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:33 am
by sPzAbt653
The latest version is ready and we will be posting it in a few days. I don't know when the patch might be but if it's later than sooner, then we can have this version tested out before the patch.
New Version of Directive 21
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:07 am
by larryfulkerson
Hey you guys...Steve sent me the newest version of Directive 21 and I uploaded it to a file server so you guys can download it from there. You can get the newest version here:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?0nzzjzkygli
I'm going to start my game over and use the newest version and I'll post an AAR about what I find.
RE: New Version of Directive 21
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:10 pm
by sPzAbt653
Thanks Mr. Fulkerson!
The .dll and some graphics were changed along with the map, so make sure you put the files from the 'in graphics' folder contained in the .zip into the corresponding graphics folder for the scenario.
RE: New Version of Directive 21
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:39 pm
by BigDuke66
I don't think I saw something in the text files so I have to ask, are there any recommendations what advanced options I should set or what AI strength I should choose?
BTW ever thought about making a DOC/DOCX or PDF file with some pics and stuff like that for more atmosphere?
I can still remember the excellent DOC file from DMcB for his "BERLIN: Götterdämmerung im Osten" scenario, with 69 pages very extensive but nonetheless a joy to read them all.
RE: New Version of Directive 21
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:53 pm
by sPzAbt653
... a DOC/DOCX or PDF file with some pics and stuff ...
Did think about it, but instead got permission to modify the original. They put a lot of great work into that one, and I didn't see any reason to do a complete new one.
Here's the settings I use, so I guess I would recommend these:

RE: New Version of Directive 21
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:04 pm
by BigDuke66
Thanks.
BTW should the OOB(more precise the sequence of units in it) of Germany depict their structur at the beginning of Barbarossa or was it changed to incorporate later changes?
RE: New Version of Directive 21
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:34 pm
by cesteman
Thanks, I'll take a look.
RE: New Version of Directive 21
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:22 pm
by BigDuke66
Oh and is there a reason why some German units have their arrival turns set to 500? I mean that's outside of the scenario, should it maybe be event 500?
RE: New Version of Directive 21
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:31 pm
by sPzAbt653
Later changes to the oob are included, is there anything in particular that you were looking for ?
Some units have an entry of turn 500 to keep them from entering the scenario. An example are the Soviet Tank Corps. Each of them contain three separate Tank Brigades, which are easily knocked about by the human player. In some cases two or three of the brigades enter at the same time, so we combined them (seemed like an obvious thing to be done). The uncombined units were left in the oob just in case. Eventually these units will be removed from the oob, but for now they are left in for referance.
RE: New Version of Directive 21
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:32 pm
by BigDuke66
OK thanks.
Well I looked thru the OOB I have here for the 22.6.41 for the Wehrmacht and was comparing it to the sequence that the scenario gives me and it seems to follows it quite close.
That’s why I asked whether the scenario follows the official OOB for the 22.6.41 strictly or if later changes are already part of it.
The AGN made me thoughtful because:
AGN
+18th Army
++23rd Inf Korps(Reserve corps of the AGN)
+++206th Inf Div
+++251st Inf Div
+++254th Inf Div
+++207th Sich Div(For AGN)
+++281st Sich Div(For AGN)
+++285th Sich Div(For AGN)
+++253rd Inf Div(Reserve Div of the 16th Army)
++16th Army
+++2nd Inf Korps
etc.
I thought it maybe should looke more like this:
AGN
+++207th Sich Div
+++281st Sich Div
+++285th Sich Div
++23rd Inf Korps(Reserve corps of the AGN)
+++206th Inf Div
+++251st Inf Div
+++254th Inf Div
+18th Army
...and further down the list
+16th Army
+++253rd Inf Div(Reserve Div of the 16th Army)
++2nd Inf Korps
etc.
Altogether more closely to the 22.6.41 OOB and more structured.
But if this isn't intended then forget about it.
RE: New Version of Directive 21
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:16 pm
by sPzAbt653
But if this isn't intended then forget about it.
Thanks for looking into it, but the order in which units are listed in the oob isn't intended to be anything.
RE: New Version of Directive 21
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:10 pm
by BigDuke66
OK.
It's stated in the readme that captured equipment is "converted into standard German equipment".
Are there maybe details about what is converted into what?
I just looked at the Panther production numbers that are around 6000, with the 2/3 assigned to the east front we would see 4000 there but the scenario provides a bit more then 6900 for Germany, even when considering captured equipment this seems to be a lot.
BTW any intention of adding more events?
I would like to see a major production drop in early 45 for Germany, many production figures show this for tanks, planes and other equipment.
It could be triggerd by the Russian advances because if it runs bad in the east it would for sure not look better in the west same counts opposite so if it runs good in the east it would also run good in the west I guess.