Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger)

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard
Larry,

Little Problem: what I'm getting from your DL's is a text file, with no opertunity to change by deleting the txt superscribtion, eh?

It will be gobbly gook until you treat it like a binary file. It's a binary file, not a text file. You gotta change the extension on the file name or else try to read it into TOAW with the original file name but search for all the ".txt" files instead of ".sal" files.

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard
By the way, you might want to keep up on the GSforum run, eh? Mark has replyed to a question of mine, and reffered to Roger's 'Finland' problem as well.... http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread. ... ost1337404

Oh. Good catch. Thanks.

Here's the WP moves during turn 5:

[larryfulkerson]

Here's the WP losses so far:

[1_Lzard]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
It will be gobbly gook until you treat it like a binary file. It's a binary file, not a text file. You gotta change the extension on the file name or else try to read it into TOAW with the original file name but search for all the ".txt" files instead of ".sal" files.

Unfortunatly, the suker comes as a text file, no way to DL it, just there to look at, eh?

No real problem, shouldn't be loading your thread with nonsence anyway, LOL!

[:D]
[:D]

[toawfan]

Many things to be upset about. Even though the indicator showed I had more than half of my turns left when I clicked the battle button, my turn ended, not allowing me to position for defense and reset air assignments. If the defender is able to set something on ignore losses that forces my turn to burn when I've carefully managed my battle planner to avoid a turn burn, this is not fun, fair or right with the way the game decides this.

I have nothing left for a counter-punch. I've lost 33 percent of all infantry and more than 50 percent of all tanks and aircraft in just five turns.

The game is so staggeringly unbalanced in favor of Russia or I am not even close to being a worthy opponent, and I'm sure it's the latter.

Berlin should fall within another turn or two and I will have to surrender. I have lost all reinforcements for this turn with the loss of Poland. Italy is very much in jeopardy. There appears to be no way to rebound.

I will be curious to see what happens with this scenario when we switch sides. I've worked very, very hard to learn all of the complexities of the game; read everything on the forums; read the manual twice; asked many questions; got lots of great help from Larry. I'm hoping it's an imbalance with this particular scenario because the investment of effort won't be very rewarding otherwise.

[toawfan]

Some of the results seem so unbalanced. In one battle in eastern Europe, where I was dug in so securely that it was fortified, all 448 of my assault squad died in an attack from 800 assault units. They lost 4 men. I lost all 448. Artillery and air were not the wild cards deciding this either.

[Odenathus]

I do think that Larry is an exceptionally experienced and careful player, and it'll be interesting - if you do think it's worthwhile - seeing what happens if you do have time to switch sides. In my initial playtests with Bob we found that the Russians could be stopped too easily, too soon, so I extended the latter's air and land shock bonuses: maybe too much.

I see what you mean about the losses, but is the VP schedule actually showing a decisive Russian victory, or are you just anticipating what happens if and when he captures Berlin, and worse?

Or if only one of you feels like another crack at it I'd be happy to play either of you, either side. I don't micro-manage attacks, etc, just tend to get stuck in on the basis of the raw numbers and hope for the best.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
I do think that Larry is an exceptionally experienced and careful player....

Why, thank you very much. You're too kind by half.

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
In my initial playtests with Bob we found that the Russians could be stopped too easily, too soon, so I extended the latter's air and land shock bonuses: maybe too much.

Yes, I think maybe it's unbalanced with the Russians having all the fun.

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
I see what you mean about the losses, but is the VP schedule actually showing a decisive Russian victory, or are you just anticipating what happens if and when he captures Berlin, and worse?

I believe it said marginal draw the last time I saw the who-won meter.

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
Or if only one of you feels like another crack at it I'd be happy to play either of you, either side.

I'd be happy to entertain you in a game. I'd much rather see a game between you and Roger. Both alternatives are acceptable with me however, I'll send you my first move if you'd like. Or you can send me your first turn, either way is good.

[toawfan]

Larry and I are going to switch sides and see what happens. You're right that the official score was a draw, but it is does not feel like a fun experience for the NATO side. It's more like run and hide, look for places to pick off a few of his units, and have attrition 2x higher than his.

Another thing that I noticed, Mark, is that he has far more infantry assigned and even gets a higher rate of reinforcements. My losses were 2 to 1 in infantry; it seemed impossible to ever win the war of attrition in a defensive battle like this; his push into Poland is so obviously unbalanced that you're going to lose all of those reinforcements as NATO very early in the game.

It will be very interesting to see how things go with the switch in sides and me taking Russia. We'll post the AARs in this same spot so we can compare.

[toawfan]

Thanks for the offer, Mark. I'd love to play you. But making our moves each day is taking all the spare time I've got with Larry.

[larryfulkerson]

I sent you my turn 1 moves Mark dude. 12-09-2010 at 10:23 am Tucson AZ time.

[Odenathus]

Eeek! Can't load it, are you using the beta 3.4? I never upgraded, assuming that there would be a host of bugs to be ironed out?

Also, I've posted two corrected version on Games Squad, covering the bugs you've discovered so far.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
Also, I've posted two corrected version on Games Squad, covering the bugs you've discovered so far.

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
I'll go and get them.

The only postings of the scenario's is toward the start of your thread and that's where I got the version Roger and I are playing with already. So I guess I've already got the latest? Where did you post the newest versions if that's not it?

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
You want me to do my turn 1 moves over again using the new version of the scenario?

I can do my moves over again. It's no problemo at all.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Odenathus

Eeek! Can't load it, are you using the beta 3.4? I never upgraded, assuming that there would be a host of bugs to be ironed out?

Also, I've posted two corrected version on Games Squad, covering the bugs you've discovered so far.

Any change in unit colours..?

[larryfulkerson]

So Roger is Warsaw Pact now and I'm the NATO dude. Just compiling all the losses took longer than I ever thought a scenario would ever take me. Mark must have gone through the entire equipment inventory and sought out all those things any of NATO's allies might possibly have and made a HUGE list of equipment for NATO. I imagine the WP side has the same problem. This game is a monster.....it's going to take a while to formulate a proper response to Roger's thrust. Meanwhile here's the losses so far ( start of NATO turn 1 )

[larryfulkerson]

Here's the front lines so far:

[larryfulkerson]

And another thing.......here we have an example of mixing apples and oranges. I don't dare place this aircraft unit on AS missions because all the A-10's will get shot down. This unit is only good for CS missions. I would rather the scenario designers separate out those pieces of equipment that aren't good for certain jobs so that they don't get asked to do impossible tasks.

[larryfulkerson]

Hey Mark quick question:

[larryfulkerson]

Here's my turn 1 round 1 moves. I'll probably adjust in a minor way for style points but this is the framework of my front lines now:

[Odenathus]

It's not so much that he can't go shopping in his chopper, more that he can't take his battery of self propelled 155mms, his missile defence installation, and his 150 trucks with him. In the scale of this scenario, the brigade HQs for the airmobile units are integral to them. The larger, ground based HQs represent larger collections of assets, or significant units that aren't allocated out at brigade level.

But you're right about mixing those A-10s and Falcons: doesn't really work.

[1_Lzard]

"Also, I've posted two corrected version on Games Squad, covering the bugs you've discovered so far. " (Mark Stevens)

Where, Mark? Not seein' 'em in the 'scenarios' folder......