Page 38 of 43

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:48 pm
by elmo3
Just got a notice that my Photobucket bandwidth is running out.  So in case the pics suddenly stop being displayed you'll all know why.

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:52 pm
by freeboy
you can directly load pc to forum at lower res no?

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:55 pm
by elmo3
ORIGINAL: freeboy

you can directly load pc to forum at lower res no?

Probably but I never tried. Always used Photobucket.

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:25 pm
by freeboy
I just direct dump intothe forum, easy..
let me know if you have any ?'s
tell your wife happy Bday!
enjoy the time off
 

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:18 am
by stevekten
ORIGINAL: Smirfy
suggest you read some books on the length of front divsions/korps/armys covered, especially during the 42 offensive in the south. It will suprise you and make these numbers more realistic.

Think you are kinda missing the point sure administrative distances were stretched that did not mean they were optimum especially in the 42 offensive.

Trying to figure what you problem with the ranges are then, you said "If thats the case it seems kinda just a bit much".


RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:46 am
by Smirfy
Trying to figure what you problem with the ranges are then, you said "If thats the case it seems kinda just a bit much".

Well if a Corps HQ is 90 miles away from it parent Army HQ one would imagine it would be less effective relative to a Corps HQ 50 miles distant. Likewise one would imagine a Division would benefit being 20 miles away from a Corps headquarters rather than say 60 miles. If Im understanding things correctly units can be directly attached to higher headquarters and bypass corps command subject to penalty if too many avail themselves. HQ's it seems are not dependant on distance between themselves and a higher HQ to function efficently. I would worry that the devlopers go to the great length of producing a chain of command and OOB and it then becomes subject to exploit (always a pitfall in computer games) or a feature with little impact.

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:26 am
by PyleDriver
Well the big thing that happens by having them in higher command is you dont get any support in combat (over 5 hexs)...It really helps in combat results to have those support units jump in...

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:41 am
by ComradeP
So, basically, the participation of support units attached to HQ's is abstracted in the sense that, as long as HQ's are in range, the support units attached to it support the combat by "moving" to the hex or "moving" within range (as far as the engine is concerned), whilst they actually stay in the HQ hex?

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:45 am
by PyleDriver
Yes, so having those battilions attached to a HQ, the "leaders numbers" (how good he is) add in the die roll to press them into the battle, sweet huh...

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:05 am
by Zovs
HQ's it seems are not dependant on distance between themselves and a higher HQ to function efficently. I would worry that the devlopers go to the great length of producing a chain of command and OOB and it then becomes subject to exploit (always a pitfall in computer games) or a feature with little impact.

This is not true, each HQ has to be in command range of a higher HQ. Generally, divisions & brigades report to Corps HQ and then Corps HQ report to Armies and Armies report to Army Groups and then the Groups report to OKH for the Germans. For the Soviets brigades, divisions and corps report to Corps HQ (early war) or Armies, Armies report to Fronts and Fronts report to Stavka.

Each higher HQ has a command range that increases or decreases as you navigate the food chain. The 5 hex radius to receive sub-support units is for combat only, to assign sub-support units directly this is not the case.

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:12 am
by PyleDriver
Damn I love this game...And were only Alpha...We have alot of smart guys join the bunch...Lee "Elmo" just got in say 6 months ago he loves it, as we all doooooo...This game is to much fun, I've been testing for 21 months, and it was ugly then...lol...

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:28 am
by Northern Star
I've been testing since December 2008 and I love this game too...

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:18 am
by Great_Ajax
Actually, Lee got here in December and we played a couple of Typhoon games PBEM.

Trey
ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Damn I love this game...And were only Alpha...We have alot of smart guys join the bunch...Lee "Elmo" just got in say 6 months ago he loves it, as we all doooooo...This game is to much fun, I've been testing for 21 months, and it was ugly then...lol...

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:20 pm
by Sabre21
ORIGINAL: el hefe

Actually, Lee got here in December and we played a couple of Typhoon games PBEM.

Trey
ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Damn I love this game...And were only Alpha...We have alot of smart guys join the bunch...Lee "Elmo" just got in say 6 months ago he loves it, as we all doooooo...This game is to much fun, I've been testing for 21 months, and it was ugly then...lol...
Yea..I remember your first few pbem's too Trey <snicker> [:'(]

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:54 pm
by Ron
ORIGINAL: Smirfy

Well if a Corps HQ is 90 miles away from it parent Army HQ one would imagine it would be less effective relative to a Corps HQ 50 miles distant. Likewise one would imagine a Division would benefit being 20 miles away from a Corps headquarters rather than say 60 miles.


Apparently you've never been exposed to any bureaucratic organization, military or otherwise, where contrary to perceived logic, the efficiency of any group decreases at an exponential rate the closer it gets to higher command. [:)]

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:11 pm
by elmo3
Losses and OOB through turn 28.&nbsp; Will post the rest of the bad news later after assessing the damage and getting my daughter from pre-school.

Image

Image

Image

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:12 pm
by Sabre21
ORIGINAL: Ron

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

Well if a Corps HQ is 90 miles away from it parent Army HQ one would imagine it would be less effective relative to a Corps HQ 50 miles distant. Likewise one would imagine a Division would benefit being 20 miles away from a Corps headquarters rather than say 60 miles.


Apparently you've never been exposed to any bureaucratic organization, military or otherwise, where contrary to perceived logic, the efficiency of any group decreases at an exponential rate the closer it gets to higher command. [:)]

Very well said and oh how true...lol.

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:27 pm
by Great_Ajax
Good times, Andy. Everything I learned in this game, I learned from you ;) LOL. My favorite time was when I broke your line at Velikye Luki. That was funny!

Trey
ORIGINAL: Sabre21

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Actually, Lee got here in December and we played a couple of Typhoon games PBEM.

Trey
ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Damn I love this game...And were only Alpha...We have alot of smart guys join the bunch...Lee "Elmo" just got in say 6 months ago he loves it, as we all doooooo...This game is to much fun, I've been testing for 21 months, and it was ugly then...lol...
Yea..I remember your first few pbem's too Trey <snicker> [:'(]

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:47 pm
by PyleDriver
Well I thought lee was here 4 months, but hell, throw him a couple of months...lol...Btw Andy the cold really doesnt bother me...Just like the warm better...

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:34 pm
by elmo3
ORIGINAL: Ron

Apparently you've never been exposed to any bureaucratic organization, military or otherwise, where contrary to perceived logic, the efficiency of any group decreases at an exponential rate the closer it gets to higher command. [:)]

I checked on this and just want to clarify the command range situation. There is no HQ to HQ range. All combat units and airbases must be within 5 of their parent HQ for supplies and for getting support units assisting in combat. HQ's do not need to be within 5. This is confirmed with Gary. The ranges:

5 corps
15 Army
45 Army group

are the range that the unit's higher HQ must be within to provide excess support elements from that HQ to assist if there is a shortage of support elements in the unit. As long as they are within range, the excess support flows down the chain of command to the combat units that may need them.