FITE 2

[Zovs]

Does evil Ed work on w10? Where can I down load again?

[VHauser]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It's the anchorage tile that does it.

Ah. I don't suppose there's an easy way to make the river act like a river while there is an anchorage located there?

Just one more reason to have hexside rivers.

[cathar1244]

Currently working on a 2.5km Barbarossa scenario.

Lobster ... that is a massive map. Wow.

Cheers

[sPzAbt653]

Currently working on a 2.5km Barbarossa scenario.

Excellent. Put all your theories to practice there and let others do what they want. We must have about 20 East Front scenarios and probably 10 Barbarossa's, they all don't have to be Jack's take.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Currently working on a 2.5km Barbarossa scenario.

Excellent. Put all your theories to practice there and let others do what they want. We must have about 20 East Front scenarios and probably 10 Barbarossa's, they all don't have to be Jack's take.

They ask for input. I gave it. What's your point?

[sPzAbt653]

Nobody asked you anything, you showed up and started telling them that things are wrong and according to you how they should be done. This is not your scenario, let them design it as they want. Even after they tell you why things are as they are you continue to berate them. Meanwhile, you have no design credits and you don't play the scenario, therefore your opinion carries no weight.

Hope your wife gets well soon

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Nobody asked you anything, you showed up and started telling them that things are wrong and according to you how they should be done. This is not your scenario, let them design it as they want. Even after they tell you why things are as they are you continue to berate them. Meanwhile, you have no design credits and you don't play the scenario, therefore your opinion carries no weight.

Hope your wife gets well soon

Well if giving historic examples to back me is berating...lmao. I guess I could have just said 'because'. But I choose to back up what I say with history. And nobody asked anyone who has commented in this thread anything. And yes, some things are wrong. Some are bugged. And yes I made suggestions and backed them with history. And no it's not my scenario no anyone's scenario who has commented in this thread. The engineers who design most of the stuff you use in life get no credits but know exactly how things work. What's your point? And how do you know what I do? I'm playing two games of FitE2 and I've also looked at it turn by turn for all of 1941. You talk about things that you have no knowledge of. So, stop 'berating' me for things you know absolutely nothing about.

Thanks about the wife. She appreciates it. [;)]

[gliz2]

Sorry laddie but you got it wrong. On 21 Jun 1941 there were 355 operational Ju-52/3m (plus over 100 in reserve) organized in 9 KGr. They could easily transport over 6.000 paras. IT was Hitler's (one of many) stupid decision that prevented the larger scale paradrops.

[gliz2]

This obsessive and absurd historical bollocks. Perfect excuse for not doing more work

Seriously the very moment a player moves a chit the historical events go to hell. And you are illogical in your approach. You give player options on offensive chits or to play without partisants - which is completely unrealistic.

Take a simply thing: Hitler declaring war on USA. IT did happened only because of circumstances. What if the Germans have captured Moskau in November? What would be the point of Hitler pressuring on Japanese? Maybe the Japanese would postpone their attack? But you stick to the background story like a drowning man to a razor. IT makes no sense. This all should be random. I know it is almost an impossible task. I'm just pointing the obvious. Historical DOES NOT EQUAL as it did happen. It means as it might have happened. Big difference.

I love the scenario - keep up the good work.

[sPzAbt653]

I'm playing two games of FitE2 and I've also looked at it turn by turn for all of 1941. You talk about things that you have no knowledge of.

Well if you are, then hoorah and since you are so experienced in scenario design you can easily change it to the way you want it, so why bother the scenario designer's ? If you think there is a mistake or an oversight then sure, state it. But to go on and on about how they have to do it your way is ridiculous.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I'm playing two games of FitE2 and I've also looked at it turn by turn for all of 1941. You talk about things that you have no knowledge of.

Well if you are, then hoorah and since you are so experienced in scenario design you can easily change it to the way you want it, so why bother the scenario designer's ? If you think there is a mistake or an oversight then sure, state it. But to go on and on about how they have to do it your way is ridiculous.

Never said anyone had to do anything. People are free to do as they please. For instance this thread. BTW, partisans can be represented by an event and you don't even need to have partisan units. By 1944 almost 60% of Belarus was controlled by partisans. Kind of makes you wonder what Germany conquered. Partisan forces had a huge effect on the East Front. They fairly controlled Odessa after the Soviets left.

This:
The new version will see a nerfed Soviet side, still trying to balance it, but is quite close now.

I was merely suggesting a way to make that happen. Keeping the security divisions which had some historical basis. Somehow it was misunderstood. By fairly everyone. How could so many miss that? [:D]

And this:
By all means keep the questions coming. Improvement is a team effort
Thanks
Have a nice day
Regards
The Doc (aka Søren)


Again, I've never said anyone had to do anything. Someone said the security divisions didn't go away. I pointed out that they did. Someone said the Soviets had to be nerfed. I suggested keeping the security divisions. It's a great scenario. Never said it wasn't. I never claimed to be superior to anyone. I'm not troubled by arrogance. See enough of that in this forum as it is.

I simply state history and how keeping some of the German units that are removed is a way the scenario might be balanced while not making it ahistorical. Simply an observation.

Now if you want to rag on and on go ahead it's a free forum. But nothing I've said is derogatory, disrespectful or without merit.

[BigDuke66]

I guess the designers would make a statement if they are tired of someones feedback.
I don't see a reason to suppress someone voicing his opinion here, doesn't matter if the designers follow it right away or not as the first reason for feedback is to start a discussion, that is why stuff gets posted here and not simply send to the designers by PM or mail. That discussion leads hopefully to a conclusion and that conclusion is something the designers can consider or ignore, but this point of decision has to be reached first and that doesn't go without a discussion.

[gliz2]

Just wanted to add last thing.

In order to get historical results one would have to include the crucial factors:
1. Hitler's and Stalin's impact on command (not retreating possible, constant changes of objectives etc.).
2. Randomize as much as possible events. So maybe no Land-Lease which actually was the thing that saved Soviets in 1942/43. Maybe Finland not joining Axis.
3. Randomize logistics. That the things went as they did was related to the circumstances. The further you go down the road the less sense it have to have historically actual units. It can be any generic unit being deployed at a generic event.
Example: player have option to specify what type of unit should be priority for the given year.
A. Focus on infantry units (less tank divisions, more SPGs and artillery)
B. Focus on fighters (increased fighters production but less bombers and less artillery and supporting vehicles for infantry)
C. Focus on mechanized units (less divisions in general but more mechanized)
D. Focus on tank units (less mechanized units but much more tanks)

I have discovered that if Soviet player is obliged to attack the Germans as historically the Soviets were than the German player can achieve historical results and the whole "balancing" is not needed. But otherwise the Soviet player possessing the historical knowledge can quite easily hold off the Germans in 1941-42 and go on a full offensive as early as 1943.

[sPzAbt653]

I guess the designers would make a statement if they are tired of someones feedback.

They did - in post #69 On that note lets close the discussion on the "lets play without partisans" event

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I guess the designers would make a statement if they are tired of someones feedback.

They did - in post #69 On that note lets close the discussion on the "lets play without partisans" event

This was never about the let's play partisans event. This was about doing something to change the strength of the Soviets...er, Germans. To better balance the scenario. Such as not removing some units. If you would bother to read you would see in post 60 I suggested leaving in the Sich divisions to better balance the scenario. Everyone else mentioned partisans. If I mentioned them it was only in response to other off subject posts such as when the scenario designer said the Sich divisions did not get removed. I simply showed that they did indeed get removed, when and why.

See that avatar. It's fairly descriptive of what is happening here.

This is a great scenario. I like to ask questions about how it might deviate from history to know how or why things are changed or seem to be changed. The scenario designer is very gracious in answering everyone's questions. Never felt otherwise.

[Lobster]

Does anyone know what effect factories have? I can find nothing in the short briefing other than move them here or there but not why move them. [:(]

[sPzAbt653]

Oh lord here he goes again, off on another lecture as to how a scenario should be designed in his eyes.

Again, stop trying to justify your opinions and go design your own scenario.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Oh lord here he goes again, off on another lecture as to how a scenario should be designed in his eyes.

Again, stop trying to justify your opinions and go design your own scenario.

Do you understand what a bully is?

I asked a simple and honest question.

This forum would be better off if you just left me alone and stopped badgering me and bullying me no matter what the subject.

[Lobster]

No, really. It's my turn 4 and I need to know if I need to use my rail capacity to move factories or if I can leave them. I just need to know what purpose they serve. There's nothing about them in the briefing that came with TOAW.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
No, really. It's my turn 4 and I need to know if I need to use my rail capacity to move factories or if I can leave them. I just need to know what purpose they serve. There's nothing about them in the briefing that came with TOAW.

I was playing Patrick as the FITE2 Soviet player for a while so I feel your pain. I'm not sure what they [ the factories ] DO for the scenario and I'm aware of the lack of information reguarding them in the FITE2 documentation and as a result I decided to adopt the principle of "least damage" and just move the MF's east out to the Urals as I have enough leftover rail cap to do so. Some of them, I discovered, cannot move and I'm hoping there's an event that releases them for movement or something behind the scenes that somehow allows for their movement. Kiev comes to mind. I'm going to post a question for the scenario designers about the factories to back you up and hopefully get somebody on the FITE2 team to say something about them. It's not an unimportant detail, something to be left hanging out there in space-time without an answer. Somebody must know.

Be aware that I've decided that the latest varient of the home rules for FITE2 has ruined the scenario for me. The rule that INT missions are out for the length of the game. Imposing this rule on the Axis player cripples the strength and capabilities of the Axis air force to an unrealistic extent. Especially in the early war years. I can't see me playing such an "unrealistic" scenario given the number of competing East Front theme scenarios. The latest version of FITE, and the latest version of D21 come to mind. FITE2 is on the verge of being TOO BIG TO PLAY for the ordinary wargammer, including me. I'm not sure I'm going to live long enough to PBEM it to the end of the scenario. I'm watching fogger and his opponent, whose name escapes me just now, only just now arriving at the end-game stage and they started that game a long time before the latest TOAW release. Their AAR was transfered from the development board to the public board shortly after the release of the latest version of TOAW had already happened. It's been going on for approx. a year now I'm guessing. But I ramble.