Army group south 42-43' with custom graphics and .eqp file

[l0ww]

Hi, commanders.
I just wanna let you know that I'm making a scenario which is currently called "AGS 42-43'" I think this one would be a something you can call "little monster" [:D]. It also comes with my own modded graphics and .eqp file! It just started from a month ago and doing well. I want to cover "Case Blue" to the "Meinstein's backhand blow" in one scenario. Number of unit would be around 1000 for soviets and 500 for german. Both sides' OOB include various small, but fascinating units for east front fan such as
Axis : Ost Troops, Polizei, Sicherungs, Alarmeinheits(alarm units), and russian or ukrainian Collaborators.
Soviets: military school units, Civilians' garrison units, Armored Trains, Penal Battalions, and Partisans.
The scenario has over 3000 aircrafts for both sides,
and Soviets have Navy such as Black sea fleet and Caspean sea flotilla, and there's a volga river steamliner unit to simulate, dangerous river crossing form east bank of "Mother" Volga to the nightmarish Stalingrad.



Here's short summery of my scenario.
Date: June 28th, 1942 toMarch 14th, 1943 (38 turns).
Scale: 10km / hex.
Turn length: 1week / turn.
Units: most of them are divisions and brigade and regiment support units, but some are battalions.
Map: west = Kiev, East = Astrakhan, North= Tambov, Kursk, South=Baku, Tblisi. Turkey is excluded.
picture is the map, still under brushing up though.

==Victory conditions==

Dnipropetrovsk = Auto victory for the soviets
Baku = Auto victory for the axis
Stalingrad = 20 victory points + 20% of axis automatic victory possibility for each city hex when axis occupies. Stalingrad has 3 hexes, so if axis occupies all of them, there's a 60% of the axis automatic victory possibility.
Tbilisi = 5 VPs + 40% of axis auto victory possibility

Kharkov = 20 victory points
Kursk = 6 VPs
Stalino = 8 VPs
Sevastopol = 8 VPs
Rostov = 8 VPs
Makhachkala = 7 VPs
Voronezh = 6 VPs
Astrakhan = 5 VPs
Grozny = 3 VPs
Batumi = 2 VPs
Novorossisk = 2 VPs

Please feel free to post any questions or suggestions!
Thanks,

[comte]

Looks awesome [:)] when are you planning on releasing this beast?

[l0ww]

Thanks, I think it's gonna be ready on this winter for testing. current situation is: Map = 90%, OOB = 80%, events and .eqp file = ready.
well, it has been little bit hard to get this far, especially making my own .eqp file, which took a whole month before begin to shape this scenario, but that was enjoyable time at the same time.

[Silvanski]

Impressive map 

[l0ww]

Thank you, Silvanski.
I tried so hard to make my map as accurate as other great artists' maps in this forum. Their works are pretty accurate, realistic and beautiful.

here's another snap of the map(crimea) I'm thinking about kerch peninsula.... whether keep it "major river on marsh" or change it to real water [8|]

[Silvanski]

Here's how I re-did the Kerch strait in my personal mod of Directive 21.
I believe there is one part which partially does freeze over in winter

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: l0ww

Thank you, Silvanski.
I tried so hard to make my map as accurate as other great artists' maps in this forum. Their works are pretty accurate, realistic and beautiful.

here's another snap of the map(crimea) I'm thinking about kerch peninsula.... whether keep it "major river on marsh" or change it to real water [8|]

This depends on the effects you wish to achieve. If you really want noone to cross except via the harbours then make it deep water. Major river and flooded marsh terrain freezes at some point and can be easily crossed.

[l0ww]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: l0ww

Thank you, Silvanski.
I tried so hard to make my map as accurate as other great artists' maps in this forum. Their works are pretty accurate, realistic and beautiful.

here's another snap of the map(crimea) I'm thinking about kerch peninsula.... whether keep it "major river on marsh" or change it to real water [8|]

This depends on the effects you wish to achieve. If you really want noone to cross except via the harbours then make it deep water. Major river and flooded marsh terrain freezes at some point and can be easily crossed.

I agree with you. This problem dpends on the effects I want to achieve. Maybe a test playing or two give me a clue, however It's certain that shallow or deep water is more realistic than river like Silvanski does.

[l0ww]

I completed the OOB and objectives for all formations.

here is the set-up map.

[l0ww]

this one is Micro view map.

[l0ww]

Here is close up shot around Rostov.
Yellow ones are Italian, blues are Romanian, and Blacks are SS or Polizei MP Battalions.

[vahauser]

1-week turns at 10km per hex has many potential problems. The game is optimal at 1/2-week turns at 10km per hex.

The Sivash (Sea of Azov) also has many potential problems. It is totally unsuited to naval operations. Shifting sand bars and an average depth of only a few meters. I don't know how to resolve this in terms of TOAW.

[l0ww]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

1-week turns at 10km per hex has many potential problems. The game is optimal at 1/2-week turns at 10km per hex.

oh, really? I've never heard that before. I'm glad to hear about your thoughts on this problem in detail, could you do that for me?

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: l0ww

ORIGINAL: vahauser

1-week turns at 10km per hex has many potential problems. The game is optimal at 1/2-week turns at 10km per hex.

oh, really? I've never heard that before. I'm glad to hear about your thoughts on this problem in detail, could you do that for me?

The main issue is the rate of play. The game is optimized for: 1-day turns at 5km hexes, 1/2-week turns at 15km hexes, 1-week turns at 25km hexes. 10km hexes is one of those in-between scales (in between 1-day and 1/2 week turns). Most existing 10km scenarios use 1/2-week turns, which allows for a fairly rapid rate of play. 1-week turns at 10km hexes results in an extremely rapid rate of play. I'm not saying that this is a terrible thing necessarily, but it is a choice that I would not make without very careful consideration.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

ORIGINAL: l0ww

ORIGINAL: vahauser

1-week turns at 10km per hex has many potential problems. The game is optimal at 1/2-week turns at 10km per hex.

oh, really? I've never heard that before. I'm glad to hear about your thoughts on this problem in detail, could you do that for me?

The main issue is the rate of play. The game is optimized for: 1-day turns at 5km hexes, 1/2-week turns at 15km hexes, 1-week turns at 25km hexes. 10km hexes is one of those in-between scales (in between 1-day and 1/2 week turns). Most existing 10km scenarios use 1/2-week turns, which allows for a fairly rapid rate of play. 1-week turns at 10km hexes results in an extremely rapid rate of play. I'm not saying that this is a terrible thing necessarily, but it is a choice that I would not make without very careful consideration.

It results in - at least my opinion - abnormally high movement rates which leads to a (big) distortion of the IGUGO system. The time continuum problem. I.e. one side's unit can move deep behind enemy lines, complete encircelements within one turn while the enemy sits idle and can do nothing. One of the reasons why i could resist WitE, btw. Native speakers could have explained it more elegant, but i hope you get the point.
The lower the movement rates the less the IGUGO distortion (compared to real life or a more realistic WEGO system). A good example for this is the Road to Moscow TOAW scenario series.

[ogar]

@10ww - Great looking map. Congratulations on what you've achieved so far.

But I got to agree with the others -- the 1 week turns @10km seem a bit out of synch. But that's what playtesting is for, correct ?

I think another thing to consider is overall scope -- you're going from Kursk all the way south to Turkey/Iran border with the USSR. And your duration is 38 weeks.

Telumar mentioned Rob Kunz, and ironically he uses 10km @ 1 day BUT his scope is smaller - the Bryansk pocket in 1941, for one or the Moscow area -- and his duration is 30 - 50 days. I think that makes the combination work.

I do like the 10km focus, but I think half-week turns would work better. OTOH, it is YOUR scenario. Like many others, I am looking forward to this one.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

The main issue is the rate of play. The game is optimized for: 1-day turns at 5km hexes, 1/2-week turns at 15km hexes, 1-week turns at 25km hexes. 10km hexes is one of those in-between scales (in between 1-day and 1/2 week turns). Most existing 10km scenarios use 1/2-week turns, which allows for a fairly rapid rate of play. 1-week turns at 10km hexes results in an extremely rapid rate of play. I'm not saying that this is a terrible thing necessarily, but it is a choice that I would not make without very careful consideration.

It's true that the game is optimized (litterally) for certain hex and turn-interval combinations. Movement allowances only match the nominal rates on those particular combinations. Furthermore, supply recovery, readiness recovery, hex-conversion costs, and combat lethality also are optimized for only certain scale combinations.

Norm discussed this in the help file. See under "Creating Scenarios with the Scenario Editor" -> "General Notes on Scenario Creation" -> "Scenario Time and Map Scales".

However, note that TOAW III now has editor features that allow designers to overcome those issues. See "Force Movement Bias", "Set Attrition Divider", "Set Enemy Hex-Conversion Cost", "Set Supply Costs of Movement Rate", and "Set Readiness Costs of Movement Rate".

So now the only limitation is the designer's preferences. Personally, I'm fond of high MP scenarios for some subjects. Especially with CFNA - I found that relatively high MP rates are necessary to enable players to pull off the flanking manuvers that characterized that campaign. Too low and the defender was always right in front of the offensive manuvers. Now, for very static subjects the opposite might be desired.

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: vahauser
1-week turns at 10km per hex has many potential problems. The game is optimal at 1/2-week turns at 10km per hex.

I fully agree.

[l0ww]

Hi, guys. Thanks for the advise on time scaling issue. I decided to make 10km/half week variant, after I finish up current edition(one week/turn).
Originally, I chose this 10km/one week scale because of playability for the players. I knew many scenarios use half week turn for 10km scale, but if I apply half week turn for my scenario, that means it'll take you 76 turns to finish, if both players failed to archive automatic victory. I can hardly believe that one can play through it. I want as many people as possible play, and FINISH my scenario, though 38-turns scenario with around 1500 counters to deal with is, of course already long and heavy enough for beginners, but you know, TOAW truly shines when you play bigger scenario. this is the good old' balance dilemma between playability vs simulation. Like Curtis Lemay said, we can now adjust various parameters so that it fits into appropriate time and movement rate.
I'm currently doing play tests of one-week/turn edition, with 70% movement bias for both sides in PO vs PO mode and it returns decent results in my point of view, and I plan to test with PO vs human(me) in a month or so.

[l0ww]

here is the GIF animation of testing from turn 1 to 21, just before the soviet winter offensive "Uranus":