Matrix Games Forums

Goodday Sirs,

I have 2 questions to present to this forum.

1. I am currently starting a game of D21 and have already divided the German divisions into regiments. What I am wondering about is: should I the same with the forces of the axis partners (Hungary, Rumania, Italy Finland, Slovakia). The division of Finnish divisions into regiments I can justify for myself: they had already tangled with the Red Army,and they gave as good as they got during the war. But of the rest of the satellite troops I'm not so sure. I just don't think they had the training, equipment, doctrine and tactical flexibility to be used as regimental sized units. What is your take on this???

2. The Umphteenth request for a copy of Drang Nach Osten.[;)] I'm just a sucker for these monster scenario's, although I never seem to finish them.
Sigh... so many scenario's, so little time, I feel like a kid in a candy store[8|]. Anyway, Whoever can get me this scenario will earn
my undying gratitude[&o]

Thanks in advance, happy gaming, and... Never Surrender!

Concerning 2; http://www.si-games.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14865  fifth post from above. The forum is in German though, but very much recommended.

why would you want to divide all german units into regiments? It migh tbe useful for some, but you decrease their proficiency.

From the manual:
Sub-units will have only about 80% of the parent unit’s profi- ciency. If you recombine your units, the newly recombined par-ent unit will have 125% of the average subunit’s proficiency.
This means that the act of dividing a unit and recombining it will result in no permanent loss of the unit’s Proficiency.

Here is a copy of DNO (for ACOW I think), enjoy!

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1180829/DNO.zip

Well, first of all, it's my understanding that it this was originally the intent of the designers: that the divisions would be split up into their respective regiments. However, because of work overload, they didn't get around to do it. I'm pretty sure iv'e read this somewhere, too bad I can't remember where.

Furthermore, what I loose in proficiency, I expect to win in tactical flexibility: plugging gaps in the front line, closing pockects without having to resort to stop-gap measures, being able to use the classical divisional triangle, etc...

Furthermore, thanks for the link: you're the third one already to help me out with it , and that in about two houres time.
Great forum, great people, what's not to like?[:)]

Well, first of all, it's my understanding that it this was originally the intent of the designers: that the divisions would be split up into their respective regiments. However, because of work overload, they didn't get around to do it. I'm pretty sure iv'e read this somewhere, too bad I can't remember where.

This is not true at all. Don't know where you got that idea, I've never seen anything like this.

The truth is that managing three regiments for each division is uneccessary and greatly increases the time it takes to play a turn. Therefore, it seemed reasonable to combine them at start and then the player has the option to break a division down if it is deemed advantageous to do so. The proficiency hit is regretable but is not a game killer. Additionally, Elmer's behaviour was modified in TOAW 3.4 so that it is now not neccessary to keep a solid line of units, one unit every other hex is sufficient in most cases.

The Minor Allied units are generally more fragile than the German units. The Finns are pretty good on their own (and have also been combined for TOAW 3.5, D21 v3, when that becomes available). The player must decide if they want to overstretch their force in order to gain more territory, at the expense of risking Elmer having a successful counteroffensive in November or December.