Forums

(12-19-2013, 09:48 AM)tazaaron Wrote: [ -> ]It might be a new years present, GF has gotten into legal trouble and i haven't been doin anything.

Aaron

No problem man, we can wait. Take care of your luv...

(12-19-2013, 09:48 AM)tazaaron Wrote: [ -> ]It might be a new years present, GF has gotten into legal trouble and i haven't been doin anything.

Aaron

Yes, RL comes first! Happy Holidays and best wishes for the New Year.

BTW - just curious how the playtest is going of 5.2? I really had only two issues with the proposed changes to 5.2 left and am wondering how they are playing out:

- the terrain values for built-up areas, with the lowered trench values, seem a touch low. Heavy urban areas should take a while to reduce, even for heavy modern artillery. The lower city values seem to make Berlin, in particular, more of a cakewalk than it should be for the Pact

- equalizing the Pact and Nato recovery rates seems to cut against the traditional approach taken by D85 scenario designers to their differing doctrines, namely that the Pact didn't reinforce the ranks of existing units as much as burn them out, then shuffle them out of the front. This may not have been the designers intent, but I also viewed lower Pact recovery rates as reflecting the likelihood, in 1989, that a surprise Pact offensive on Germany would be politically unpopular even in the Soviet Union and would be reflected by high draft dodging which would also affect maintenance and repair units as well as recruits. This political aspect is reflected in 5.2 by the Polish withdrawal system, so I see you are factoring such possibilities into the game. Second, as a game balance issue, I am also wondering if it makes a straight up attrition grind a win-win approach for the Pact. As a Pact player, I often found the best approach was simply to grind up NATO with artillery and WW1 style slow set piece advances - not flashy but there wasn't much of a NATO counter except time + their higher recovery rates. But with equal recovery rates, I see this as perhaps tilting the field too much towards the Pact....

(12-20-2013, 12:44 AM)Elxaime Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2013, 09:48 AM)tazaaron Wrote: [ -> ]It might be a new years present, GF has gotten into legal trouble and i haven't been doin anything.

Aaron

Yes, RL comes first! Happy Holidays and best wishes for the New Year.

BTW - just curious how the playtest is going of 5.2? I really had only two issues with the proposed changes to 5.2 left and am wondering how they are playing out:

- the terrain values for built-up areas, with the lowered trench values, seem a touch low. Heavy urban areas should take a while to reduce, even for heavy modern artillery. The lower city values seem to make Berlin, in particular, more of a cakewalk than it should be for the Pact

- equalizing the Pact and Nato recovery rates seems to cut against the traditional approach taken by D85 scenario designers to their differing doctrines, namely that the Pact didn't reinforce the ranks of existing units as much as burn them out, then shuffle them out of the front. This may not have been the designers intent, but I also viewed lower Pact recovery rates as reflecting the likelihood, in 1989, that a surprise Pact offensive on Germany would be politically unpopular even in the Soviet Union and would be reflected by high draft dodging which would also affect maintenance and repair units as well as recruits. This political aspect is reflected in 5.2 by the Polish withdrawal system, so I see you are factoring such possibilities into the game. Second, as a game balance issue, I am also wondering if it makes a straight up attrition grind a win-win approach for the Pact. As a Pact player, I often found the best approach was simply to grind up NATO with artillery and WW1 style slow set piece advances - not flashy but there wasn't much of a NATO counter except time + their higher recovery rates. But with equal recovery rates, I see this as perhaps tilting the field too much towards the Pact....

WP recovery is back at 1+0 reinforcment and NATO dropped to 2 + their reinforcement rate which is inbetween 1-4 but 4 is reserved for leg infantry usually of the reserve type

**** WG 12.Panzer Division. The division is under US VII Corps command for Stuttgart defense DONE

**** Changed the WP release from turn 2 to turn 1 DONE

**** Lower Austrian troops morale to C and D from B and C. DONE

**** Removed all AT ditches and obstacles from Austria except the ones around the fixed Austrian troops DONE

**** Up AT guns 85mm-21 HA 100mm-24 HA DONE

**** unflagged Dutch, Belgian and Canadian M-109s from being able to use WMDs DONE

**** Flag some ART as low reliability. D-1, M-30,M-46 and 85mm D-44 DONE

**** Panzerlehrbrigade 9 was stationed in the wrong Munster, moved East to correct Munster(Örtze). Shifted a few Dutch Bdes back west because of this DONE

**** Raised all tanks 3 HA and 3 DEF.I then made these adjustments..-3 HA to Leo1a1,a2,a3,a4,T-54/55,T72,T72M,Sk-105,M48a2g2,AMX-30,M60A1,M1..+3 DEF to T-72A, T72M1..+1 HA to T-64A/B DONE

**** Lowered Nato replacment rates around 10-20% depending on unit, recovery rate also lowered from 3 to 2 DONE

**** +6 HA to all ATGM units DONE

**** +18 HA to all Attack Helos DONE

**** Raise DEF on SF/Spets units from 20 to 28 and lower Assault from 18 to 9 DONE

**** Lower digin from 25 to 20 (60 for engineers) DONE

**** West German Heimatschutze HQs will show up 100% of the time now DONE

**** a bunch of assorted new graphics here and there DONE

**** Thanks to the Stasi a realignment of V.CORP GDP locations. DONE

**** Soviet Hind units moved to Army level and strengths adjusted DONE

**** NVA overhaul of the oob DONE thanks to O.W. Dragoner

**** The ACE Mobile force got an overhaul in the OOB and the Jutland strategy for both sides has been redone DONE thanks to Louie

**** Rework of Berlin area including a new strategy for Operation Zentrum DONE

**** Other surprises that im sure ull find DONE

Canadian D 43872 0 ACE Mobile Force
Begin
C. 43969 HQ TRK 250 6 0 1 0 0 25 0 7 1 0 28 0 16 4 ACE MF HQ, AMF HQ
B 98014 4 1st Bn Royal Cdn Rgt
Begin
KG. 98015 INF TRK 175 5 12 1 0 15 1 0 5 1 0 12 21 14 4 A Co/1st Bn RCR, Infantry (BV-206)
KG. 98016 INF TRK 175 5 12 1 0 15 1 0 5 1 0 12 21 14 4 B Co/1st Bn RCR, Infantry (BV-206)
KG. 98017 INF TRK 175 5 12 1 0 15 1 0 5 1 0 18 24 16 4 C Co/1st Bn RCR, Infantry (M113)
KG. 98019 REC TRK 8 5 10 1 0 13 1 0 7 1 0 14 9 17 4 1st Bn RCR Recce, Lynx
KG. 98020 GM TRK 8 5 42 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 14 8 16 1024 1st Bn RCR AT Co, M150-ITOW
End
Belgian B 43895 2 1st Luxembourg Bn
Begin
KG. 43896 INF MOT 138 5 24 1 0 15 1 0 4 1 0 20 18 18 0 Cie A/1st Lux Bn, LUX Infantry (Mot)
KG. 43897 INF MOT 138 5 24 1 0 15 1 0 4 1 0 20 18 18 0 Cie D/1st Lux Bn, LUX Infantry (Mot)
End
American B 7050 2 3-325th Para Bn
Begin
KG. 7051 PAR FT 151 5 18 1 0 15 1 0 6 1 0 20 18 4 8 A Co/3-325 Para, Inf (Abn) 325th
KG. 7052 PAR FT 151 5 18 1 0 15 1 0 6 1 0 20 18 4 8 B Co/3-325 Para, Inf (Abn) 325th
KG. 7053 PAR FT 151 5 18 1 0 15 1 0 6 1 0 20 18 4 8 C Co/3-325 Para, Inf (Abn) 325th
KG. 10500 GM PM 12 5 48 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 12 6 20 1032 325th Para, TOW2 HMMWV (Abn)
End
British B 32675 2 2 RRF
Begin
KG. 32676 INF TRK 175 5 15 1 0 15 1 0 6 1 0 12 18 14 4 A Co/2 RRF, Infantry (BV-206)
KG. 32677 INF TRK 175 5 15 1 0 15 1 0 6 1 0 12 18 14 4 B Co/2 RRF, Infantry (BV-206)
KG. 32678 INF HEL 175 5 15 1 0 15 1 0 6 1 0 3 18 40 0 C Co/2 RRF, Infantry (2RRF)
End
Commonwealth B 702877 2 Susa Alpini Bn
Begin
KG. 702878 INF FT 150 5 21 1 0 15 1 0 6 1 0 20 18 4 0 34°Cp/Susa Alpini, Alpini
KG. 702879 INF FT 150 5 21 1 0 15 1 0 6 1 0 20 18 4 0 35°Cp/Susa Alpini, Alpini
KG. 702880 INF FT 150 5 21 1 0 15 1 0 6 1 0 20 18 4 0 36°Cp/Susa Alpini, Alpini
End
Belgian B 2901 0 1 Para-Cdo Bn
Begin
KG. 2902 PAR FT 134 6 12 1 0 16 1 0 5 1 0 20 24 5 1036 11 Co/1 Para-Cdo Bn, Para
KG. 2903 PAR FT 134 6 12 1 0 16 1 0 5 1 0 20 24 5 1036 13 Co/1 Para-Cdo Bn, Para
KG. 2904 PAR FT 134 6 12 1 0 16 1 0 5 1 0 20 24 5 1036 21 Co/1 Para-Cdo Bn, Para
End
West-German B 5023 0 Fallschirmjager 263
Begin
KG. 5024 INF TRK 206 6 30 1 0 16 1 0 6 1 0 12 21 14 1032 2.Kp/Fschjg 263, Infantry-KraKas (BV-206)
KG. 5025 INF TRK 206 6 30 1 0 16 1 0 6 1 0 12 21 14 1032 3.Kp/Fschjg 263, Infantry-KraKas (BV-206)
End
Netherland B 702867 0 2 AGGP
Begin
KG. 702868 COM FT 179 6 24 1 0 16 1 0 5 1 0 20 24 5 1028 A Cie/2 AGGP, KMARNS
KG. 702869 COM FT 179 6 24 1 0 16 1 0 5 1 0 20 24 5 1028 B Cie/2 AGGP, KMARNS
KG. 702870 COM FT 179 6 24 1 0 16 1 0 5 1 0 20 24 5 1028 C Cie/2 AGGP, KMARNS
End
G 51479 3 ACE Artillery
Begin
Belgian B. 98431 ART MOT 6 6 9 6 0 15 6 0 2 0 0 18 6 18 9 Para-Cdo Arty Bn, 105mm M56 (Para)
British B. 702871 ART MOT 6 5 12 11 0 18 11 0 2 0 0 18 6 18 1 5 Fd Btty RA, 105mm L118
American B. 702872 ART MOT 6 5 12 11 0 18 11 0 2 0 0 18 6 18 9 D Btty-319th Arty Rgt, 105mm M119 (Para)
B. 702873 ART MOT 6 5 9 6 0 15 6 0 2 0 0 18 6 18 1 D Btty RCHA, 105mm M56
Commonwealth B. 702874 ART MOT 6 5 9 6 0 15 6 0 2 0 0 18 6 18 1 40th Alpini Btty, 105mm M56
West-German B. 702875 ART MOT 6 6 9 6 0 15 6 0 2 0 0 18 6 18 9 Luftlande Arty Btty 9, 105mm M56 (Para)
End
British KG. 32679 REC TRK 16 5 12 1 0 14 1 0 7 1 0 15 9 19 0 D Sqn/13-18H, FV107-Scimitar
American KG. 99588 ENG TRK 119 5 9 1 0 12 1 0 3 0 0 18 12 16 6 C Co/78th Eng Bn, Engineer (M113)
West-German KG. 702876 ENG TRK 167 5 6 1 0 9 1 0 2 0 0 12 9 14 6 Luftlande Pio Kp 260, Engineer (BV206)
End

[attachment=3956]
[attachment=3957]
[attachment=3958]
[attachment=3959]
[attachment=3960]

Wow - amazing work as always. Curiously, I had read somewhere that there was an ACE equivalent for the southern front, but that both elements (north and south ACE) were designed to be deployable to either sector. Does this mean we might see Greeks and Turks in Denmark? :)

Also, from the above I take it you are satisfied with the city/urban defense values?

(12-20-2013, 07:22 AM)Elxaime Wrote: [ -> ]Wow - amazing work as always. Curiously, I had read somewhere that there was an ACE equivalent for the southern front, but that both elements (north and south ACE) were designed to be deployable to either sector. Does this mean we might see Greeks and Turks in Denmark? :)

Also, from the above I take it you are satisfied with the city/urban defense values?

Yes there was a southern front and no, most of the units for the southern front were different Bns but a couple swung both ways, The US ABN BN above was actually for the southern front and not scheduled to go to the northern front but since this is taking place in summer and i can do whatever i want i added them in to the north.

5.2 within a day or 2

5.2 within a day or 2

5.2 is up in the first post. The whole of the WP invasion has been reworked.

Ill be honest with you that after im done i go over everything with a fine tooth comb hence almost no problems over the last few years, well my comb wore out and broke but im confident its all here but if not let me know.

Aaron

As far as the WP invasion im still working on it but its very close to what could have happened and now you can see structure in the WP armies.Ive had to make adjustments of course because theres no 30,45 or 90 day buildup so some units just cant be ready yet. Ive just ordered a couple more books from Germany on the subject but from one of the maps ive already seen in the book i am already about 75% correct even in the Berlin plans from exercises the WP had in the 80s. The 5th and 7th Tank Armies are the final puzzle, they would have been the units that make the final break through to France and again here i had to eliminate some CAT 3 tank divisions in Byelorussian MD and add in a couple from Moscow MD and Kiev MD to make it plausible.As far as the Polish division up on the border and ready to go this while not impossible would have been very unlikely but for game reasons ive put them there because without having at least 1 division from NGF on the map it would have let a WP player move the whole of the NGF anywhere on the map as they showed up, this keeps them on there path. If i think of another way it will be adjusted (94th MRD assigned to NGF, seen it in the NVA plans) . So long story short as the WP attack has come along way there will be adjustments to it down the road after the rest of the books i ordered show up, ive already seen the 2 Independent tank rgts of the 2gTA assigned to the NVA 5th which is interesting that Soviet units were under NVA command,well interesting to me anyways.


Of course all of this is just based off clues from exercises in the 80s and accounts from the people who were there because the actual plans were in the hands of the Soviets and will most likely never be known.

Aaron

Taz, wonderful work as always. I had one other possible house rule to suggest (in addition to SSM not laying mines). I have broached this as well with my esteemed opponents as we plan to give 5.2 a spin. To wit:

The second potential house rule is as regards the Elbe River from Hamburg to the North Sea (Hex 250,102 north). Although it isn't always the case, sometimes either side will attempt to lay a bridge across the Elbe along this stretch (usually the Pact trying to outflank the NATO line to the north).

I am not a hydrologist, but even as a lay person and amateur military history enthusiast this struck me as iffy. The reason being that the Elbe River north of Hamburg is directly feeding into the North Sea. This results in high tidal surges which are exacerbated by industrialization. Here is a nice link:

http://www.northsearegion.eu/files/repos...stuary.pdf

As noted "tidal waves enter[s] the Elbe at the mouth of the estuary and move[s] far inland. It is then stopped by a weir at Geesthacht, upstream of Hamburg. The tidal cycle is twice a day, with a flood period of 5 hrs 5 min and ebb period of 7 hrs 20 min. The tidal range is:

2.9 m at Cuxhaven
3.6 m in Hamburg
2.3 m at Geesthacht

I am thinking it would be very dicey to lay a long military bridge across a river like this. While the game allows the Danube to be bridged, this seems OK since the Danube, although subject like most major European rivers to flooding if rains are heavy (like what happened last June 2013), the Danube isn't subject to twice-daily sea tides. I would also note that while the Danube does have several peacetime bridges across its broad width, the Elbe north of Hamburg does not - I suspect this may also be due not just to North Sea tides but also the fact that large sea-going vessels ply the waters on the way to Hamburg.

I am happy to be shown I am wrong, particularly if any readers are Europeans who live or have lived around those parts. But if you think this house rule is reasonable, I would suggest adding it as a second suggested house rule to 5.2.