ASL Veteran

Stuff is in your inbox

Thank you for the offer. The material should be in your inbox now.

I would love your assistance, but I'll need your e-mail address. I've decided to go ahead and deal with the spam for a day or two so I will open up my e-mail controls and accept all e-mail if you don't want to post your e-mail address on the board.

I’m looking for a few brave individuals to test three scenarios that I would like to put up on the web. All of those who are interested will receive a zip file with the three scenarios and a two page Microsoft Word document questionnaire. Although the questionnaire is two pages long, the parts you actually fill out only consists of a Y or N or a rating on a scale of 1 to 10 in a few places (the majority of the questionnaire describes how I interpret the meaning of a particular response so that we are on the same wavelength on the ratings). I would expect that the testing be done in a reasonable amount of time and that all your comments be confined to the questionnaires so I can keep track of them all. Saving lots of different e-mails with various unstructured remarks can be helpful, but not nearly as helpful as the structured remarks from the questionnaire. You may choose to test vs the AI or vs a PBEM opponent. However, my intention is to have fun and relatively balanced scenarios that gamers can play vs other gamers so if you do test vs the AI you will need to be able to project potential scenario balance if played vs another player. The three scenarios that I would currently like to have tested are all city fights set in 1945. “The Slaughterhouse” is a medium sized scenario that is 28 turns long and depicts the Soviet effort to reduce the tobacco factory and the slaughterhouse located in Graudenz, West Prussia on 22 February 1945. “Acts of Defiance” is a small sized scenario that is 24 turns long and depicts a portion of the battle for Breslau on 27 February 1945. “To the Last Man” is a medium sized scenario that is 32 turns long and covers a part of the battle for Budapest that took place on 13 January 1945. I’ve got nine CMBB scenarios up at the scenario depot right now and all my CMBB scenarios have the av prefix followed by the year and month for a particular scenario. If you are interested in assisting me in this enterprise, then please either e-mail me or post to this thread. Because of an incredible amount of Spam recently, I’ve been forced to block all internet domains other than most of the major ones and few specific addresses that I add – so if your e-mail doesn’t go through to me I can add your e-mail address later if you post to this thread. [edited because Budapest isn't in Germany ... do'h!] [ March 09, 2003, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

For some odd reason if you group select in the editor and then click on a unit other than the one that gets highlighted by default the others are no longer selected. It never used to do that in CMBO, but for some reason it does that in CMBB. I'm not sure if this is coming through very clearly, but what I mean is that once you group select either by double clicking a platoon commander or by dragging the mouse and grabbing a bunch of units one unit will be highlighted in yellow and the others will be highlighted in white. The yellow one will be the unit that is placed where you click the move command to go and all the others will deploy based on that point. If you go and click on any of the white highlighted units then you will lose all the other units that were grabbed and it will only move the one unit. There is no way around this that I have found, other than to leave the default base unit as the base unit.

You have to go to "Preview" on the map after selecting your forces and then you just select each squad, truck, tank, etc and use the 'P' or 'M' command to deploy them where you want to. You can ensure that the troops loaded in trucks have to begin in the trucks by 'Locking' the troops in the trucks. It is possible to 'lock' the troops as riders without 'locking' the truck itself.

The PAW ... or 8cm Panzerabwehrwerfer 600 (also known as the PAW 8H63) according to "Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of WW2" by Ian Hogg "As it happened, Rheinmettal-Borsig had been developing an idea of their own for some time, and this looked like the opportunity to try it out. Called the 'High and Low Pressure System', the idea was to confine the explosion of the charge in a strong chamber but allow the gas to leak at low pressure into a lightweight barrel to propel the projectile. The system gave the advatanges of ballistic regularity and efficiency which came from exploding the charge in a confined space to develop high pressure, but the gun barrel could be light in weight since it had to resist low pressure. In order not to complicate matters the barrel was smoothbored and the projectile fin stabilized; in fact, it was a somewhat modified 81mm mortar bomb. The cartridge cas was a normal 105mm field howitzer case with a heavy steel plate in the mouth, pierced with a number of venturi nozzles and with a central spigot holding the projectile. On firing, the propellant burned in the case at about seven tons per square inch, and the gas bled through the venturi holes to fill the space behind the projectile. When the pressure in the barrel reached 3 1/2 tons per square inch, the spigot broke and allowed the bomb to be projected from the barrel." from the same reference as above, "8.8cm Racketenwerfer 43 (Puppchen)" "In effect, it is the 8.8cm Panzershrek Rocket Launcher mounted on the carriage of the 2.8 cm schweres Panzerbuchse 41 taper bore gun, with the rear end of the launcher closed by a breech mechanism of simple sliding block pattern. This did away with the back blast which was always an objectionable feature of the open tube launchers and, by confining the rocket blast within a closed tube, improved velocity and hence the range. (snip) The exact number of RW43 which saw use is in some doubt; some reports speak of 'several', others refer to it as a prototype. Obviously it did not meet the needs of the army in one respect in that it still used a rocket and the demand was for a weapon using less propellant than a rocket solution. But it seems likely that upwards of a hundred were actually in the hands of troops when the war ended, and what few accounts there are seem to indicate that the design was successful" So, to sum up, the PAW is a gun and the Puppchen is a rocket launcher.

Where is Peng? I should think that all this discussion about emoticons would have brought him out of the woodwork :eek:

Lords of the Realm 1 and 2 are two of my all time favorite computer games (along with the Siege Pack!!!) I really liked the little phrases that the various troop types used to say before doing certain actions - and the music was pretty cool too. Some of the provinces in the center of the map always used to get so ravaged that you couldn't get them going until you shipped grain and cattle into them - but then one of the computer players would go into that territory and steal all the cattle and grain if you didn't protect it! I actually played Lords of the Realm for several years all told - I actually played it until my newest computer at the time made the game run waaay too fast. I finally had to take it off the hard drive at that point. That one was a home run with me Steve!! :cool:

Mr Picky would point out that you've never played ASL or SL.

I feel obligated to chime in on this thread just to avoid any potential confusion . Much as I love ASL, the armor rules in ASL were abstracted in the extreme. I'm not sure that ... where armor is concerned anyway .... ASL is a good baseline for anything. ASL does infantry fighting very well, but armor was always a bit of an afterthought in that game. I think Tobruk did a little bit better from an armor perspective, even though the turn based format just doesn't do it with armor. Combat Mission is the "King of Armor" as far as I'm concerned. They hit a home run with armor on their first try.

Most of the more 'prolific' scenario designers are probably going to be too busy making their own scenarios to do very many reviews of the work of others. Also, most designers will have a certain 'style' that they use or have different things that they target and they may not like a scenario design that doesn't meet their 'style' or 'target' criteria no matter how successfully you feel your goal was accomplished. In other words, don't always expect to get warm fuzzies from other designers. If the difference of opinion is a philosophical one as opposed to a technical one - well that person's feedback isn't going to do you much good (if they say anything at all).

The search suggestion was probably made because there have been numerous very long, heated, and sometimes informative discussions on this topic in the past. Some of the longest and most heated exchanges are contained within those threads ... and yes, pretty much everything was covered in the most excruciating detail (along with hit chances, actual diagrams of the optics on various tanks, and accuracies of various guns on test ranges).

I've done it, but it is in testing right now. I can send it to you if you like - untested of course.

There are quite a few under the letter 'S' at the Scenario Depot ... including my take on Streets of Stalingrad. I don't preface mine with SL or anything, so mine are scattered throughout the various letters ... although you can find all scenarios done by any particular author once you are in one of their scenarios. All that author's other scenarios show up on the upper right hand side of the screen as links (very handy by the way).

I have a scenario titled "Clash Along the Psel" in testing right now that is a pure tank battle. I will send it your way if you provide an e-mail address. [ December 29, 2002, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

Okay, I'll admit that the Me 110 is a little more powerful than I had at first realized (even with only two strafes). Perhaps the elimination of the 110 would solve our balance problem. More testing required though ... We'll see how our battle progresses. Stukas don't seem very effective, but that 110 ... that might be another story.

Alas, I did want to give the German tanks some Hollow Charge rounds and/or some APCR ammunition (as opposed to the powerful air component), but I couldn't because it was unavailable to any of the vehicles in the scenario at that time. I did increase the amount of APCR that the AT gun has though from three rounds to seven. Even with that though, I was only getting partial penetrations on the front of the KVs so that isn't a guaranteed kill by any means. Those PzIIIHs are the best thing the German's have got in July 41 as far as I could tell and they have the 50 short with a penetration of 63mm at 100 meters. The KV's side armor is 75mm at 0.

Balancing is always a delicate game .... perhaps that force mix just wasn't what you are used to or comfortable with. I don't have any doubt in my mind that the Soviet player is fully capable of pushing the German right off the map with that one dimensional force mix. The big map works both ways - for the German it creates two problems .... 1st, they have to travel pretty far to take control of the victory locations. 2nd, they have a difficult time throwing up a defense line that can hold what they've captured because of the relatively low force to space ratio. The side effect of this also is that the farther the German pushes out from the main city to take victory locations, the more dispersed his forces become (and the more difficult it is for him to hold what he has captured from counterattack). So there are advantages that each side that act to offset each other. Soviet advantages are: 1. Armored superiority (both numerically and qualitatively). 2. Infantry superiority (both numerically and in terms of firepower) 3. A favorable starting position (for access to the victory locations 4. Better force to space ratio The German advantages are: 1. Mobility 2. Artillery 3. Air power Okay, so how do these act when balancing .. the mobility offsets both the favorable starting position and the favorable force to space ratio that the Soviets have. The Artillery offsets the infantry inferiority. The Air Power offsets the armored superiority (and the infantry superiority too). Balancing isn't about three T-34s vs two KVs. It is about advantages and disadvantages and how they offset and interact with each other. Each side has to play a different game to be successful. The Soviet player has to maximize his strengths and the German player has to maximize his strengths. Whether someone enjoys the scenario or not is going to be decided by their own personal preference. I view the airpower as a nuisance to be played around ... just like the artillery ... so it doesn't bother me at all (I've already mentally checked off a tank or two so when I lose one to a Stuka bomb I won't be disappointed). I think that we can agree that with no airpower or artillery the German gets crushed, so the only balancing question is ... how much artillery and airpower do the Germans need for a German player to be successful (ie, at least get a draw, and have the capability of doing better) vs a Russian opponent of equal skill. From the looks of your scores so far, I think I've succeeded. Now, if the force mix that you are given isn't something that you like or are accustomed to ... well there isn't much I can do about that. Tailoring a scenario to meet everyone's ideal force mix is an impossibility (nor is it something I would desire to do since I view a scenario as a vehicle for a player to adapt their tactics to unfamiliar force mixes - thus improving their overall game). Sounds to me like your expectations when starting the scenario were just different than what you got. Sorry for the disappointment. "Capture of Balta" has a German infantry only force (with no armor or artillery) attacking a dug in Soviet force with tanks (small tanks, but certainly unopposed. It is the Critical Hit version not the original version of the scenario). Some players view the lack of axis armor in that scenario as a scenario breaker (cause they don't know how to deal with the unopposed tanks). I view it as a tactical problem to be solved and overcome. "Commissar's House" has an infantry only force that has to take two large heavy buildings. Perhaps not every player is going to have fun taking a heavy building without having a bunch of tanks around to soften up the defenses for them. I have no doubt that some will walk away from that scenario and say "damn, that scenario sucks cause I don't get any tanks. It is completely unfair!". I do the best that I can, but ya can't please them all.

Turn 24 and you've taken three of four objectives? That's excellent progress. The last two objectives are very difficult to get. There is always the possibility that I swung the balance too far towards the German with the adjustments - only one way to find out though. Actually I guess I should say that's three of five objectives (One, Two, Five .... 'Three sire, that's three') ! Although many of the Soviet infantry are Green, there are quite a few Panzer Pioniere squads in the German inventory and they only have six men in each squad - so more like a half squad. I don't remember exactly how many, but something on the order of 8 to 12 Panzer Pioniere half squads springs to mind. The Soviet squads also have a 30 point FP advantage under 40 meters on average, and that isn't even counting the SMG squads and the Recon A squads. I do hope you can put your current victory percentage up because I really am curious. I would consider a walk over to be in the 80% or better range. I consider balance to be any scenario where, on average, the final victory percentage doesn't favor one side or the other by more than 60%. In other words, if you won a battle with a 60% score for you and a 40% score for your opponent then I feel I've done my job. [ December 21, 2002, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

Incidentally Stalin's Organ, I do have an open PBEM slot right now, and I would be happy to take the Russians in "Breakout from Borisov" if you are up for it. I can't imagine my forces getting walked over, but if you feel that you can manage it I'm certainly game.

Spoilers Below . . . . . . . . . . Actually balance was a primary consideration on this scenario (and all my scenarios). There were several others who playtested the scenario and I play tested it myself (ongoing vs Skelley). I made alterations and asked for feedback on the alterations and all the alterations met with approval (and are listed on the scenario along with the averaged balance ratings as judged by the testers). The Germans have no means of taking out the Soviet heavy armor other than the air support and from close combat - even from the flanks or the rear. If the Stukas didn't take out those tanks then nothing was probably going to. The German infantry and armor is also outnumbered by approximately two to one. The Soviet player also has much easier access to the victory locations as the German must use motorized transport to access many of them. The points alone don't tell the story (much of it is consumed by transport assets). You just got lucky with your air support - accept that you are just doing well compared to the experience that others had. The most common remarks by the testers was that the Soviet heavy tanks dominated the battlefield wherever they were located - which made it difficult for the Germans to get access to the victory locations. I'm curious about what your victory rating is showing in your current game - do you have something better than 40%? If not, then you probably have a lot of heavy fighting ahead of you.

His intent in bringing up ASL was not to discuss it's merits within the context of the discussion. If it was, he would have put forward a more insightful analysis of the various flaws inherent within that genre of scenarios rather than the cavalier remark that he chose to make instead. I feel that my response was both appropriate and justified.

Perhaps we should be mindful of calling people spineless cowards too. I am also not naive enough to believe that his intent in bringing up ASL was simply to discuss the merits of ASL scenarios within the context of this discussion. [ December 11, 2002, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

In no case did I offset a single one of your posts with quotations and make any representation about the content (other than rolled eyes of course). I never made a statement of fact regarding what your motives are - my powers of ESP are much too limited to know what actually goes on inside your head. However, I did relate my opinion that your scenarios are all exceptionally well designed and excellent scenarios to play.