 |
|
NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 (/showthread.php?tid=48741) |
RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - Zemke - 11-05-2008 Frankly it all comes down to sources, or rather where HPS got their information, and then I would say certain judgment calls on how that information is included in the game. A perfect example is the strength of the NATO and WP infantry units; WP infantry are too high, while NATO is low if you use the same criteria. I think this may have been a judgment call to even the game, or just a mistake. tazaaron's Bolt out of the Blue is one of the best OOB for accuracy I have seen to date. I know he is very willing to do whatever is necessary to make his OOB show all units. His oob also has rear area security units, which other D 85' oob don't, again making the game more realistic IMO. I think he would be very interested in hearing how he can make the Danish forces as accurate as possible. Another OOB I have found that I think is real good is the Twilight of the Gods, scenario, but it uses the same strength ratings as the "company" oob. I have been working on my own oob/pdt but this is huge job, making me appreciate the massive amount of work done already. RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - Bushido - 11-05-2008 Gents, thanks for all your hard work. First now I downloaded " Bolt out of the Blue " and it is an impressive work of art! Higly appreciated. RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - JDR Dragoon - 11-05-2008 Glenn Saunders Wrote:Were happy with the game as we made it and don't just make quick changes based on info posted in forms which might not match our info. That doesn't make our info right and yours wrong - just different. There are many factors which come into lplay here. Well, what would I have to do in order to convince you that the information I have to offer would be worth your while to include in the game (or partially useful if nothing else)? RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - JDR Dragoon - 11-06-2008 And the last parts: The Armoured Infantry Brigades of the Division: -The Brigade HQ Unit: Only partially manned in peacetime. Was to be fleshed out with reserve officers and personnel upon mobilization. Suffered under the fact that it was often hard to train the brigade staff in managing all of their constituent battalions except on the largest of exercises, and the fact, that said battalions were only partially manned in peacetime. Should probably be classed as "D" due to this. -"Panserbataljonen" (The Armoured Battalion): A "square" battalion with 4 fighting companies (and a HQ company not represented in the game). The 1st and 2nd Company consisted of two Tank Squadrons of 10 Leopard 1A3 tanks each. These units were manned by enlisted men on running contracts. Due to a failure to reach recruitment goals these units still needed to be fleshed out with enlisted men on reserve contracts upon mobilization. Should probably be rated as "C" due to this. The 3rd company was an armoured infantry company in M113s. 138 men (represents trench strenght and people manning heavy weapons). Again, the goal was for this unit to be manned entirely with enlisted men on contracts, but due to the above mentioned failure to reach recruitment goals, most of these companies were instead manned with 9 month conscripts. Could thus be be classed as either "C" or "D" as a result. The 4th Company was a motorized Infantry Company consisting of 9 month conscripts recently recalled to service. Should be classed as "D". 138 men (represents trench strenght and people manning heavy weapons). -"De Pansrede Infanteribataljoner" (The Armoured Infantry Battalions): Another "square" battalion. The 1st and 2nd companies consisted of 2 armoured infantry companies in M113s. These units were supposed to be manned entirely with enlisted personnel on running contracts but due to failure to reach recruitment goals most of these units would have been reliant on former enlisted personnel on reserve contracts in order to be fleshed out upon mobilization. 138 men each (represents trench strenght and people manning heavy weapons). Should thus be classed as "C". The 3rd company was a Squadron of 10 Leopard 1A3 Tanks manned by enlisted personnel on running contracts. Due to recruitment problems these units were also reliant on reserve personnel to flesh them out in case of war. This problem was even more marked here, since most of the effort went into filling up the Tank squadrons in the Armored Battalion first, these units were even more reliant upon reserve personnel. Could thus be either "C" or "D". The 4th company was a Motorized Infantry company manned by recently trained 9 month conscripts. 138 men (represents trench strenght and people manning heavy weapons). Should thus be classed as "D". -"Brigadeartilleriafdelingen" (The Brigade Artillery Battalion): Consisted of 2 batteries of 6 M109 each (the unupgraded version with the "short" M114 gun) manned by enlisted men on running contracts. Due to recruitment problems these units needed rounding out with reserve enlisted men upon mobilization. Should thus be classed as "C"´s. WMD capable. The 3rd battery consisted of 8 towed M114 ex-US 1950s vintage Howitzers manned by 9 month conscripts. Should be "Unreliable". Not WMD Capable. -"Brigadeingeniørkompagni" (Brigade Engineer Company). An engineer company in M113 APCs. Could build bridges, but only of a size appropriate for crossing minor streams and rivers like those marked "light blue" on the map. Should thus just be "minelay/clear" capable. About 125 men if only "trench strenght" is counted. -"Trænbataljon" (Logistics Battalion). The same comment as pr. the divisional and corps LOG units above. -"Panserværnskompagni" (PVKMP) (Anti-Tank Company). Consisted of 12 M113 APCs with external TOW mounts (3 platoons of 4 vehicles each) manned mostly by enlisted personnel on running contracts. Due to recruitment problems these units would likely still need fleshing out with reserve enlisted personnel upon mobilization. Should thus be classed as "C". No TIS. Also had 12 Jeeps/Landrovers (3 platoons of 4 each) with TOW predominantly manned by 9 month conscripts. Should thus be classed as "D". No TIS either. -Since the danish M113 equipped units have very high Hard Attack values (18) in the stock DF85 game, the above AT Company might also simply be left out and these high AT values retained (since this would represent the TOW platoons being divided out amongst the M113 equipped companies with 1 TOW platoon going to each of the 5 M113 companies in the brigade). The remaining TOW launchers can then be consolidated into a single counter. Again it is a design decision. Do what you think best. "EDIT": Apparently the AT Companies were abolished in the early 80´s (between 1980 and 1983 depending on unit and placing within the forcestructure), so leaving the M113 companies at "18" Hard Attack and consolidating the remaining launcher sinto a single counter of 8 launchers is the way to go IMHO (8 because more TOW launchers were procured so that each brigade had a total of 7 platoons of 4 launchers each). -The Hard Attack (8) and Soft attack (10) values of the Motorized infantry units in the brigades are probably a bit on the low side, since the MOTINF companies of the brigades have the same weapons mix as the armoured infantry companies (except for a lower number of .50 HMGs, but their 81mm mortar section had one tube more than the APC companies). I propose raising Hard attack to 9-10 and Soft attack to 11-12. As for the units manning these brigades and their placement (1985): -"1. Jyske Brigade"/1st. Jutland Brigade. HQ garrisoned in Fredericia. Units: -"III. Bataljon Jyske Dragonregiment (JDR) (3rd Battalion Jutland Dragoon Regiment). The brigades Armored Battalion. Garrisoned in Oksbøl. -"I. Bataljon Kongens Jyske Fodregiment" (KJFR) (1st Battalion The Kings Own Jutland Regiment of Foot). Armored Infantry Battalion. Garrisoned in Fredericia. -"I. Bataljon Fynske Livregiment" (FLR) (1st Battalion Funen Life Regiment). Armored Infantry Battalion. Garrisoned in Odense. -"6. Artilleriafdeling Nørrejyske Artilleriregiment" (NJAR) (6th Artillery Battalion North Jutland Artillery Regiment). Garrisoned in Skive. -"1. Panseringeniørkompagni" (1st armoured Engineer Company) -"1. Panserværnskompagni" (1st Anti-Tank Company) -"6. Trænbataljon" (6th Logistics Battalion) -"2. Jyske Brigade". HQ garrisoned in Skive. -"II Bataljon Jyske Dragonregiment". Garrisoned in Holstebro. -"I Bataljon Dronningens Livregiment". (DRLR) (1st battalion The Queens Life Regiment). Garrisoned in Ålborg. -"II Bataljon Dronningens Livregiment". Garrisoned in Ålborg. -"3. Artilleriafdeling Nørrejyske Artilleriregiment". Garrisoned in Skive. -"2. Panseringeniørkompagni". Garrisoned in Randers. -"2. Panserværnskompagni" -"10. Trænbataljon". -"3. Jyske Brigade". HQ garrisoned in Haderslev. -"I Bataljon Jydske Dragonregiment". Garrisoned in Holstebro. -"I Bataljon Prinsens Livregiment" (PLR) (1st Battalion The Prince´s own Life Regiment). Garrisoned in Viborg. -"II Bataljon Prinsens Livregiment". Garrisoned in Viborg. -"7. Artilleriafdeling Sønderjyske Artilleriregiment" (SJAR) (7th Artillery Battalion South Jutland Artillery Regiment). Garrisoned in Varde. -"3. Panseringeniørkompagni" -"3. Panserværnskompagni" -"7. Trænbataljon" -All Engineer and Logistics units would come from either Jyske Ingeniørregiment (Jutland Engineer Regiment) garrisoned in Randers or Jyske Trænregiment (Jutland Logistics Regiment) based in Ålborg. RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - Kuriltai - 11-06-2008 JDR Dragoon Wrote:Glenn Saunders Wrote:Were happy with the game as we made it and don't just make quick changes based on info posted in forms which might not match our info. That doesn't make our info right and yours wrong - just different. There are many factors which come into lplay here. First of all,Welcome to the Blitz. You seem to have a great amount of detail in your OOB and TOE stuff.However,I don't think HPS/Glenn have a lot of interest/time in modifying a completed title.Their priorities are in patching old title's to newer standards and hopefully working on new titles. I am sure Tazarron is following this thread with great interest and will implement some of your stuff to an already great mod. You should really give his mod a try.There are lots of players who don't mind a slower rate of play if time is a issue with you.Also highly reccomend you jump in any new team game that starts.The Danish front looks a lot solider in the BftB mod. Enjoying your thread. Kuriltai RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - JDR Dragoon - 11-06-2008 Jyske Kampgruppe/Jutland Battlegroup -A weak motorized infantry brigade intended to cover the rear areas of LandJut. -Battlegroup HQ: Only manned by the smallest cadre in peacetime. Heavily reliant on influx of (older) reserve officers and NCOs upon mobilization. Never had the opprtunity to train with all of its constituent battalions at their full strenght. Should thus be classed as "E". The HQ was based in Holstebro. (For any MOD makers out there here is the crest of the Jutland Battlegroup: http://www.dragonforening.dk/Gif/jkg.gif) -This unit consisted of 3 Motorized Infantry Battalions: The first two were the "I. & II. Bataljon Slesvigske Fodregiment" (SLFR) (The 1st and 2nd battalion of The Slesvig Regiment of Foot). Garrisoned in Haderslev. Each consisted of 3 companies of 138 men each, but armed with M1 Garand Rifles instead of G3s. Otherwise they are equipped like the motorized infantry in the Brigades. If you want to reflect this, you might consider docking them 1 point in the Soft Attack category (value of 10 or 11) These battalions had a platoon of 4 TOWs in their HQ Company, which should probably be reflected in their Hard attack value (11-12 perhaps?). They are manned by recently trained 9 month conscripts and should thus be rated at "D". The Battlegroups 3rd battalion was the "IV. Bataljon Jydske Dragonregiment" (4th Battalion Jutland Dragoon regiment). It was equipped like the above but had 4 infantry companies instead of 3. The unit was manned by conscripts with 9 months of training but whose original period of service lay 5-10 years in the past (with periodic refresher training every 3-4 years or so). It should thus be rated at "E". -The Battlegroup also had a motorized engineer company. The same comments as for the brigade engineer company apply as above with the exception, that this unit is motorized in trucks and consists of conscripts with 9 months of training but whose original period of service lay 5-10 years in the past (with periodic refresher training every 3-4 years or so). It should thus be rated at "E". -Artillery support was delivered by the "8. Artilleriafdeling Nørrejyske Artilleriregiment" with 24 guns consisting of 4 batteries of 6 M101 ex-US 1950s vintage 105mm howitzers (look in the S. Korean OOB in Korea 85 for stats). Should be "Unreliable". Should not be capable of using WMDs. Unit is staffed with onscripts with 9 months of training but whose original period of service lay 5-10 years in the past (with periodic refresher training every 3-4 years or so). It should thus be rated at "E". RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - JDR Dragoon - 11-06-2008 Kuriltai Wrote:First of all,Welcome to the Blitz. Thanks. As for modifying "completed" games: I notice that both ME 67, FG 85 and NGP 85 underwent TO&E changes in patches following their release, so I have faith ;). Now the information is at least there for people to use. Besides, DF 85 as a game title is not even 1 year old. It is early days still. It is not like I am clamoring for the modification of NGP 85 or some other title with a lot of years behind it :). It is not like they are forced include all of my suggestions either (or any of them for that matter), but since the designers notes for DF 85 (rightly so) prides itself on its meticulous historical OOB research I thought: "Why not provide some inputs to make it even more accurate"? I mean; it is not likely to make the game any worse, is it? RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - Hans Boersma - 11-06-2008 JDR, thanks for posting the Danish data; very useful. Cheers, Hans RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - Elxaime - 11-06-2008 Did HPS or any of you have any experience with the old SPI monster board game "Next War" which postulated a Pact-NATO conflict in the late 1970's? Here is a link showing a copy: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/8719 The reason I ask is that I once had one and, in the course of an unusual opportunity to set it up at home (parents gone on foreign vacation for two months), I was able to play it solo for a number of turns. Now, at this time in the US there was a lot of talk about the Soviet menace, the need for a defense build-up, NATO was weak, etc. Perhaps some of this was justified perhaps some of it was military establishments always wanting more money regardless. But what I found when I played ther Tension variant (war coming after a period of tension and limited mobilization) for Next War was this: - Pact forces had an initial burst across the frontier BUT - after a day or so the Pact got enmeshed in NATO forces in-depth and the advance slowed to a crawl with increasing Pact losses - NATO could really slow the Pact down and take a toll on the Pact in the numerous built-up areas even with small forces By the third day of the attack, the Pact was basically out of momentum and depleted without having made a very deep penetration into the FRG. This very much surprised me since I was expecting a Red March to the Rhine. Does anyone else have experience with Next War? Did the SPI game prove useful to HPS in research for D85? RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - Dog Soldier - 11-07-2008 JDR Dragoon Wrote:...since the designers notes for DF 85 (rightly so) prides itself on its meticulous historical OOB research I thought: "Why not provide some inputs to make it even more accurate"? I mean; it is not likely to make the game any worse, is it? JDR Dragoon, It appears you have a passion for this game. You have posted a lot of data. Pretty cool. Now to address your comment about the blitz stability, this site has been around since about 1998 IIRC. It is rock solid and well maintained by a dedicated group of volunteers. The owners are very committed to keeping the blitz on the web. So do not worry. Glad you could join us! As to HPS making changes, that will be more a factor of how long it takes to absorb your information and if they think a change is really needed to make the game better. HPS provides editors with the game so players can make as simple or complex a change as the player wants to. I would suggest you take this route to changing the game. If you decide to create your own mod, either a new CG or just a sub map scenario of the area you have been discussing here, I will be glad to host your work as we do for any other member. I think it would be wise to create a smaller scenario of the Danish front with your changes and submit it to the HTH section of the blitz. It appears from this thread there are plenty of members who would help in the play testing of such a scenario. The experience of having your peers test a sceanrio design in the HTH area is quite satisfying, creating some great scenarios. The scenario would then be added to the DB here for everyone to enjoy. Dog Soldier |
){kind=link}