 |
|
tournament proposal - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Steel Panthers Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=14) +--- Thread: tournament proposal (/showthread.php?tid=68048) |
RE: tournament proposal - KAreil - 05-23-2015 If my force doesn't exceed about a bataillon and a turn rate of 1-3 per week is acceptable, you can count me in as well! One thing regarding Z-fire: Don't you think a limitation of 1x Z-fire per turn per unit should be a houserule? Maybe with exception to MG-units. Or do you think the ammo-problem you are creating through the continuing segments is taking care of that? RE: tournament proposal - oldrocky - 05-24-2015 Hi KAreil, I think 1 turn a week would slow the tournament down too much. Could you insure at least 3 or 4 turns a week? The size of the force under your command will be decided by the overall force in use and the decided on Grand maneuver Scheme. So far we have 4 players which would be 2 per side so if a Regimental/Brigade sized unit were used as the parent formation then one could expect about a battalion sized force on the Sector Battle Map. I don't wish to limit Z Fire to one shoot per turn because realism would then suffer. However, keep in mind that the base experience level will be 90 thereby allowing defending units to withstand a Z Fire onslaught with much more resilience. Ammo limitations are also a factor and a commander must be always be aware of his subordinate units supply situation. It is very difficult to resupply under combat conditions and the ammo trucks/carriers are limited in number and must be conserved at all cost because they can't be replaced. Another Z Fire rule overlooked and to be added to the official ROE is: Z Fire range can be unlimited if the target unit is in direct line of sight of the attacking/firing unit ( a tank or AT gun for example). This allows the shooting unit the option of having his ammo selected as "HE" instead of "AP". When using Z fire "HE" ammo is auto selected and this is an effective counter to enemy units that are bunched up and occupying the same hex. Three or 4 tanks in a single hex under Z Fire attack by a large caliber weapon will often suffer at least some immobilization/damage. The ROE's will be amended to reflect this addition. Welcome aboard KAreil. RE: tournament proposal - Air Master - 05-26-2015 (05-18-2015, 11:48 PM)oldrocky Wrote: There does not seem to be much interest shown in the position of CG so let us consider that not only will the CG control the the Battle and also the other subordinate commanders but he will also play one of the maps. I am happy to be CG of one side. RE: tournament proposal - Air Master - 05-26-2015 (05-19-2015, 12:49 PM)oldrocky Wrote: I just created a Master Map and split it into 3 sections. I made some minor modifications on one I found in the map folder so it would be quick and easy. Ok I have read the RoE. Some points: 1. On Z Fire...150m for inf is fine but 10 hexes will be impossible to police and involve a lot of tedious hex counting. May I suggest 150m for squads and AI decides for all support and AFVs? 2. Restricting AFVs in woods (Weasel) is a good idea but again not enforceable. Woods do vary in density and the AI does slow AFVs down reasonably. Best left to 2 trusted opponents. 3. Artillery - same hex not always used in reality, often deliberately spread. Suggest adjacent hexes plotted for each battery and readjusted for all to be adjacent. 4. Artillery deployment - do you mean adjacent hexes or with a maximum of one hex space? 5. Experience - if you start at 90 we will be playing with super-heroes vs super heroes very rapidly. If we are doing summer 44 then one can say that the quality on both sides varied considerably. I would have thought that 70 should be a maximum number to start with. The thing with "battle-hardened" is that the unit has usually experienced significant casualties and therefore churn and therefore many green replacements, does retain a hard core of vets - a la Sven Hassel. LOL Happy to discuss off line [email protected] RE: tournament proposal - roman - 05-26-2015 I've seen the map. It's pretty. On the map size, perhaps the tournament is to a level of two brigades, or a small division? Questions and suggestions 1) the same number of points are allocated in total for both sides? I understood that after the general commander can have his troops as he pleases. If this is not so I put it as a suggestion. Agree on a number of points and the commanding general made the initial deployment (only The start of the tournament) troops in the overview map. The tournament manager can make changes position only if certain rules have not been met as placing troops on roads. 2) What about the points of air? Regards and sorry if I do not quite understand. I do not speak English well. I am learning with you and google traslator :) RE: tournament proposal - oldrocky - 05-26-2015 (05-26-2015, 04:43 AM)Air Master Wrote: [quote='oldrocky' pid='401074' dateline='1432003774'] Ok I have read the RoE. Some points: 1. On Z Fire...150m for inf is fine but 10 hexes will be impossible to police and involve a lot of tedious hex counting. May I suggest 150m for squads and AI decides for all support and AFVs? 2. Restricting AFVs in woods (Weasel) is a good idea but again not enforceable. Woods do vary in density and the AI does slow AFVs down reasonably. Best left to 2 trusted opponents. 3. Artillery - same hex not always used in reality, often deliberately spread. Suggest adjacent hexes plotted for each battery and readjusted for all to be adjacent. 4. Artillery deployment - do you mean adjacent hexes or with a maximum of one hex space? 5. Experience - if you start at 90 we will be playing with super-heroes vs super heroes very rapidly. If we are doing summer 44 then one can say that the quality on both sides varied considerably. I would have thought that 70 should be a maximum number to start with. The thing with "battle-hardened" is that the unit has usually experienced significant casualties and therefore churn and therefore many green replacements, does retain a hard core of vets - a la Sven Hassel. LOL Hi Air Master Thanks for your input. Regarding issue #1: I realize that the 10 hex Z Fire limit may be tedious but we have to have something that will reflect realistically historical events so therefore I came up with 10 hex's. It seems reasonable considering WW2 optic's and the Command & Control system. Play testing and experience shows that the system is very playable. #2: I feel that an AFV rule is unnecessary. Consider trying to get a tank through 40 density woods hex compared to a 10 density. The lesser density reflects the fact that there is more maneuver room thus allowing better mobility. Just because a hex has trees in it doesn't mean it is actually a forest and this fact is represented by the "density. It could very well have only a couple/few trees in the hex. Same with certain town hex's that you can Z Fire through. A hex represents 150 feet (approx) and a low density town hex may have 1 or 2 buildings only which cover 20 to 30 feet of the 150 foot hex. A fraction. I feel SP Camo did well in modeling the terrain. #3: Regarding the Arty Routine I'd like to first say that none of these ROEs are written in stone and I'll leave it up to the consensus as to what rules we end up playing with but in WW2 the Arty battery's did in fact use the same coordinates for all tubes when plotting a fire mission. There may have been the ability to make adjustments for "spreads" that were capably carried out by experienced crews, FO's, and Commanders all working together efficiently but it was not doctrine in that time period. (To my knowledge.) #4 The tubes should not be more that 1 hex from the "0" unit of the battery. Again this is something that can be decided by player consensus. #5: This is not a campaign so the experience level will not change throughout this Tournament. You do have a point about the variety of experience levels within a unit what with new replacements and such being absorbed but the experience, morale, etc, levels will be assigned in the SPWW2 Scenario Editor with a range from 75 to 95 and this should give the units an average of around 80 to 85. The default 70 is for Green Troops and is just way too low and won't allow troops to withstand a Z Fire attack. It has always been my intention of using the Editor to assign the experience levels but I failed to mention this in the ROE. Thanks to everyone for their interest and input and before this Tourney kicks off we'll determine a solid ROE that's acceptable. RE: tournament proposal - oldrocky - 05-26-2015 (05-26-2015, 08:18 AM)roman Wrote: I've seen the map. It's pretty. On the map size, perhaps the tournament is to a level of two brigades, or a small division? Hi Roman That map I posted is only an example. It is not the map we will be using for the Tourney. It is only a test map. The forces used in these battles will be created using the established OOBs and TO&Es of the Nations involved and of the time period.(The parent formations of both opposing sides will be as close to equal as possible in purchase point value, fire power and maneuverability). I'm looking for historical accuracy and that is the reason for some of the ROEs I've recommended. If you're fighting the Russians or the Germans you should be engaging formations that are organized as the Germans and Russians had them organized during that period of the war. Here is a link to one of the source documents that will be used in creating formations: http://www.niehorster.org/012_ussr/45_organ/44_corps_tank.htm The reason the troops will be deployed loaded and on the road is because I'll need to make the initial deployments so as to create a master game/map file that can be used to edit the game files after every segment. It would be too hard and time consuming for me to get specific direction from the commanders regarding deployment AND ALSO; it's a meeting engagement. Just imagine both forces are entering the AO and converging on each other not knowing where the other exactly is on the map. Leaving the road and deploying into effective battle formation will be a challenge in itself and also require a certain tactical finesse. As for air power; that will be determined at a later date; depending on the size of the parent formations. So far we have 5 players so I'm thinking about a Brigade sized battle and possibly a squadron of Ground Attack Aircraft. You can be assured that there will be air power. Thanks Guys. RE: tournament proposal - Buckaroo - 05-27-2015 Guys, I'm in...on Air Master's side as I committed to join him this past weekend as a Colonel. I'll have lots to say once I look over the material (shocking, I know). I like the discussed z-fire range limits. I don't think we need anything beyond a range limit as unit ammo remaining will extend to subsequent rounds (I assume we won't have boat loads of ammo sources available). So if someone wants to get z-fire happy, they may regret it later. I really loved that tourney 10 years ago. It was a blast. I'm looking forward to this event. Jay Buckaroo ([email protected]) RE: tournament proposal - oldrocky - 05-28-2015 Hi Jay Thanks for joining. I am hoping that we can kick this Tourney off shortly but well give it a few more days to see if anyone else wants to jump aboard and anyway I'll be leaving tonight and traveling for the next couple days so the end of the week is when I'm aiming for. So far we have: Buckaroo Air Master SaS Troop Roman Ratel KAreil BigDuke66 Good to see you again Buckaroo. Until later. Brett oldrocky RE: tournament proposal - Buckaroo - 05-31-2015 I like the idea of some displayed V hexes at strategic locations and hidden V hexes for CG chosen objectives. I like the z-fire, arty, reserve, scoring, experience, supply settings, and mechanics of how orders and comms will occur. I have one concern, the map... The map favors the GE force attacking in the center and south sections due to the stream that resides on the east side, with the option to attack in the north. Conversely the SO force has only one favorable attack map, the north. This provides greater flexibility to the GE force, which seems unfair. South map has only two locations where vehicles can cross the stream (the single ford is bracketed by mud hexes), both wooden bridges are susceptible to destruction. Center map has no bridges or fords. The one non-water path to center is at least 12 hexes of dense wood which will either be easy to ambush or, if taking a longer route, eat up a significant portion of the 20 turns available. If keeping the map, I suggest making the bridges in the south stone while either: a) adding two stone bridges in the center or b) one stone bridge and thinning that wood (see attach edited maps for map slots 333 and 334). Even with these changes, the SO force will have to negotiate choke points. The individual map sections seem narrow. One possible alternative is to overlap them such that each map section is 50 hexes wide (the center would lap top and bottom maps by 5 hexes and the top and bottom would lap the center map by 10 hexes). This could meld well with transfer of forces between Commanders. |
){kind=link}