 |
|
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 - Mr Grumpy - 11-07-2008 Dog Soldier Wrote: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.Just to add that the H2H testing area is generally only really successful for smaller scenarios of less than 40 moves and a size modifier of 5 or less. ;) RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - JDR Dragoon - 11-07-2008 Dog Soldier Wrote: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. Well, I am Zen about it. If they choose to use all, some or none of it it will be fine with me (I´ll just pick another scenario or setup to game instead in D85. Or make my own as you suggest). If they do use it, I will be happy, and if they don´t there is not much I can do about it anyway. Quote: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. Well, I tried playing around with the editor for a bit. This might take some time though (did manage to get the OOB editor working fairly flawlessly after afew tries). I also inadvertantly changed some of the info in the "Units" textfile, but I don´t think that will have any influence on the game (since it is the info in the .oob file that counts). Or am I wrong? RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - JDR Dragoon - 11-07-2008 Foul. Wrote:Just to add that the H2H testing area is generally only really successful for smaller scenarios of less than 40 moves and a size modifier of 5 or less. ;) Well, I tend towards smaller myself (not necessarily shorter though), meaning 1-2 Corps of troops. Sometimes I will open up the big "Germany" scenario in DF85 and just take in the beauty of it all and move a few units around. But I just can´t find the tiem or get myself worked up to take it on. RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - Zemke - 11-08-2008 Dragoon would you be interested in a team game in the near future? Perhaps commanding the forces of your homeland changed as you now suggest? RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - Aaron - 11-08-2008 Am following this thread and have traded an email or two with Dragoon and updates to the Danish forces will be in the next update, takes a little time have to first compare it to the other 12 oobs i have of the Danish forces in the 80s and then make changes, cant start changes from all info without at first double checking. Some great stuff though, oob as of now is not to far off but does need tweaking. Thanks Dragoon Aaron Wont be to long for update have also got the rest of the Dutch info from Hans and have adjusted plus brought Soviet tank variant numbers down to within limits, (800 T-80bv,600 T-64bv and so on) still dont know which units had the Bv models but will probably never know so i put them everywhere. Did i mention MORE updated graphics, well i guess i just did. Oh another little thing, found that the US had Nukes under guard in Germany for use of certain WGerm art units, so have adjusted for those units only to have WMD. Divisional level for the most part Would like to get back into AI for those who play that way but that will be after this update been working 7 days a week for the last 7 weeks b/c of government mandates so been busy but so has Michal on the graphics, some of the stuff he sends me leaves me wondering where the hell he finds these things. RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - JDR Dragoon - 11-09-2008 Well, after fidgeting around with the OOB editor for a few evenings I managed to come up with the following ZIP file containing a modifed .oob file for the LandJut corps and a folder of unit pictures to go with it (featuring graphics from the stock game, "Volcanoman" and "Michal". Used here without any express permission, but since the files are freely available for download I hope it is OK) and a textfile explaining the choises made with regards to the oob (essentially a cookup of my posts here). You can then copy-paste whatever you feel like into the stock DF 85 game or use the OOB as a basis for your own work. (I also discovered that making the names of units too long will cause the .oob file to become corrupted and unusable. Funny how you end up learning such things ;)) RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - JDR Dragoon - 11-09-2008 Zemke Wrote:Dragoon would you be interested in a team game in the near future? Perhaps commanding the forces of your homeland changed as you now suggest? Well, I am "game". I am quite large about force selection and can play other nations than Denmark. PBEM only, since TCP/IP will likely be impossible. RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - Hans Boersma - 11-09-2008 JDR, in your oob file I can't seem to find the Centurion-equipped Panserjagerbataljon (VI/JDR); did you forget to add it or shouldn't it be there (timeframe 1985)? I've seen it mentioned as a part of JDIV's units; also as part of the JKG; and I've also seen both these organizations portrayed as having such a unit (V and VI/JDR), but that is probably not right. RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - JDR Dragoon - 11-10-2008 Hans Boersma Wrote:JDR, in your oob file I can't seem to find the Centurion-equipped Panserjagerbataljon (VI/JDR); did you forget to add it or shouldn't it be there (timeframe 1985)? VI. JDR spent the period from 86-89 "working up" (it takes time to train a reserve battalion. Especially when you have a limited budget to do it on) Quote:I've seen it mentioned as a part of JDIV's units; also as part of the JKG; and I've also seen both these organizations portrayed as having such a unit (V and VI/JDR), but that is probably not right. The beauty here is, that I managed to get an email correspondence going with the former VI. JR battalion CO from 89-91 currently employed as a senior lecturer at the military academy). While the battalion was "working up" to operational status it was under the control of the division. As soon as it was "ready" in the mobilization force it was transferred to the 3rd Jutland Brigade. The Jutland Battlegroup didn´t have any tanks (The battlegroups managing the coastal defence sectors in LandZealands sector did however). The breakdown went something like this: 110 obsolete 20 pdr Centurions (happens after 1978 when the last of the Jutland Divisions 120 Leopard 1A3s becomes operational) plus 16 unupgraded Centurions with 105mm guns (126 Centurions in all). During the mid 70s the decision is made to employ these as "Tank destroyers" for lower catagory mobilization units. Individual squadrons are almost immediately seconded to various units as follows: -2. Squadrons (of about 20 tanks) to the regional defence forces on the island of Funen in order to beef up AT strenght near the ferry crossings of the Great and Little Belt (these units also had some rudimentary training in firing on naval targets) -1. Squadron to the 2. 3. and 4. Zealand Battlegroups in order to beef up AT strenght in their respective sectors of coastal defence (about 30 tanks). Untill then, the main long range AT weapons of these infantry formations had been 106mm RRs and 105mm howitzers firing directly.... The 4th. Zealand Battlegroup also had a secondary mission as a mobile reserve and was the only unit actually contemplating to use their Centurions offensively. -1. Squadron (about 10) to the Bornholm battlegroup (untill then the only tank strenght on the island had been a squadron of M41 light tanks) -Which leaves us 50 tanks for the Jutland divisions "TD BTN", which had to whipped into shape as a unit first before it could be employed gainfully. This hadn´t happened by 1985. -The remaining 16 tanks were "war reserves" and reservoirs of spare parts (I know that the Squadron slated for Bornholm actually had 12 tanks on strenght, with 2 of them marked down as replacements. A similar arrangement is not unlikely with regards to the other units). I don´t believe that 105mm and 20 pdr armed tanks were "mixed" but so far I have been unable to discover just which unit got the single squadron of 105mm armed tanks that would have been available. Theorhetically the remaining 16 tanks might even have been used ti build another squadron but if so, I have been unable to find any trace of it. This might theoretically have been the squadron attached to the Jutland Battlegroup but as mentioned above I have so far failed to find any indication that the Battlegroup had such a squadron. -"V. JDR" was the divisional Reconnaisance Battalion. It is my old unit. I should know ;) RE: NATO, WAPA and the indefensibility of LandJut in NGP and D85 - Hans Boersma - 11-10-2008 Thanks for clearing that up! |
){kind=link}