Forum-improving lively topic #KKR1/10

[K K Rossokolski]

Jason Petho said
"Understood

When I design a set of scenarios that depict a larger battle, as not everyone plays the campaigns, I do try to keep the overall picture in mind. Losses taken, if there were replacements and the quality of those replacements, the morale and how it changes, vehicle replacements/additions/losses, etc are all considered for each scenario. Come to think of it, I try and do the same thing for individual scenarios. "

For historical scens, the criteria of which you speak are largely mandated by history. Your Odessa series was the classic example. I haven't tried that approach, one reason being that there are a lot of legacy scens, up say to Bde size, that do many of the desert engagements.....far, far better than I could. As you know,I am working on a series of Western Desert major battles..Compass, Brevity, Battleaxe (under test) and Crusader next. Up to now, I have tried to steer the action in the historical direction with the use of objectives...which in IMO must make sense militarily. I try not to drop a 500 OP in the middle of nowhere. I am thinking for Crusader to limit objectives to the relief of Tobruk. Position the formations as well as I can historically then go to it, chaps. Interesting to see what if anything happens at Gabr Saleh, Sidi Rezegh, el Adem etc

Jason Petho said
"Agreed, not during the course of a scenario.

You can incorporate those captured units within a scenario set or a campaign setting, as many of the captured units are included in the various order of battles. Additional units will hopefully come into the game as we progress with UPDATEs."

Indeed. The DAK HQ escort consists of the useless Crusader. {One would have thought Rommel should have known better}. But all these captured trucks etc are only eye candy. They have to be in the original org file. But nothing wrong with eye candy.

We seem to have got off trucks. I am OK with trucks VP>1, but I think 3VP is too much. Leaves 2VP