(08-09-2021, 11:20 AM)2-81 Armor Wrote: I really like what you've got planned for the support units. It sounds like a really good compromise. I also like what you say about Kampfgruppen and unit breakdown/recombining.
If you want any assistance with the OOB US naming conventions I'm happy to help. Examples: US uses "Co" as the abbreviation for "Company" and not "Coy". Infantry was never "lorried" but is motorized. US battalions are either shown as 2/81 or 2-81 depending on whether or not they are organic/integral to a regiment or not. Engineer Battalions in WW2 were termed "Engineer Combat" and not "Combat Engineer" which is the modern term. Paratroops were called "Parachute Infantry", and not "Airborne". There are a others, but since the USMC is not involved we don't have contend with a unit being named "2nd Marine Regiment" instead of 2nd Marines.
I think you've got the makings of a winner here, and I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product!
Yes I like the sound of the OOB changes as well. Still a lot of work to do once the OOB is resolved. Unit placement and reinforcement scheduling. Then fine tuning all the prepared defenses.
I can see why Brian Jennings became 'burned out' on this subject.
I assume the intent is to make the scenario play under standard Alt options so Alternative Assault on but Alternative Indirect Fire/Direct Fire off.
I guess Alternative Indirect/Direct Fires are unique to certain OOB's/situations like Normandy? I've always like the idea of the alternative Fire rules. It cuts out a lot of micromanaging stuff, and adds a bit more unpredictability.
Unfortunately as John (Green) has pointed out the formula used for calculating losses is a bit flawed and needs tweaking. Still playable in PzC Normandy....just watch your stacking levels though! <g>