Prokhorovka Map

Got an interesting idea about a new scenario design? ...or maybe you just need some help with the Scenario Editor; this is the place!

Moderators: AlexS, Run5 Staff, SSG Staff

Postby U2-fan » Mon May 05, 2008 11:36 pm

Guys,

The PzIII had to close within 500m to be able to have a chance vs the T-34. The germans had way too many PzIIIs at Kursk BUT tactics and training did make up for some of the shortcomings. To be honest guys the only MAIN battle tank that was of any use was the upgraded PzIVG and H at Kursk '43. Luckily they had som Stugs, Panzerjägers and Tigers too.
U2-fan
Private
Private
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 11:14 pm

Postby Abwehr » Tue May 06, 2008 6:21 am

Assault guns usually were the first to be equipped with better guns, which is why the StuG become such a good weapon from early 1942 onwards.

The Panzer III's at Kursk were to aid the heavier tanks, which advanced in what comes down to a V shape with the heaviest tank at the point of the V. Considering that the Germans were attacking fixed defenses and that the Soviets didn't know where the tanks would concentrate, being able to destroy a tank at medium range would be sufficient. The Panzer III's supporting the Tigers were mostly Panzer III N's, with an improved short 7.5cm gun (improved as in: it could handle newer ammunition, which had been greatly improved since 1939).
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby Wallas » Tue May 06, 2008 1:56 pm

Abwehr wrote:Wallas: first of all, I don't see what your post about total production figures has to do with my point .


Your original point was asking why soviet direct fire numbers where high. I assume in any game a combat value take into account many factors and just pointing out one.
Wallas
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:55 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby Ian » Tue May 06, 2008 9:58 pm

Hi to all

Okay after reading up on my manual I think I found to issue that Zanekin and Abwher was referring to. I must admit that when you guys talked about “no offensive supply consumption” I had no idea what you meant.

I THINK I got it now: it means bullets used during combat and indirect artillery fire right? And yes this is a big omission on my part. This is due to the fact that I misunderstood the meaning of this setting in the editor when I was creating the units.
So to sum it up, as it stand now combat units and artillery uses NO bullets while conducting combat. This will be fixed in the updated release. Thanks to all of you for being so patient with my slow reaction. I just had to take some of my own advice I regally dish out, “if all else fails, read the manual”.

Speaking of which, the updated version is well underway. Objectives are about 90% complete.

Very interesting discussion you guys having here about tanks…
User avatar
Ian
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Postby zanekin » Tue May 06, 2008 10:35 pm

Collision of mind overseas !!!

I'm just going to explain the same: you missed to fill the "bullet used" in each combat and artillery unit page.
It's just bullshit !
zanekin
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: Near Lille (France)

Postby Abwehr » Wed May 07, 2008 4:15 am

Good luck with finishing the scenario Ian.

Your original point was asking why soviet direct fire numbers where high. I assume in any game a combat value take into account many factors and just pointing out one.


The game takes many things into account, but I don't think the number of tanks (either as an abstraction of total production or the amount of tanks in a unit) have an impact on the Direct Fire dice. If the Soviets build more tanks and the tanks were available, that will mean they will probably get more replacements, not better attack stats.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby Brubaker » Wed May 07, 2008 10:13 am

Ian this is an absolute outstanding scenario you have made. I am quite stunned at the (relative) short period of time you have managed to put this together. Believe me I know what is involved...

Congratulations my friend.

Brubaker
User avatar
Brubaker
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:57 am

Postby Ian » Thu May 08, 2008 6:07 pm

Thanks for your comments Brubaker. :D I did cram in a lot of editing hours over a “relatively” short period of time with this one. Also I know for a fact that my girlfriend will most definitely not put up with a repeat of this type of behavior from me in the future. So any future scenarios designs will take much longer I’m afraid.

While testing Prokhorovka scenario I noticed the following as far as bridging units are concerned: All German bridging units has pontoon bridges which work fine.
It’s when I select a bridging unit and click on the “dismantle pontoon” button that I noticed what I think might be an error?
After dismantling the pontoon the bridging unit should have no movement and there should be no bridge anymore, now by simply unselecting the same bridging unit and then clicking on the very same bridging unit I found it to have its full movement plus it is possible to cross a river at the point where the pontoon was dismantled.
Is it possible for someone to confirm this?
User avatar
Ian
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Postby Robjess » Thu May 08, 2008 9:55 pm

Tell your GF that you now have semi-cult-demi-god status on the Run5 forums and that it is only fair that she share you and your time with the rest of us.

Failing that ditch her and get someone who is more understanding :)

Dont tell her I said that last bit..
User avatar
Robjess
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5126
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 5:33 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Brubaker » Fri May 09, 2008 1:53 pm

Ian wrote:After dismantling the pontoon the bridging unit should have no movement and there should be no bridge anymore, now by simply unselecting the same bridging unit and then clicking on the very same bridging unit I found it to have its full movement plus it is possible to cross a river at the point where the pontoon was dismantled.


Ian I can confirm this is true. It is also true in the Italy series. Strange it hasn't been brought up before as an error. Everyone MUST know about it. I will put it in the Kharkov testers thread to get a response from Roger.

Brubaker
User avatar
Brubaker
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:57 am

Postby Roger Keating » Fri May 09, 2008 2:09 pm

Tried playing with this in Kharkov and found that yes, you do have to deselect and reselect pontoon to get proper movement display but it doesn't allow movement over rivers.

It is by design that the pontoons have movement when they release bridges.

So 15 all?
User avatar
Roger Keating
SSG
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Ian » Fri May 09, 2008 9:38 pm

Thanks to Brubaker and Roger for looking at pontoon units. I agree that pontoon units should have movement after they release bridges.

Maybe just a last comment…regards to a pontoon units that releases a bridge in a turn and being able to cross a river on that same hex, I think might not be an “error” after all.

Looking at it from a different angle:
Let’s say your bridging unit deploys a pontoon over a river in turn 1.
On turn 2 the “crew and vehicles cross the river” using the pontoon bridge they deployed the previous turn and are now actually on the opposite bank of the river.
By releasing the pontoon the unit only seems to be crossing the river over a non existing bridge, which is not the case since it could actually be on either side of the river bank.

Although the unit’s physical location on the game map has not changed, they could be on either side of the river, and therefore the controlling player’s choice as to where to move said unit.

Not sure if this makes any sense at all.
User avatar
Ian
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Postby Gen Alexandra » Fri May 09, 2008 9:46 pm

[quote="Failing that ditch her and get someone who is more understanding :)

Dont tell her I said that last bit..[/quote]

:lol: :lol:
Image
User avatar
Gen Alexandra
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:33 am
Location: Silverstone - England

Postby Ian » Fri May 09, 2008 10:09 pm

Robjess wrote:Failing that ditch her and get someone who is more understanding :)

Dont tell her I said that last bit..


Robjess, I was showing of some of the posts I made on this tread to the GF, that’s when she read your post…..........just kidding. :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Ian
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Postby Abwehr » Sun May 11, 2008 10:08 pm

Ian: it could be me, but did you mix up the icons of heavy and medium artillery? The 105mm's have a larger square than the 150mm's in their icon, whilst it should be the other way around I believe. At least: it is the other way around in the other scenario's.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to Battlefront Scenario Design

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron