Gothic Ride beta PBEM

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: Run5 Staff, SSG Staff

Gothic Ride beta PBEM

Postby laska2k4 » Thu May 28, 2009 11:05 pm

who wants to play this scenario in beta testing please download

http://ybgtqa.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pTwsFBvTFpQwAhuFI07-TTL04v4Ok25iLOdTrEIeX8IlI3VntDplvwnA5UI6QlrdigA1I0WP93rrvioQGCygc4A/Gothic_dist.zip?download

(updated 10 sept 2009)

Remember that:

1) victory points have to be tuned

2) there's no AI

in detail

Initial status

Image

II Polish Corps has two objectives on his road before change area operation

Image


Patriano and Urbino are a I Canadian Corps duty

Image

End of a turn

Image
Last edited by laska2k4 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
max
User avatar
laska2k4
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:23 pm

Postby silviomelo » Sat May 30, 2009 5:07 am

I liked
User avatar
silviomelo
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 5:45 am
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brasil

Postby Malak » Sat May 30, 2009 11:21 pm

Great work! :D
Malak
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:35 am

Looks really good

Postby critter » Sun May 31, 2009 2:16 am

Sen looks great. But it don't look so hot for the Germans in you screen shots. They seem to be busy at the moment. Great Job..
Image
critter
Major
Major
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:17 pm
Location: Marine IL.

Postby SS Hauptsturmfuhrer » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:02 am

laska, thanks for making a new battle. This is the Gothic Line in northern Italy, right?
User avatar
SS Hauptsturmfuhrer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:54 pm

Re: Looks really good

Postby laska2k4 » Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:20 pm

SS Hauptsturmfuhrer wrote:laska, thanks for making a new battle. This is the Gothic Line in northern Italy, right?


yes it is


critter wrote:Sen looks great. But it don't look so hot for the Germans in you screen shots. They seem to be busy at the moment. Great Job..


the frontline was covered by a few division of the 76th Korps, the main defensive line was above the main river and expect reinforces from the west by turn 4 to 7.

Image


Historically Rimini fell the 21st of september. Allied are stronger than the axis, but there's a lot of objectives to secure before "ride up".
max
User avatar
laska2k4
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:23 pm

Postby Abwehr » Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:43 pm

I'll be playtesting this with jhdeerslayer.

The Axis outnumber the Allies about 2-1, but the Allies have an edge in artillery and air support. Their actual ground units are equal or worse than the Axis units.

If the Axis manage to withdraw part of the divisions initially engaged by the Allies, the Allies could be in trouble.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby SS Hauptsturmfuhrer » Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

I tinkered with it a little. There's not much that will likely escape north, if you wanted to, from the lower German line except maybe the 5th Mountain division. Looks like a small battle so not much micromanagement to deal with so it's good for people wanting a quick turn.

One thing I would like changed is the CRT and rivers. Now all the terrain is the same for combat and is just a cosmetic difference. In Italy the terrain had a huge effect on the fighting so I think the CRT should be changed for the terrain like give hills a -1 shift and mountains a -2 shift or something and maybe change the step number for dual dice and what not. I don't know about the roll table cause that is also the same for all terrain. Also I think removing the river -50% attacking strength effect is not good. Rivers are hard to fight across and in Italy they caused the allies a lot of hardship.

As for the forces, I can't really tell without a test game but the allies should be able to punch through without a huge struggle. If the terrain and rivers are edited to add some effect on combat, then maybe adding in some more units would be best.

I posted this on this thread instead of by email in case other people agree or disagree.
User avatar
SS Hauptsturmfuhrer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:54 pm

Postby Abwehr » Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:02 am

Observations and suggestions:

-The armoured units are set to "permanent KIA" even though they have timed steps.

-There are 1 step units which are not company size.

-The counters are generic, so I have no clue what all the artillery is supposed to model, but a 25 pounder regiment should never get a KIA 2+ when a 150mm howitzer units gets a KIA on a 3+.

I suggest properly naming the equipment in tank and artillery units and adjusting their strength accordingly. I also suggest that anything at or below 105mm should never get KIA 2+ status in maps like this.

-Replacements and unit strength were a problem for both sides, so I don't think any units should get more than 3 (maximum, preferably 2) timed steps. The SS should most certainly never get 5 steps.

-

Hauptsturmfuhrer: your comment about how terrain has become "generic" and how that impacts fighting in rugged terrain/in the mountains is something that has been troubling me since SSG announced they would re-release the Battles in Italy scenarios, for the Kharkov/possibly Across the Dnepr 2 engine.

With some luck, a player could blast through a line of fortifications in the most difficult terrain imaginable in a single turn. At Monte Cassino, on the Gothic Line and elsewhere, over a dozen assaults were often needed before a defender could be removed from the area he was protecting.

With 4 artillery attacks per side per hex possible, like in this scenario, the scenario can quickly become deadlier than reality if artillery only needs a low dice roll to hit. A -2 modifier is not enough if the artillery gets a KIA on a 2 by standard in a larger scenario.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby laska2k4 » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:38 pm

Follow your proposals I made some adjustments on this scenario.
Probably allied forces are weaker than axis, I should do some test after this new changes.

I suggest to all beta testers to move the discussion to this forum instead of my private mail.

this is the new download link:

http://rapidshare.com/files/240334311/G ... st_1.1.zip


In Italy the terrain had a huge effect on the fighting so I think the CRT should be changed for the terrain like give hills a -1 shift and mountains a -2 shift


I' added new CRT table for mountain, forest and hill(clean/rugged)

Also I think removing the river -50% attacking strength effect is not good


restored the difficulty to attack through river side, seems more realistic now

The armoured units are set to "permanent KIA" even though they have timed steps.


they still have timed step but limited to two turn delay


The counters are generic, so I have no clue what all the artillery is supposed to model, but a 25 pounder regiment should never get a KIA 2+ when a 150mm howitzer units gets a KIA on a 3+.


105 mm still have 3+, lesser calibre get a 4+.


Replacements and unit strength were a problem for both sides, so I don't think any units should get more than 3 (maximum, preferably 2) timed steps. The SS should most certainly never get 5 steps.


timed steps no more the 2. SS units are defined and not used (they were employed on the east side of the gothic line), maybe could be employed in a variant fictional.

With 4 artillery attacks per side per hex possible, like in this scenario, the scenario can quickly become deadlier than reality


I reduced to one per hex
max
User avatar
laska2k4
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:23 pm

Postby Abwehr » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:31 am

I reduced to one per hex


I suggest 2 per hex, otherwise retreat results will be rare and you will need retreat results in difficult terrain to dislodge the defender, especially when trying to cross a river.

The 2 per hex for the Allies would model the sheer amount of Allied batteries and their efficient artillery spotting systems. For the Germans, the 2 per hex would model pre-plotted artillery and generally having the advantage of being on higher ground which means batteries can be concentrated at the same target with more ease. It would be historical for the Italian campaign.

As to the other changes: I like them. I had created a modified version of the scenario myself, to see if that would work, but I'll stick to your version now that there are changes.

-

Edit:

There are still 1 step Pioneer "regiments".

4th Parachute Division has a 4 step recon battalion, the same goes for 26th Panzer (although it seems the unit is actually mechanized PzG judging by the stats, you might've mislabelled it). 29 PzG has a 4 step recon unit.

You might want to check up on unit naming in general. Unless there's a historical reason (like being overstrength) a battalion should be 2 step, a regiment 3 or 4 step and a company 1 step (it might be that those 1 step pioneer units are actually supposed to be companies).
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby jhdeerslayer » Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:55 pm

For the latest version the artillery is almost useless. I think Abwehr's comments have some merit including the armor steps issue.

Also, is there any reason the 2ns Polish Corp HQ and 5th Armored Art. can't move on turn 2?

Thanks for doing this by the way Max.
jhdeerslayer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 11:57 pm

Postby SS Hauptsturmfuhrer » Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:04 pm

It should be good with all those changes. Good luck with the AI. I'm looking forward to playing this.
User avatar
SS Hauptsturmfuhrer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:54 pm

Postby laska2k4 » Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:09 pm

For the latest version the artillery is almost useless


I agree with you. With this setting the allied can't pass the main line of defense and this isn't so much historical.

I think Abwehr's comments have some merit including the armor steps issue


this is obviously right, but I wish to do some considerations in other way.

Accordingly with Jackson - "The Mediterranean & Middle East, vol.VI, Part II" this was the resources situation:

Eighth Army

Guns (heavy and anti-tank) = 2,177
Tanks & Self-propelled guns (deployed) = 1,554
Tanks & Self-propelled guns (reserves) = unlimited
Aircraft = thousands

Tenth Armèe

Guns (heavy and anti-tank) = 351
Tanks & Self-propelled guns (deployed) = 268
Tanks & Self-propelled guns (reserves) = 50
Aircraft = none


So I think that some more support units must be attached to allied divisions.

I've also changed the number of step in this way:

1 step company
2 steps battalion
3 steps regiment
4 steps brigade

and still working on the AI
max
User avatar
laska2k4
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:23 pm

Postby jhdeerslayer » Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:59 am

OK - Thanks and let us know and we'll fire up another PBEM on your next revision.
jhdeerslayer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 11:57 pm

Next

Return to Kharkov Scenario Design

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron