A few observations

Discussion relating to Across The Dnepr Second Edition

Moderators: Run5 Staff, SSG Staff

A few observations

Postby Guest » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:34 am

AtD2 is great, have to say. Looking forward to a tournament (if there is one).

Have a few observations, though.

There are still ways to get recon that shouldn't be there: for example, when you select a unit to move, you can see from greyed out hexes where enemy units are, which is a major advantage. Also, when you get red dice while hovering an artillery attack over a unit behind enemy lines, that tells you there are other, as yet unspotted units there. Again, information you shouldnt have.

A question: Russian recon units don't seem to have a recon range bonus - is this deliberate?

Another: why dont engineer units have a better chance of blowing bridges? And on a similar note, I don't think units should be able to blow bridges that start the turn under the control of the enemy - currently, you can nip into enemy controlled terrain, blow a bridge, and then nip back (as long as there aren't enemy units directly adjacent.)

A suggestion: shouldnt there be some kind of mechanism for air recon? Perhaps a simple method would be to have a theatre air recon level for each side on each turn, set by the scenario designer. At 0 there is no air recon. At 1 large enemy units (say, 3 steps and up) which end their turn unentrenched and in open terrain within, say, 5 hexes of the front are partially spotted (ie, unidentified unit marker). At 2, the same extends across the entire map.

And finally, I still think that the movement penalties for woods and forrest are not high enough, especially for armoured, truck and mechanised units. Armour should basically not be able to move at all in a forest, unless there is a road, no?
Guest
 

Postby Roger Keating » Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:24 am

In a real war there are numerous ways that enemy positions are suspected and guessed at. The fact that you know that something is there reflects this viewpoint. The problem still remains that you have to go there to truely find out what the situation is. There is no perfect formula for this one.

Soviet Recon units ... In designed this .. depends what shape they were in I suppose.

I also can't really say anything about bridge blowing engineers.

I don't see any problem with being in enemy contested terrain for repairing a bridge. They were repaired under fairly harrowing circumstances.

Air recon has been discussed and dismissed. The information would never get to the ground troops in the time scale of the game. There would have to be some magic formula used to determine if a unit was seen or not seen and it would only confuse matters.

As for moving through forest etc. this is Ian's domain. The scale of the game is 4 kms/hex and usually at that scale there are numerous roads and trails through all sorts of terrain. The problem really comes in supplying these units and keeping a advance moving. If you try the forest way and the enemy manages to interdict you then those units can be in a lot of trouble.
User avatar
Roger Keating
SSG
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby hank » Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:48 am

Turn 5 just ended ... time for a rest. Observation(s)

I have not seen any heavy artillery or mortar yet that can strike an entrenched hex with only one die roll. Is this right? Or did I miss something? (like in K:DotD)

OOPS!! ... disregard the previous statement. I found some. One in the 39th corp just arrived. Sorry. :oops:
Once I saw that one, I did a more thorough search in the OOB and found a few more. ... a little premature I was

I can see why some terrain should not allow this (like city hexes) The heavy Corp level arty only needs dbl 3's for open hexes with entrenched Ruskies. Is this suppose to simulate the use of the single die heavy mortars likes what's in Kharkhov.

There's a pioneer battalion in the 9th Army assets that has a red background but doesn't have much in the way of engineering capabilites. Is this suppose to be a flame tank unit? (Mk IIs)

The first AtD had a few flam units if I remember correctly.

Lots of fun ... that's a big observation. I took Vitebsk on turn 3. I'm either going to take Mogilev in turn 6 or pound it into dust. I'm cleaning out the areas north of Vitebsk and have a solid line 5 or 6 hexes east of there ... moving east with force.

The way I play I keep divisions, corp and armies together working together (I rarely mix things up much). This game makes it easy to do that with the ability to pick units of a division from the control panel (above the unit boxes instead of hunting them up on the map) and the highlighting of crop assets let you see where the units in a corp are located.

having fun
User avatar
hank
Major
Major
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:09 pm

Postby Roger Keating » Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:20 am

Just a small comment, as I can't really comment on the OOB as I was not involved in designing the scenario.

If you bring up the Unit Roster dialog, it's the button next to the flag at the bottom, it can show you the how many and where the heavy artillery are. The heavy artillery button is in the top row and when selected, if it can be selected (as there may be no eligible units), then you can cycle through them.

This may help with the initial problem.
User avatar
Roger Keating
SSG
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby hank » Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:47 am

Thanks RK ... it wasn't really a problem ... just an oversight on my part (heavy artillery has been arriving regularly now that I'm past turn 5)

another observation:

With all the bridging ops necessary in AtD2 I noticed a bridging unit can not cross its own bridge. I thought it could but I think I got SSG and HPS confused.

Is this by design or an oversight?

Now the only way for a bridging unit to cross a river is to either have another bridging unit build a second bridge on the other side or it find a permanent bridge that hasn't been blown.

Oh, did I mention AtD2 is an aweful lot of fun.
User avatar
hank
Major
Major
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:09 pm

Postby Roger Keating » Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:30 am

Really the bridging unit not being able to use it's own bridge is a result of the coding issues involved. I could create a special function, which would require UI space and controls, so that you could move it from one side of the bridge to the other but it has never been requested or hinted at from the testing team or scenario designers I talk to.

It is never just a case of saying it can easily happen, you have to think through all the assets that need to be added, the interface made in such a way as it is not confusing and the testing to make sure no bugs or features are introduced to the scenarios.

I tend to leave these things out unless (1) requests are made to do it or (2) I really want to see it in the program.
User avatar
Roger Keating
SSG
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby pete AU » Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:24 am

Hi Rog.

You may remember (or not) we discussed this during testing for Konrad. My concern here was crossing the Danube which cannot be crossed otherwise.
In the end we decided there were enough bridging units available to allow unused bridging units to cross where crossing at fixed ford hexes or road bridges was not feasable.

In ATD the river penalties are not severe and its probably not woth the programming time.
History is an argument without end
Projects - Iskra (available to download), Stalingrad Pocket (ver101 finished and available to download), Guadalcanal (map done), Guadalajara (playtesting - volounteers?), Napoleonic Borodino (volounteers?)
ImageImageImageImage Image Image
User avatar
pete AU
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:07 pm
Location: Australia - Perth

Postby Abwehr » Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:59 pm

I seem to recall there was a discussion about how good it would be for a bridging unit to be able to cross its own bridge, although that might've been in a BiI thread.

I guess that, until the issue is resolved, a bridging unit could theoretically be split in two, one with no defence value, with a houserule that they must always be in the same hex or close to eachother, so one component can create a bridge, the other can cross and bridge from the other side and then the first component can cross.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby hank » Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:01 am

Thanks for replies.
I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something. (I read the manual to see if didn't know what I was doing ... which happens)
If its by design I can live with it. I don't have a problem using two bridging units to cross a river. There's plenty to go around in AtD2. If there was a scenario with just one lonely bridging unit I may get frustrated.

There's been a lot of discussion at the Blitz about the PzC (HPS) bridging system. You have to put the bridging unit in travel mode, move it across its bridge, turn travel mode off, wait till the next turn then start its bridge operations to disassemble it (or bust the unit down and leave a company with it while sending the rest on to another river).

Some of the discussion over there was about why a bridging unit can't leave its pontoon bridge in place and move on. But, those who've experienced it first hand said at least a company had to be left with the bridge to police it and maintain it ... thus you had to either stay with the bridge or disassemble it. FWIW

best regards
User avatar
hank
Major
Major
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:09 pm

Postby Roger Keating » Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:40 am

I could introduce a mechanism to transport a unit across a bridge but if the bidging unit leaves the area the bridge would have to be eliminated, the system would demand it without a great deal of work.

If it was introduced what I could do is to have two disassemble commands, one for each end of the bridge so that the unit would stay in place till you wanted it to move then choose one of the two options to move it on. The point being is the unit would be vulnerable at the point the bridge was built until it was disassembled. You couldn't move it across the bridge to make it to a more protected hex and avoid possible enemy bombardment, or am I thinking incorrectly?
User avatar
Roger Keating
SSG
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby hank » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:16 am

IMHO, you don't really have to do anything about moving the bridging units (BU) across a river on its own bridge as long as the scenario designers provide bridging units in pairs. I moved a BU across a pontoon; either build a bridge next to the one crossed or disassemble the one just crossed ... build one with the unit that crossed; then move the BU with the orginal pontoon across. ... that works .. but wow that's wordy.

That way nothing code wise would have to be done. I would rather see effort put into an air recon/spotting feature. ... but that's up to others

I'm on move 19 as Axis (i'm stopping the agony) and got my butt handed to me . Settings are as recommended, historic AOs. I was not very aggressive and paid for it BUT, (in my defense) my real goal was to learn the command structure ... which divisions go with the Korps ... and keeping everything together so supply was no issue (plus I'm not a good attacker). I achieved that but since I did not take but a few major objectives (late in the game) ... I took a beating on score.

I got a lot of kills (KIAs-S 14 / A 256) ... that was fun, but I'm sure other more aggressive players will a lot more than I did. In several cases the Soviet AI made me pay dearly when I made breakthoughs.

On to a game with the Soviets. I should do better this time around. I now have OOB charts for both armies plus I'm a better defender.

thanks for the fun times

WOW: after posting this comment I started a game as Soviet against the Axis AI. I sat in awe watching the AI's first move. I'm now aware of how aggresive you can be as Axis and most likely how aggresive you'll have to be to win from the German side.
User avatar
hank
Major
Major
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:09 pm


Return to Across The Dnepr - Second Edition Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron