Recommend
14 
 Thumb up
 Hide
214 Posts
[1]  Prev «  5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9  | 

Red Tide West» Forums » General

Subject: Looks great at first, plays disappointing rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Pavel Novak
msg tools
Numbering and types of mobilized formations has changed through time.

At some point there were mentioned 303rd and 304th independent reserve tank regiments and 305th, 307th and 309th independent reserve motor-rifle regiments. But 1986 plan has called for formation of 3 independent reserve tank regiments and 2 independent reserve motor-rifle regiments (apart from one reserve MRD and two reserve TD - not counting that five standard mobilized TD and MRD).

Regarding equipment the mobilized 16th TD is interesting as by late 1980's all of its stored T-55 were modernized to T-55AM1 standard and thus it was better equipped than some active divisions.

The other standard mobilized divisions would get mostly not modernised T-54, BVP-1 (there were enough of them to fully cover all needs at the end of 1980s) and OT-62 and OT-810 but no OT-64 (there were not enough of them for mobilised divisions, possibly apart of specialized versions). Artillery would be 122mm M-30 (vz. 38/74) and 152mm vz. 18/47 howitzers. Anti-aircraft regiments had 57mm guns (either soviet S-60 or domestic 57mm "CS").

The only information regarding the reserve formations is from 60th reserve MRD which was supposed to be equipped with T-34-85 and trucks (no APCs) in second half of 1980s.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig Stosser
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darth Stalin wrote:
Joseph Deats wrote:
Darth Stalin wrote:
7. French divisions' strength was broadly discussed, and the author's assumptions in that manner are greatly overrating the Frenchies.


Mr. Mantay, this is totally bogus. If anything, the French pieces should be stronger in RTW. I don't know where you are getting your info, Czechoslovak, French or otherwise, but your assertions don't match up the raw facts.

If you need raw facts, then just read carefully the French Division's OoB in 1990 - number and quality of tanks, APCs, IFVs etc - and then compare it to Czechoslovak division, either MR or tank.
You would be heavily surprised... which was also proven by more open-minded people like Mr. Thomas here and on CSW.

Quote:
So I don't understand why you don't sell or burn your copy of the game (assuming you ever owned the game, which-if not-would make you seem even more odd that you keep up with this).

Why?
The system seems nice and may work pretty smooth; the problem is with OoB.

Robert Anderson wrote:
Darth Stalin wrote:
1. The problem is, that nobody even noticed that the Czechoslovaks had prepositioned stocks of war material for another 5 divisions - 2 tank and 3 Motor Rifle.


Another 5(!) divisions from pre-positioned stocks??? What horseshit.

Why doesn't any other game I've ever seen have the extra CZ army?


Ask their authors, not me. The same applies to those 5 additional GDR divisions.
Yet these were also proven on TankNet website as well as on a website dedicated to CzSLA, as well as in the book dedicated to armed forces of the Poland's neighbors (pblished in Poland in early 90s).
That can be also deducted from the number of tanks and IFVs in the Czechoslovak inventory, which was pretty... astonishing.

nottap wrote:
Darth Stalin (sorry, I'm not going to try and spell your real name), I'm curious for an explanation for why your Czechoslovakian army upload (which I did not download thankfully) doesn't match up to sources.

You seemed to have conveniently glossed over that.

Khem... If You've read everything I wrote (before it was purged out on CSW) then you would know it DID match the sources. Most of them published in Czech and Polish, but also available on TankNet website in applicable thread.
BTW: there's no obligation of downloading and playing the optional counters.

Eric Harvey wrote:
This is the most imbecilic thing you have said so far.

Again only insults, and nothing more.
Really, it is not me to learn about how to make a civilised discussion...

Quote:
The French are greatly overrated? They are some of the lowest-rated divisions in the game.

Yet still being too overrated.
Like French Mech division: in reality it had: 3 x inf battalions on VAB APCs plus AT company with 12 x VAB-HOT 1 x armored cars battalion with ERC-90s and 1 x arty bn with 18 towed 155mm guns, plus engineer battalion.
NOTE: do not be confused by the "regiment" names of those battalions...

How would you call and rate such a unit? A division? Really? :shake: And what should be its true combat strength?

On the opposite side you have a 1st rate Czechoslovak MR division: a T-72 regiment (94 vehicles plus a BMP-1 battalion), 3 x MR regiments (each with 40 T-55AM Kladivo FCS and 3 MR battalions: 2 regts on SKOT APCs, 1 with BMPs); in each regt you have 18 x 122mm howitzers plus 54 x 122mm howitzers and 18 x 122mm MRLs in artillery regiment. Plus engineer battalion etc.

Forget the Czechs; here are another comparisons, this time with NATO nations::

In game French 8th Mech Division is a 2-3-6/1-2-6 unit.

However:

Belgian 16th Division (officially called "Armored"): 2 brigades active, 1 reserve; in active service: 3 x armor bns (total 120 Leopard 1), 4 x mech bns with AIFV combat vehicles, 2 arty battalions (total 36 x M-109 SPHs), 2 x AT companies with 24 x Jagdpanzer Kanone and 24 x M113 with MILAN launchers, plus 2 x engineer companies.
Plus a reserve mech brigade with 40 x Leopard 1, 2 x AIFV battalions, 1 x M-109 arty bn.

This Belgian unit is also a 2-3-6/1-2-6 unit.

IMVHO it REALLY DOES look like a "overrated French"? :wow:; and what's about your opinion?


Dutch 4th Mech division: in game it is a 2-3-6/1-2-6 unit,
French 1st Armored Division: in game it is a 3-4-6/2-3-6 unit.

Real composition:

Dutch 4th Mech Division:

4th Infantry Division (Mech) - Harderwijk, NL:

1) 41st Armored Brigade - Zeven, FRG:
a) 41st Armored Battalion (RHPA): 52 Leopard 2A4, 12 YPR-765
b) 43rd Armored Battalion (RHvS): 52 Leopard 2A4, 12 YPR-765
c) 42nd Mech Bn (RLJ): 70 YPR-765, 9 120mm mortar, 16 YPR-765/PRAT, 27 Dragon
d) 41st Artillery Battalion: 20 M109A3
e) 41st Engineer Company: 2 Engineering tanks, 2 bridging tanks, 13 M113
2) 42nd Mech Infantry Brigade - Assen, NL:
a) 57th Armored Battalion (RHPA): 61 Leopard 2A4, 12 YPR-765
b) 44th Mech Bn (RIJWF): 70 YPR-765, 9 120mm mortar, 16 YPR-765/PRAT, 27 Dragon
c) 45th Mech Bn (RIOG): 70 YPR-765, 9 120mm mortar, 16 YPR-765/PRAT, 27 Dragon
d) 42nd Artillery Battalion: 20 M109A3
e) 42nd Engineer Company: 2 Engineering tanks, 2 bridging tanks, 13 M113
3) 43rd Mech Infantry Brigade - Steenwijk, NL:
a) 42nd Armored Battalion (RHPO): 61 Leopard 2A4, 12 YPR-765
b) 41st Mech Battalion (RSt): 70 YPR-765, 9 120mm mortar, 16 YPR-765/PRAT, 27 Dragon
c) 47th Mech Bn (RIMvC): 70 YPR-765, 9 120mm mortar, 16 YPR-765/PRAT, 27 Dragon
d) 43rd Artillery Battalion: 20 M109A3
e) 43rd Engineer Company: 2 Engineering tanks, 2 bridging tanks, 13 M113
4) 103rd “van Boreel” Recon Battalion - Zeven, FRG: 18 Leopard 2A4, 48 M113 C&R Lynx, and 16 Dragon
5) 15th Air Defense Battalion: 27 PRTL twin 35mm SP, 27 Stinger

In total 246 Leopoard-2A4 tanks, 5 x AIFV/YPR-765 MICV battalions, 60 x M-109 155mm SPHs plus support.

French 1st Armored Division:

1st Armored Division (1ère Division Blindée, 1ère DB), Trier, FRG
1) 1er Régiment de Commandement et de Soutien (1er RCS), Trier
2) 1er Régiment de Cuirassiers (1er RC), Sankt Wendel (70x AMX-30B2, 11x AMX-10P)
3) 6e Régiment de Dragons (6e RD), Saarburg (70x AMX-30B2, 11x AMX-10P)
4) 8e Groupe de Chasseurs (8e GC), Wittlich (17x AMX-30B2, 39x AMX-10P)
5) 16e Groupe de Chasseurs (16e GC), Saarburg (17x AMX-30B2, 39x AMX-10P)
6) 153e Régiment d'Infanterie (153e RI), Mutzig (70x VAB)
7) 1er Compagnie Antichar (1er CAC), Mutzig (12x VAB/HOT) - assigned to 153e RI
8) 9e Régiment d'Artillerie de Marine (9e RAMa), Trier (24x AMX-30 AuF1 = GCT 155mm SP)
9) 61e Régiment d'Artillerie (61e RA), Morhange (24x AMX-30 AuF1 = GCT 155mm SP)
10) 13e Régiment du Génie (13e RG), Trier (Combat Engineers)
11) 1er Escadron d'Éclairage Divisionnaire (1er EED), Sankt Wendel - Divisional Recon Squadron

In total 174 AMX-30B2 tanks (some 1,5 generations backwards from Leopard 2), 2 battalions and 2 companies of mech infantry, 1 battalion of motorized inf in VABs, 48 x 155mm SP howitzers.

However, the French division is in total 1,5 times stronger than the Netherland division... :gulp:

Quote:
I might guess you are some sort of neo-nationalist Pole that doesn't like the French, but you have no basis whatsoever to assume they are overrated in the game (which they are most certainly not).



Not to mention the strange ratings and combat factors of French 11th Airborne Division (2-2-5/1-1-5, 1 shift) and alone 13th Airborne regiment (in fact a battalion-sized 13er Regiment Dragoons Portee) - being exactly the same (2-2-5/1-1-5, 1 shift), though the divison had 6 airborne regiments (battalions), 1 x arty bn, 1 x armored cars bn (36 x AML 90, later 36 x ERC 90S), and 2nd Foreign Legion Parachute Regt (in fact a battalion) [which seems to be excluded from division and made as separate counter named "FFL" with 1-2-5/0-1-5, 2 shifts].

Please compare these numbers above and say frankly, if the French units are or are not overrated... :D


Well, I guess we can finally bin "Le Grande Panzer Armee Francais" now that facts have been presented.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Rothschild
United States
Montana
flag msg tools
"I'm gonna personally shoot that paper-hangin' son of a bitch!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The designer refuted the claims that the French units should be weaker to my satisfaction here: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/2096477/french-ratings-...

Everyone's bizarre obsession to insist that their and only their judgment of what goes into a unit's ratings has not only failed to convince me, but made it obvious that there is more going on here than would be solved by simply playing the game however you want (or not playing a game that you despise so very much).

Let us enjoy the game and go foam at the mouth about something else.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Raine
Australia
flag msg tools
Honi soit qui mal y pense, motto of Sydney Uni Rugby Club, est. 1863
badge
General Sir John Monash, victor of Le Hamel
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
[q="Beau Geste"]The designer/q]

Please adivse why a UK Recce regiment has the same combat strength as US ACAV regiment.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blake Byrne
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Please explain why you care why he or any player likes any game?

I don't seem to recall you being nominated the preference police.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Rothschild
United States
Montana
flag msg tools
"I'm gonna personally shoot that paper-hangin' son of a bitch!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ian Raine,

If I'll assume you're directing your question to me and that you can't seriously be interested in what I think about this game, I haven't any recollection which unit is the Rece or ACAV anyway, and I'm not going to check.

I don't claim to know all the units and what their numbers should be, and maybe you're right the Rece or ACAV should be the strongest, but I've grown really tired of complaints from people who seemingly have nothing better to do in their lives than criticize a game I'm interested in.

When Compass's new WW3 game is published, are you going to ask me about some kind of unit in that game?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Anderson
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
George, "Recce" means reconnaissance, ACAV means Armored Cavalry (light tanks). It's a unit type, not specific individual game pieces.

But I agree with your sentiment. And what makes it more peculiar is that they have not even played the game. whistle

Rob
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blake Byrne
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What makes it peculiar is that they are still bitching about a game that came out five years ago. WTF?
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Rothschild
United States
Montana
flag msg tools
"I'm gonna personally shoot that paper-hangin' son of a bitch!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Robert Anderson wrote:
George, "Recce" means reconnaissance, ACAV means Armored Cavalry (light tanks). It's a unit type, not specific individual game pieces.


Okay, thanks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Harvey
United States
San Dimas
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As I had suggested in one of the other folders, let us curtail the endless back and forth about meaningless issues, especially now that Red Tide South is out with all the extra units and so forth, something everybody can be glad about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKGjOE_7bYI




4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob hatter
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eric, I do have a legitimate design question.

Your ZOC rules are fairly restrictive in this system. Not as bad as locking ZOCs, but a unit is forced to stop when it enters a ZOC, and I was curious what your rationale for that was.

I'm not saying it hampers the game. In fact it all seems to work, but was it a case of the rule was written to make the game work, or was it influenced by a forgoing WP-vs-NATO game?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Harvey
United States
San Dimas
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rob,

I actually answered this question some years before (though I can't recollect which folder or forum), but basically the reason is that the modern battlefield with the long range of anti-tank missiles, precision guided munitions, prepared known routes of advance, and so forth made it a reasonable design choice.

And yes, as you say, it works, so that is that, but I didn't base it on any other games (which I couldn't remember how each game handled ZOC off hand anyway, it had been so many years since I had played them), but I do recall that the design decision came first, and then it was a matter of seeing if it worked (which it did), not an expediency to make the game work as intended.

Some have suggested looser ZOC rules in the past, but that would make the Red Army too capable to my estimation. I think such suggestions are more probably a means to add oomph to their Warsaw Pact units, but I keep saying that anybody can play the game any way they want. If they want looser ZOCs, they should certainly feel free to play their game in that way.

That's the nice thing about a board game: It's your game, you can modify it in any way you'd like (especially when we're talking about a hypothetical war). You might hit upon something interesting.

Eric
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob hatter
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was thinking of trying the game with some home rule ZOC mods, but this was before RTS came out. With all the additional Czech and other forces now in the game, I'm going to see how the game plays out in its new form before I mess with anything.

Your explanation is sound and logical, but I wasn't thinking of tinkering with the rule on any preferred historical grounds...because naturally this war never occurred, just to see if it became more menacing that way.

Right now, the nuclear rules are there just as a sort of thing to try for players that want to push their luck, but I want to see if players resort to nuclear release out of desperation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blake Byrne
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nottap wrote:
I do have a legitimate design question.


It was bound to happen sooner or later.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9  | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.