Dubno map problem

[uran21]

Dubno map problem:

[Shards]

Hmm, I'm sure that Adherbal fixed that before Burma Road! Looks like it's slipped back in!

[uran21]

If road trough denase forest cannot serve as road to motorized transport than dense forest should not be on roads. More to the point river overlay makes dense forest less visible on this occasion.

[Shards]

I agree with your complaint on the road and forest, but feel that the dense forest is a great gameplay feature on that particular hex on this map as it forces both sides to attack the interesting routes to the North and South. Maybe the bridge could be destroyed? So keeping the flavour but not causing so much visual conflict?

[uran21]

I agree with your complaint on the road and forest, but feel that the dense forest is a great gameplay feature on that particular hex on this map as it forces both sides to attack the interesting routes to the North and South. Maybe the bridge could be destroyed? So keeping the flavour but not causing so much visual conflict?

Or removing the forest AND destroying the bridge.

[uran21]

Supply in this area is all mixed up. My infantry on the bridge was not cut of supply because it was standing on supply source without a flag and when it entered town it could reinforce. Also plan to encircle attacking force (in other game) makes no sense when they have such a free supply pocket situation. Such details really do mater in PvP.

[Shards]

I've had a quick look at the map this morning. I'll send an updated version through to Adherbal.

Removed the River from Dubno
Blown the Bridge in the Dense Forest (being able to put Inf in those forests is a cool tactical ability, don't want to lose it)
Corrected the placements of the supply sources in the North West
Added a rail link into the South West town so that the German Aux unit that starts there can get on a train straight away (this has always irritated me!)
Removed a couple of redundant German deployment hexes in the North West back-field that looked like left-overs.

Ta

[uran21]

This scenario also has time frame problem. It is placed in the year 1941 but last turns go into 1942. What happens is switch in equipment, particularly infantry that also costs more. Per turn RP is 35 which is enough for one '41 infantry but '42 infantry costs 40. This thing alone delayed my planed counterattack and left me short of objective. At the games end every RP counts.

[uran21]

Regarding time frame of this scenario... I did a double check and realized this issue is not part of this map. Don't know what happend in my wire circles...

But if StuG IIID is bought as artillery piece you get promissed Anti-Tank Mode in traits which may lead to wrong assumption it will provide anti-tank support if barrel is lowered. It won't because lowerd barell version is placed under tanks (which is wrong because anything that has no rotating turret cannot be called a tank). Even if clasification of this unit as a tank is here to stay Anti-Tank Mode designation from unit traits should be removed and replaced with something else.

[Shards]

Listing Assault Guns with Tanks is just one of those decisions that happened for OOB a while ago. But I see your point about the label. looking through the csv though, there doesn't seem to be an options for "Tank Mode". I'll add it to the feature list for the future.

[Horst]

The StuGs are all support units, no matter how long or short the barrel is. Making the early ones defend infantry against tanks shouldn’t be such a game-breaker. The short-barrel guns were issued HEAT ammunition since June 40 which was improved over the years.
Should you ever consider changing all variants to anti-tank class, then giving arty mode to the long-barrelled version is welcomed too.
The real firing ranges of StuGs are roughly:
7.5 cm StuK 37 L/24: 6.2 km
7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43: 7.2 km
7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48: 7.7 km