Slitherine

LOL...

Gents, you'll be pleased to hear that I'm almost done on dual deploy for GJS...

1. Have updated Granfali's revised moraletools.bsf to make promotion stars invisible again
2. Have inserted code so both sides can deploy during their first turn (and an explanation text box); transports can load/unload too
3. Have set LOS for the deployment phases as follows:

ME - Both sides can deploy upto 5 squares into the map
Attacker - Can deploy upto 5 squares into the map
Defender - Can deploy upto 30 squares into the map
(so there's a 5-square initial neutral zone for AD battles, and a 30-square starting neutral zone for ME games)

G, You might want to double check Thaon when I send it back to you. I believe 231/50 comes from the north (Bayeux) and I/22/21Pz from the south (Hermanville) but this isn't where the units are currently set to start from, flags, etc?

Ok Gents, Dual-deploy works... Here's the GJS folder for June 8th AM if you'd like to experiment. I've set campaign.txt to recognise all six scenarios, and you can dual-deploy into any of them... Swap, smokey mortars still work fine... Promotion stars, loading and unloading remain invisible to the enemy... Frankly it's all looking pretty darned nice.

Granfali might want to re-jig some of the starting positions and force selection allocations, but otherwise I believe we're good to go...

Download and install in the usual way -> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31228617/BA/Cam ... JS/GJS.zip

GottaLove88s wrote: Have set LOS for the deployment phases as follows:

ME - Both sides can deploy upto 5 squares into the map
Attacker - Can deploy upto 5 squares into the map
Defender - Can deploy upto 30 squares into the map
(ie. there is a 5-square initial "neutral zone" for AD battles, and 30-squares of starting "no man's land" for ME games)

Hey G! Great work on those maps. Looking nice.

I was experimenting late last night, and realised that if our .BAM map sets a start location in the neutral zone, then those units may not show up during the deployment phase. This only seems to happen if defending units have been set very far forwards, in the 31st to 35th rows of the 40x40 map. It's worth double checking to ensure that no defenders have start positions further forward than the 30th row...

GottaLove88s wrote:

GottaLove88s wrote: Have set LOS for the deployment phases as follows:

ME - Both sides can deploy upto 5 squares into the map
Attacker - Can deploy upto 5 squares into the map
Defender - Can deploy upto 30 squares into the map
(ie. there is a 5-square initial "neutral zone" for AD battles, and 30-squares of starting "no man's land" for ME games)

Hey G! Great work on those maps. Looking nice.

I was experimenting late last night, and realised that if our .BAM map sets a start location in the neutral zone, then those units may not show up during the deployment phase. This only seems to happen if defending units have been set very far forwards, in the 31st to 35th rows of the 40x40 map. It's worth double checking to ensure that no defenders have start positions further forward than the 30th row...

PS. There is an alternative to clearing that far forward "neutral zone" of defenders.

That would be to remove the neutral zone altogether... ie. I can modify so that defenders could position themselves all the way up to the 35th row, and attackers could position on the 36th to 40th... That would mean contact is instant, almost certainly on the first turn, and if defenders bring tanks, ATGs and mortars that far forwards, it would make every attacking battle something of a challenge (one of Al's nightmares? )

Let me know your preferences, gents? For now, I've assumed that we'd like to keep a small (5-rows wide) neutral zone with defenders controlling 75% of the map at the start, and attackers entering with only 12.5%.

Hey...I know...Why don't we use the "HONOR" System... We are all honorable soldiers here and WILL NOT CHEAT! Cause if anyone does...They will be SACKED & SHOT!!!
lol...seriously...think we can all count them off to 30 or less on something like this...no biggie.
Mike

k9mike wrote:Hey...I know...Why don't we use the "HONOR" System... We are all honorable soldiers here and WILL NOT CHEAT! Cause if anyone does...They will be SACKED & SHOT!!!
lol...seriously...think we can all count them off to 30 or less on something like this...no biggie.
Mike

Hehe, if I understand you correctly Mike, I think you're voting in favour of keeping the 5 row "neutral zone" and you reckon players will be honourable enough not to abuse that. Right? Agreed x2.

Actually the problem will only occur if the map designer (in this case, our v talened Sr Granfali) places any units in the neutral zones. Both sides get to deploy now, but because the dual deploy mod only shows you the squares that you're permitted to deploy into, it might not reveal some far forwards units if the map designer has accidentally pre-positioned them in the neutral zone, even during the defender's deployment phase... The easiest solution is to avoid putting any units too far forwards during map design... Now that both sides can freely deploy, that won't handicap anyone...

Hope the makes more sense?

GottaLove88s wrote:Gents, you'll be pleased to hear that I'm almost done on dual deploy for GJS...

1. Have updated Granfali's revised moraletools.bsf to make promotion stars invisible again
2. Have inserted code so both sides can deploy during their first turn (and an explanation text box); transports can load/unload too
3. Have set LOS for the deployment phases as follows:

ME - Both sides can deploy upto 5 squares into the map
Attacker - Can deploy upto 5 squares into the map
Defender - Can deploy upto 30 squares into the map
(so there's a 5-square initial neutral zone for AD battles, and a 30-square starting neutral zone for ME games)

Great work!!! For me, 5 squares are enough, all perfect.

GottaLove88s wrote:G, You might want to double check Thaon when I send it back to you. I believe 231/50 comes from the north (Bayeux) and I/22/21Pz from the south (Hermanville) but this isn't where the units are currently set to start from, flags, etc?

Corrected!! Thx.

Folder GJS uploaded guys, included new rulebook and 8AM pool status. Enjoy!!!

Granfali wrote:Folder GJS uploaded guys, included new rulebook and 8AM pool status. Enjoy!!!

Zipped .rar for 08AM is here guys -> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/aej2g251hew37fr/Ug3gvLmzE1

All six German scenarios have now been created for Allies to accept challenges.

Password is as indicated in Granfali's email sent 11.50 EST/16.50 BST/17.50 CET today.

Just so you guys know what's happening... Herr Feldmarschall Granfali retains command of Heeresgruppe Nord (Army Group North) in Bayeux, Thaon and Hermanville... Herr Mayor Gotta assumes command of Heeresgruppe Süd (Army Group South) in Lebisey, Colombelles and Bois du Bavent.

Expect the unexpected...

Alex and Gotta have begun in Bois de Bavent...

k9mike wrote:Jon, I think there is an err on Gort's map (Hermanville)...He says his tanks started out at 50% ?? Thats not right... I thought that the tanks were going to Suppress at 50... how are we going to have any chance with German Armor when we start at 50?? It was hard enough when they were 100...Lol
Can you please find out...an also tell G so if they need to start over they can....or mod it...I am not home right now an won't really be available until Monday to be Active with the Campaign...gtg

Hey guys, I just double checked in the latest squads.csv for GSJ. All infantry and ATGs start with morale 100, but all vehicles (both sides) now start with morale 50. Granfali has also reduced the suppression point from 50 to 0, in moraletools.bsf. So we still have to reduce morale by only 50 points (from 50 to 0) to suppress eg. a tank, but we now have to suppress morale by 100 points (from 100 to 0) to suppress an infantryman. In the back and forth "negotiations" of a fortnight ago, G told us that he would do this to make infantry more durable before they suppressed (partly because he wanted to see more infantry duels, lasting longer, and partly to make it fairer for Allies who have much more infantrymen)... Check out the squads.csv and you'll see what I mean.

Hope that makes sense?

Paras and Waffen SS still start with morale 125, so they're even more of a nightmare to fight, especially if they attack/defend using cover...

Guys, Alex and I are battling it out in Bois de Bavent.

There's a lot of open space in BdB so it's not easy for an infantry BG to take on armour... We're down to about 19 units vs 11 units... It's possible that the German side might dissolve the Allied side. But those 11 units are the last units in the pool for that Allied BG... So even if it is dissolved, the Allied BG would suffer no penalties other than losing all of its units (which might happen during the battle anyway)... So the German player has no advantage to killing more Allies, once they've already crippled the BG to the point that it must reinforce next turn.

So here's a proposal... If the German player can kill all of the units in an Allied BG, including killing all of the pool units, then the reinforcing units should suffer the dissolution penalty... This would stop an Allied player from doing suicide kamikaze attacks, by making it important not to lose every last unit in a BG... And it would incentivise the German to keep playing once it was clear that the Allied player was crippled to the point that he must reinforce next turn...

Thoughts gentlemen? I vote in favour

GottaLove88s wrote:Guys, Alex and I are battling it out in Bois de Bavent.

There's a lot of open space in BdB so it's not easy for an infantry BG to take on armour... We're down to about 19 units vs 11 units... It's possible that the German side might dissolve the Allied side. But those 11 units are the last units in the pool for that Allied BG... So even if it is dissolved, the Allied BG would suffer no penalties other than losing all of its units (which might happen during the battle anyway)... So the German player has no advantage to killing more Allies, once they've already crippled the BG to the point that it must reinforce next turn.

So here's a proposal... If the German player can kill all of the units in an Allied BG, including killing all of the pool units, then the reinforcing units should suffer the dissolution penalty... This would stop an Allied player from doing suicide kamikaze attacks, by making it important not to lose every last unit in a BG... And it would incentivise the German to keep playing once it was clear that the Allied player was crippled to the point that he must reinforce next turn...

Thoughts gentlemen? I vote in favour

As a matter of honour (and to show I'm not trying to pull a fast one here) I'm happy for this rule to kick in from next turn, June 8th PM, if everyone agrees...

Mike/Alex, I'm happy to call BdB a German win ceasefire, if Paras want to withdraw and reinforce? At this point, it would be hard for Allies to win and probably not much fun. There's no point for Germans to kill more Brits...

I concur with you Jon. Would only seem fair for us to have some kind of penalty for this happening. I also would accept the offer on the withdrawl for 6AL/6...I will wait and see what Alex has to say...It is his unit now. Please advise him via the ingame chat as well. I think this is best...withdraw and lick the wounds...

k9mike wrote:I concur with you Jon. Would only seem fair for us to have some kind of penalty for this happening. I also would accept the offer on the withdrawl for 6AL/6...I will wait and see what Alex has to say...It is his unit now. Please advise him via the ingame chat as well. I think this is best...withdraw and lick the wounds...

Thanks Mike, I'm glad we agree the sense of this one. It should make play more fun for both sides. I've emailed Alex re. our BdB game, suggesting he discuss with you if he wants to. Let me know the decision. I suspect he'll want to reinforce, to get his Shermans, and come back for some revenge...

Will start Random's games when we can...

Roger That...