Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 2/13/2006 9:00:11 PM   
stonewashedjackson

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 2/5/2006
From: flint michigan
Status: offline 		hello lebatron, i just installed v1.087. i then made a copy and downloaded franco's alliance v 2.3. i checked the map by starting up a scenario and i did see several changes that you mentioned you made but i did not see anything that said it was franco's alliance.i have a few questions:
1) i thought the words franco's alliance v2.3 would replace where it says v1.087 and it did not.
2) i was not given any option as to which of the 2 methods to play(spain frozen ally or not as the stock game). i was just in the scenario with no choice.how do you make the choice?
3) i thought franco's alliance started in 1939 or was that a different version you made?
4) i think you said southern france would be rough now and the map seems to look like rough but the popup for southern france does not say it is rough. other areas you changed such as in siberia say it is rough. so is southern france rough or not?
5) i tried to look at the sea zones in the pacific to see where it is noted about the groupings and to the order needed to be followed but i did not see anything on the map to indicate that. is that because i just started the scenario and you won't see that info until the us enters the war?

i am just not sure i have this installed correctly or that everything is working like it is supposed to. i want to get this straightened out soon so i can post for an opponent or join the ladder.
thanks, stonewashed jackson

_____________________________

always astound, confuse, and surprise the enemy. God did make this a glorious day.
stonewashedjackson aka larenzo

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 31
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 2/14/2006 3:16:16 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		Stonewashedjackson,
Franco's Alliance is not a patch its a scenario redesign, so the number in the lower left corner should show the patch you are using. In this case 1.087

As far as the problems your having you must have installed the mod incorrectly. Your menu screen should like like the pic below. See the 3 scenario choices?

All 3 scenarios start at the regular time, which is Sp1940.

Since you can't see the letters I added to the Pacific(see previous pics) you must not have installed the graphic files for them. There's about 20 you seem to have missed. The only thing that can account for that must be that you did not copy the art/map folder into your game correctly. But that should not be a problem because I setup the folders so you don't have to do this manually. If you just copied the dat folder into the same location as the original, then everything should go into place automatically. You should have seen a popup asking whether you wish to overwrite files. If you did then you say YES to that question.

I suspect that maybe you unzipped uncorrectly. And that your unzip did not keep the folder structure intact. If that was the case then that is the problem. Here's what I want you to try. Unzip again and just select extract. You should now see a folder named Franco's Alliance v2.3. To check to see if the folder structure is intact open this folder. Once inside you should see a dat folder and my readme. If you open the dat folder you will see data files and another folder called art. Inside the art are 2 more folders but that's not important because at this point you pretty much have confirmed that the folder sequence structure is intact. Ok, if this is what your seeing then your ready to attempt installing again. Like I said before just copy the dat folder into the new game you copied. I hope this helps.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to stonewashedjackson)
Post #: 32
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 2/14/2006 3:23:08 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		This pic shows where you need to paste the dat folder. Like it shows I right clicked in a blank area of the game folder and am going to paste the dat right there.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 33
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 2/14/2006 1:17:14 PM   
stonewashedjackson

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 2/5/2006
From: flint michigan
Status: offline 		lebatron, i have successfully installed franco's alliance v2.3. here is what the problem was and what i did to fix it. i turned off all my virus protection while installing it but that did not solve the problem because when i tried to overwrite the dat folder i got a message saying it was successfully installed but some of the files were blocked.
it seems that microsoft service pack 2 when the security setting in the internet connections in the control panel is set to medium which is the recommended setting it blocks some files even though they have already been downloaded.
so what i had to do was go to a custom level of low and then do the install.when i did that it worked.
i hope this wil help someone else who is having the same trouble i had, stonewashedjackson

_____________________________

always astound, confuse, and surprise the enemy. God did make this a glorious day.
stonewashedjackson aka larenzo

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 34
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 2/14/2006 4:47:55 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		Thanks, I had no idea my files would be blocked in this manner. Since the folder was already downloaded and unzipped, I wonder how in the h*ll you guessed that changing a setting in Internet Explorer would help. This problem may be common to others that use WinXP since the medium setting you refer to is the default one, is it not? Thanks for the tip.

(in reply to stonewashedjackson)
Post #: 35
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 2/17/2006 10:54:01 AM   
a511


Posts: 518
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Hong Kong
Status: offline 		hi! as an old fans of franco's alliance, i have a quick question for u.

i just wonder whether the following rule change in franco v2.0b is still true in v2.3? (thats one of my favorite one)

quote:

5. Some have talked about the futility of fighting Russia if they waited until 43. I totally agree, the Russians have to much production. The problem is the factory production multiplier. Right now its x2 in 1940. I'm OK with that. Then its x3 in 1942. That's were I disagree, I think it should stay at x2 until war is declared. Stalin pressed hard in the late 30's to move from a x1 to x2 in game speak. With that milestone being achieved, I think the country would have stabilized at x2 for several years had it not been for the patriotic zeal to save the country after Hitler betrayed them. Hence the x3 then makes sense, but not before. So I have adjusted the Russian production multiplier. The Russians no longer go to x3 production in 1942 automatically. They have to be at war with Germany or Japan to get it. In most games this would have no effect. Only when Germany waits till well into1942 will this change have any effect.


cos i cant find the above in v2.3 readme (let me know if its otherwise or the above has already been changed in v1.087, cos im a little bit loss in this one)

a511

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 36
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 2/17/2006 8:07:22 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		Well to be frank if its not in my latest readme its a change I dropped. What I replaced that with was the removal of 1 Russian factory at Kazan. With this slight reduction in production it's now even more important for the WA's to send aid to Russia. This makes the Russian's position feel more like a struggle. I believe this enhances the games tension. Between equal players Russia should be almost on the verge of collaspe until the WA's launch D-day. But that wasn't quit the case in the stock game.

(in reply to a511)
Post #: 37
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 2/20/2006 10:13:31 PM   
mscoon

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 2/20/2006
Status: offline 		Hi there,

I have one question regarding the house rules, and in particular the rule about the pacific island hop list. What would keep the japanese from amassing most of their ground troops into an island of type A, thus making it extremely hard for the US to capture it? And even if the US does capture it in the end, it will have lost precious much time. Shouldn't there be some additional house rule to limit japan from "metagaming" like this?

Anyway, I haven't tried the mod out, but it sounds cool and I'd like to give it a try. I am a bit concerned about the above issue though.

Thanks,
Marios

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 38
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 2/21/2006 1:52:20 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		Hi mscoon,
To answer your concern, I would say there is a natural limit to just how much Japan would want to stack on one of these outer islands. You pull to much from Asia, and the British and Chinese may overrun your weak defenses. There is only so much that can be spared to partake in delaying the US island hop. There is also the issue of just how much per turn you can move and spare. Every turn you decide to move more troops to one of these outer islands is just more transports you allow the US to sink. I also believe it's more optimal to take more islands and defend with fewer than only take one and defend with many. The point is to delay the US as long as possible and taking and garrisoning Port Moresby, Solomon, Gilbert, and Bismarch Arch for instance would delay the US longer than just taking Bismarch Arch and defending with all there. With that said, the greatest delay the US did encounter was at the outer islands. The Solomon, Gilbert, and Bismarch Arch islands which are type 'B.' So your point about delaying the US for a long time has merit. In real life it took a year just to secure the Solomon Isles. Once all these outer islands were secured US progress picked up speed. The same tendency happens in my mod when using the hop list. When Japan attacks on fall 1941 and then soon after takes all the B islands including Port Moresby just to throw in a type 'A' it generally takes the US well into 1943 just to liberate all of the 'B' islands. I found the pace to be right on.

(in reply to mscoon)
Post #: 39
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 2/21/2006 6:29:38 AM   
JustJeff88

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline 		I unfortunately cannot get the game to recognize this mod. I am no "n00b" when it comes to this sort of thing. I installed the game in another directory, installed the 1.087 patch, and copied the dat folder with all the commensurate overwrites. I even checked several of the text files in the new dat folder, and they even have a commented-out header that reads "Franco's Alliance 2.3", but when I start the game from the .exe in the parent folder, it just loads the normal game.

I am running Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4, if anyone can help. I would really like to play this mod.

Thank You



Geoff

PS I figured out the problem. It was installed properly, but I had the game set to French and then U.K. English (I'm British), and it only displays the Franco campaign options if the language is set to U.S. English. Otherwise, it shows the basic campaigns that come with the normal game. Sorry to waste anyone's time, and I hope this helps if anyone else has this problem.



< Message edited by JustJeff88 -- 2/21/2006 6:53:20 AM >

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 40
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 2/21/2006 4:05:51 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		Thanks for pointing that out.

(in reply to JustJeff88)
Post #: 41
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 2/28/2006 10:34:04 AM   
mscoon

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 2/20/2006
Status: offline 		Hi there,

I have a follow-up on the island-hoping rule. I am re-reading AJP Taylor's Illustrated History of the Second World War and there he claims that in the Pacific general McArthur advocated a direct thrust against the Japan mainland, while admiral Nimitz favored island-hopping. In the end of the day, McArthur did not have his way, but not because his opinion was overruled - probably because Nimitz would not cooperate with him and McArthur could not do it alone.

So, I have to question the "historical" argument behind the island-hopping rule. Although this is how the war progressed historically, it could have taken a different swing had McArthur had his way.

The game allows for many a-historical things to happen, some of which weren't even considered by the world powers at that time. I am not sure why you would allow this in the rest of the map but not in the Pacific.

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 42
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 3/1/2006 1:32:48 PM   
elhior


Posts: 32
Joined: 2/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

5. Some have talked about the futility of fighting Russia if they waited until 43. I totally agree, the Russians have to much production. The problem is the factory production multiplier. Right now its x2 in 1940. I'm OK with that. Then its x3 in 1942. That's were I disagree, I think it should stay at x2 until war is declared. Stalin pressed hard in the late 30's to move from a x1 to x2 in game speak. With that milestone being achieved, I think the country would have stabilized at x2 for several years had it not been for the patriotic zeal to save the country after Hitler betrayed them. Hence the x3 then makes sense, but not before. So I have adjusted the Russian production multiplier. The Russians no longer go to x3 production in 1942 automatically. They have to be at war with Germany or Japan to get it. In most games this would have no effect. Only when Germany waits till well into1942 will this change have any effect.


I don't think this is historically true. Even before the second front was opened by the WAs, the Germans' defeat in Stalingrad and the annihilation of the entire 6th army have taken place, with the Russians being in the offensive everywhere else. They wouldn't reach Berlin, that's for sure, but I believe they were about to reclaim their lands even if the second front was delayed. What I'm saying is that the war for Russia was lost to the Germans before the second front. Now, the lend lease is an entire different story of course, it's quite probable (alternative historical senarios come always with a probability) that the Russians wouldn't make it without it.

(in reply to a511)
Post #: 43
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 3/5/2006 8:50:18 PM   
tlintlunfl

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline 		Hi again Lebatron,
I downloaded your mod and followed instructions.
I decided to install new files on old WAW, since I already installed V 1.087 and will play it as standard game.
Something wrong in my installation.... I could not understand.
As I run the game, controlled to see if all works...... map has changed, fine!
New borders, new zones, all seems right.... but, additional troops in Portugal? Frozen Spain? New scenarios?
Nooooooooooooooooooo, only map changes appear, no sign of all other changes.
Can you help me?
TIA
Max

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 44
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 3/10/2006 7:15:38 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		Maybe your having a problem like Justjeff88 from a couple posts above. Did you select english language? If you placed my folder in the correct location so that it merges with the original dat folder it should work fine, that is if english is selected.

(in reply to tlintlunfl)
Post #: 45
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 3/10/2006 8:09:36 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: elhior

I don't think this is historically true. Even before the second front was opened by the WAs, the Germans' defeat in Stalingrad and the annihilation of the entire 6th army have taken place, with the Russians being in the offensive everywhere else. They wouldn't reach Berlin, that's for sure, but I believe they were about to reclaim their lands even if the second front was delayed. What I'm saying is that the war for Russia was lost to the Germans before the second front. Now, the lend lease is an entire different story of course, it's quite probable (alternative historical senarios come always with a probability) that the Russians wouldn't make it without it.


Applying what happened historically would be a poor argument. Are you implying that the German player has to make the same identical mistakes Hitler made? If Hitler would have let his Generals do some of the thinking, then it would have been entirely possible for Germany to have pushed further into Russia. Clearly you have to let some historical what-if into the game. Otherwise your saying the Germans can't take Stalingrad and push a little further just because it didn't happen in real life.

Also your implying that I somehow broke the balance by removing a Russian factory. You seem to have overlooked the other balancing factors I added that tip it back to the Allies. The extra territories I added to the Soviet far east is a big one. The extra point I added to the AV. Its 71 to win via Leningrad and Stalingrad now, not 70. Extra free research has been given to Russia to compensate for the approximate 10 points lost during peace time build up. An extra point to infantry, 2 in both flak and fighters, and the bonus I gave to Russian tac air alone is worth more than 5 points. Remember by changing Russian tac air to 4 durability gives them a starting defense of 16, up from 12. That's basically giving them a free level in evasion. And in the long run if you choose to put additional research into Russian tac air they become really tough. Also I suggest that on turn 1, Russia should build a factory in the Urals. I explained this in my readme so I'm just repeating myself here. Anyway, Russia is not handicapped in Franco's Alliance as you assume. The favoritism to Axis double team Russia has been greatly diminished in my mod because I give the Axis other solid choices to consider. Take a look at the stock game closely. Is there really any other good alternative to the Axis double team of Russia? At least in my mod there is. Oh and lets not forget that when the Japs choose other alternatives, the Russian factory in the Soviet far east is spared.

< Message edited by Lebatron -- 3/10/2006 8:10:01 PM >

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 46
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 3/11/2006 1:18:05 PM   
elhior


Posts: 32
Joined: 2/4/2006
Status: offline 		Lebatron,

I didn't imply anything from what you mentioned, although your mail was a good and well-founded explanation of how the changes you've issued made the game more balanced and gave more choices to the players. I commented on your historical argument concerning the position of Russia just before the D-Day :)

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 47
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 4/11/2006 8:27:05 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		Proposed changes for Franco's Alliance v2.4 Please take a look and let me know what you think.

1. Remove 1 jap infantry to offset the tank replace it with 1 militia.
2. Drop 1 resource in Chungking. Making it 1 again.
3. Add a Flak to Grozny to prevent the sinking of the transport in the Caspian Sea during the first turn of Barbarossa.
4. Remove some WA's supply and replace with some free tech points.
5. Move fighter and tac air from Southern Italy to Northern Italy.
6. Drop WS of Flak land attack to 5.
7. Drop Inf in North Africa replace with 2 Militia in each Vichy area. add 1 militia to S. France.
8. Drop some Inf in Spain and replace with Mil.
9. Add free research in some areas to encourage development of ignored techs.
10. Drop world standard on HF EV, add some free research points. OR drop HF dura to 3 and increase EV to 4.
11. Increase UN HB AA to 3 just for flavor.
12. Italy x3 production in 1943.
13. tweak the zoom levels a bit so that zoom level 3 is yet further out.

Proposed house rules:
1. Add stacking limit house rule to Gibraltar. Limit to 2 air and 2 land of any type.
2. Limit size of invasion force depending on year. No more than 5 transports in 1940 can be used for an Amphibious assault. 6 in 41, 7 in 42, 8 in 43. 1944 and up would have no restrictions on amphibious assault size, thus allowing an operation the size of D-day to take place. This is a variation on an idea HarryBanana shared with me.
3. Add timed victory levels as a house rule if I can't do so with the data files.

(in reply to elhior)
Post #: 48
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 4/11/2006 12:16:00 PM   
a511


Posts: 518
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Hong Kong
Status: offline 		my general comments:

quote:

3. Add a Flak to Grozny to prevent the sinking of the transport in the Caspian Sea during the first turn of Barbarossa.

noooo ... thats my favourite trick. but be fair, i think thats the right move. just remember to remove a flak unit from SU to balance the effect.

quote:

4. Remove some WA's supply and replace with some free tech points.

so long as this free tech pts are allocated to some ignored techs (say armor) and NOT to infantry tech, im indifferent on this.

quote:

7. Drop Inf in North Africa replace with 2 Militia in each Vichy area. add 1 militia to S. France.

i like this one!!

quote:

11. Increase UN HB AA to 3 just for flavor.

i object, given that HB ATT and EV is already the only unit that can tech up after 2 lvs of WS w/o the restriction under patch 1.087, its tempting for WA to create super HB unit. in fact, i prefer to restrict HB EV in the way other units are restricted.

quote:

1. Add stacking limit house rule to Gibraltar. Limit to 2 air and 2 land of any type.

i agree but want to clarify whether art and flak units are incl in the above limit. if yes, imo a limit of 3 land units is more reasonable.

quote:

2. Limit size of invasion force depending on year. No more than 5 transports in 1940 can be used for an Amphibious assault. 6 in 41, 7 in 42, 8 in 43. 1944 and up would have no restrictions on amphibious assault size, thus allowing an operation the size of D-day to take place. This is a variation on an idea HarryBanana shared with me.

is it a restriction on WA only? if no, Sealion will be virtually impossible in '41 as, unless GER is very lucky, the pop-up militia plus one or two infantry/ milita units are all WA need to defend england, the rest of WA's land units could be deployed to defend scotland. imo, the change may make Barbarossa the only feasible strategy for GER.
but if the restriction only applies to WA, im fine with it as that means no more "hit and run early italy surrender" strategy.

cheers,
a511

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 49
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 4/11/2006 4:42:41 PM   
elhior


Posts: 32
Joined: 2/4/2006
Status: offline 		Hi there Lebatron,

I'm glad to see you continuously improving your interesting mod! I'm not an experienced player, and I've played only two FA games (currently playing the third), so I have only three comments:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

4. Remove some WA's supply and replace with some free tech points.

Can you specify where?

6. Drop WS of Flak land attack to 5.

You mean reduce the land attack of German flaks to 5? If yes, I surely agree!

10. Drop world standard on HF EV, add some free research points. OR drop HF dura to 3 and increase EV to 4.

What's the reasoning behind this? From a first glance, I don't think I agree.

12. Italy x3 production in 1943.

I think that would be imbalanced (and unhistorical).

11. Increase UN HB AA to 3 just for flavor.

Err... HBs with laser guns?



I agree to all the rest! Good work!

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 50
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 5/6/2006 12:49:19 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		Now that patch 1.2 is out I will be releasing Franco v2.4 soon.

A511. You had some questions.

quote:

11. Increase UN HB AA to 3 just for flavor.
i object, given that HB ATT and EV is already the only unit that can tech up after 2 lvs of WS w/o the restriction under patch 1.087, its tempting for WA to create super HB unit. in fact, i prefer to restrict HB EV in the way other units are restricted.


I believe its only the land attack of HB's that can tech up without a speed cap after it's 2 over world standard. Its other stats fall under normal rules don't they? I don't think there would be a problem with abusing HB AA and EV as you say. Anyway, I have decided to leave HB air attack at 2, but have put 3 research points into it instead.

quote:

1. Add stacking limit house rule to Gibraltar. Limit to 2 air and 2 land of any type.
i agree but want to clarify whether art and flak units are incl in the above limit. if yes, imo a limit of 3 land units is more reasonable.


I have been going back and forth on this one. At the moment I have settled on 1 air and 3 land unit stacking limit. In this way the Brits can have the traditional Infantry, Flak, and Arty combo and 1 air type of their choosing. The limit of 3 land units is overly generous considering the tiny size of Gibraltar. And 1 air unit would be all Gibraltar's 1 airport could hold. To project more airpower into the Med the Allies will need to secure North Africa to base more air in the region.

quote:

but if the restriction only applies to WA, im fine with it as that means no more "hit and run early italy surrender" strategy.


Yes, this restriction would only apply to the Allies. Its to stop the early gamey invasions as you say.

(in reply to elhior)
Post #: 51
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 5/6/2006 2:56:12 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		Now for your questions elhior.

quote:

4. Remove some WA's supply and replace with some free tech points.

Can you specify where?


Removed 5 supply from Cuba and 5 supply from Scotland.

quote:

6. Drop WS of Flak land attack to 5.

You mean reduce the land attack of German flaks to 5? If yes, I surely agree!


No, the land attack of their Flak will remain 6, however because I lowered the WS to 5 it will now cost Germany about 13 pionts to upgrade to 7 land attack. It used to only cost about 7. Now they can't create a decent offense unit out of their Flak without some additional cost.

quote:

10. Drop world standard on HF EV, add some free research points. OR drop HF dura to 3 and increase EV to 4.

What's the reasoning behind this? From a first glance, I don't think I agree.


Its way to cheap for the Allies to upgrade all their HF's to IOWA class battleships. It only costs them 9 points right now. Generally they are at 4 EV before Japan can attack Pearl Harbor. Since having just 2 HF's damaged can cost a player about 9 to repair, why not just spend these points to try and prevent the hits in the first place? Its one of the biggest payoffs in research. A good 33% increase in defense for all your HF's for the cost of just one. A very good bargain, too good. What I did was lower the WS of HF EV to 2 so that the cost would double when researching to level 4 EV. To compensate I added some free research to each nation as I didn't want the cost to exactly double for everyone. Here's what the current cost to upgrade to EV 4 would be for each nation now.
Germany old cost 7 new cost 10 (6 HF's assumed)
Japan old cost 7 new cost 8 (6 HF's assumed)
WA's old cost 9 new cost 15 (18 HF's assumed)

quote:

12. Italy x3 production in 1943.

I think that would be imbalanced (and unhistorical).


Actually I meant 1944. Well I wasn't all that serious about adding this. It was just a thought. I was thinking that it would be neat to give the Allies a bit more incentive to knock Italy out. Generally they always do, so this new mutiple would in most cases have no effect. But if for some reason Italy's factories are still happily online well into 1944 why not let them produce a bit more? Since Germany would be resource limited this may not even increase Germany's production, but would rather just allow them to build more in Italy and less in Germany. If the Axis are still doing well into 1944 then the Allies may have something to worry about, but I think that would be the point if the Allies ignored Italy for other targets.

quote:

11. Increase UN HB AA to 3 just for flavor.

Err... HBs with laser guns?


A HB AA of 3 is not a killer stat. Have you noticed that Japan's HB has an AA stat of 3? It's not really out of place then to make the WA's HB have an equal AA to Japan. The WA's bombers had pretty good gun turrets. Anyway, as I said above to a511 I left the stat at 2 and put 3 research into it. Now the WA's are half way to 3 AA.

< Message edited by Lebatron -- 5/6/2006 3:02:17 AM >

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 52
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 5/6/2006 3:33:06 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		Some extra planned changes.
1. Drop WS on HF AA. Now they can't become their own air escort, or rather it's much more expensive too.
2. I decided to drop adding a Flak to Grozny for what I think may be a better idea. I decided to move the factory from Southern Urals to Grozny. Now the Russian can build Flak at Grozny while still frozen. In other games I play like Third Reich, Grozny is a factory site. I quess it would make sense since there is so much oil in the area.
3. Since the port of Astrakhan is right on the Volga river that feeds into the Caspian Sea, I moved it over a bit so that it now lies at the border line of Grozny and Astrakhan. Then I changed the data files to have this port connect to Grozny rather than Astrakhan. Now if the trasport in the Caspian Sea is damaged it will return to Grozny for repair. I have yet to decide if I should allow Grozny to build new ships or just allow it to repair that transport only.
4. I put the factory from Kazan back because I wanted the Germans to have something to threaten if they were in say Vologda within blitzing range. But to keep the factory count at 12 where I think it's balanced I had to remove one from Moscow. It was the only place with 2. However I did place it in the que at Moscow partly built. So in a few turns Russia will have 13 factories.
5. Changed Southern Italy's port to connect with Central Med too.
6. Reduced Japan's x3 militia to x2. I had overlooked doing this before, since with my Pacific hop list, the US will have a long road ahead of them before they get to Japan. So the x3 to protect Japan is not that necessary.
7. Adjusting the Pacific hop list to simplify it.

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 53
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 5/6/2006 8:04:20 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		For the new house rule involving amphibious assaults, I forgot to mention that I planned on resettting the WA's transport amphibious value back to 3. I never did like it patched to 2, but it was a fix that sort of worked. It just felt out of place to see the WA's have the worst starting transport value. So instead of starting under the normal value and researching just to get back to 3, I'm going to set it up so that the WA's need to get to transport value 4 to be really efficient at amphibious invasions. By limiting the number of transports that can be used in an amphibious assault, but not the value, this would encourage the development of this tech. More on this latter.

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 54
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 5/20/2006 2:40:38 PM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline 		Shouldn't Turkey be pro-axis along with Spain, with a Moscow-Iraq trigger to activate?


Jon

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 55
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here - 6/5/2006 7:32:08 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Shouldn't Turkey be pro-axis along with Spain, with a Moscow-Iraq trigger to activate?


Jon


I never saw the pressing need to go beyond dealing with the Spanish problem. Since it is the key to Gibraltar. However I will think over your suggestion.


(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 56
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.4 is here - 6/5/2006 7:36:36 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		Hey guys, Franco v2.4 is now out. Go back to page one for the download link and new readme.

< Message edited by Lebatron -- 6/5/2006 7:38:02 PM >

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 57
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.4 is here - 6/6/2006 2:14:39 AM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline 		You really know your stuff, a guy with no life but the recreation of history, like me,lol...On Turkey, it was thiers, the Middle East, until the stinking French and British, took it...They remember the blood bath of 1917, however they still have pride...Politics is the key, other times I spoke of Americian and Soviet entry, and why the Winter of 43 entry?... It's political, how at this point can it be build in?... Politics and consiquences...I think the WA ( besides Vichy ) never attacked a neutral nation. Should the Brits invade Norway in the Spring of 40, without Axis aggession there...NEVER...Anyone remember a old board Avolion Hill game called "Origians". I wish I still had it. You won by political gains 1936-40... Adding armies in Portugal is not the answer, but the threat of triggering Turkey, Spain and mabe Finland. Thier interstructure in tack, with an army, ouch...This game is so good, when I first saw it, being a old time wargamer since 1970, and a big WIR and Gary fan, I said what are you thinking with this Gary, cheesy,...But, oh what cheese, uhm,uhm,uhm goood... I agree with you Lebatron, but how do we do it without stuipid house rules...I think a land attack apon Japan should not allowed untill the Phillipians and Wake, are reaquired...US soil US pride. The old (illegal move) politically not allowed... Except Air bombing...Anyway, how can politics be built into the Game...The early invasion problem can be resolved by another counter, and must. Landing craft are a destinct weapon. The Allies took them from the Med for Overlord, later they were sent to Okanawa... If a area had defending troops, landing craft are needed. They draw thier defense from attacking units with them. No, upgrade involved, limited to a transport of 5, they can be damaged, but only destroyed if everything eles is too...Island forts are a good idea, not mainland. Say it's cost is 10 supply and 3 quarterly turns...On supply, I, until recently thought a chain of transports back to the factory was needed at the time of production, is that right, If not it needs to be.

Keep up the good work "Lebatron"


Jon Pyle

< Message edited by PyleDriver -- 6/6/2006 2:21:39 AM >

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 58
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.4 is here - 6/6/2006 4:27:35 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

I spoke of Americian and Soviet entry, and why the Winter of 43 entry?... It's political, how at this point can it be build in?... Politics and consiquences...I think the WA ( besides Vichy ) never attacked a neutral nation. Should the Brits invade Norway in the Spring of 40, without Axis aggession there...NEVER...


The Winter 43 date is about the best ballpark they could come up with I guess. It works fine for me. I know a lot of you guys get sick of seeing the Japs hold off till Fall 1942. The reason you see that a lot is that's just how the stock game is balanced. As I pointed out, the Axis double team is way to common because of the way the game is setup. Since I no longer play the stock game, I see potential in other strategies. You won't see the Axis double team in half the games of Franco's Alliance so the entry date is of little consequence because the Japs attack the WA's a lot sooner. Mostly in Fall 41 or a turn later. As far as consequences to keep the WA's honest. When they attack neutrals they already pay a fine of 10 supply. I suppose that could be raised, but I don't think that will go over well.

quote:

Adding armies in Portugal is not the answer, but the threat of triggering Turkey, Spain and mabe Finland. Thier interstructure in tack, with an army, ouch


In my mod taking Portugal will trigger the unfreezing of Spain. The armies in Portugal are just there so that it's not a total cakewalk to invade. I guess I overlooked dropping the infantry by 1 when I introduced the transport invasion cap house rule. But that's no big deal, once you play Franco's Alliance for a while you will see that Portugal is never invaded, so what actually sits there is not worth nickpicking over.

quote:

I agree with you Lebatron, but how do we do it without stuipid house rules...I think a land attack apon Japan should not allowed untill the Phillipians and Wake, are reaquired...US soil US pride. The old (illegal move) politically not allowed... Except Air bombing...Anyway, how can politics be built into the Game...


The Phillipines and Wake are required before attempting an invasion of Japan. In a sense, my Pacific hop list does insert politics into the game. Politics were/was one of the main reasons we took the route we did. So by waring over the type B islands, for instance, both players would be injecting a bit of honesty into the Pacific theater. If you wish to have a semi historical/realistic Pacific war with your opponent, insist on using the hop list.

quote:

The early invasion problem can be resolved by another counter, and must. Landing craft are a destinct weapon. The Allies took them from the Med for Overlord, later they were sent to Okanawa... If a area had defending troops, landing craft are needed. They draw thier defense from attacking units with them. No, upgrade involved, limited to a transport of 5, they can be damaged, but only destroyed if everything eles is too...


Yes, having a real landing ship would be nice, However that can't be added through modding. But the cost of building them can be modeled into the game. And that is what I did by requiring the WA player to expend production upgrading his transport level up to 5. To get to level 5 the WA's will spend about 25 production. This extra cost to the WA's helps balance actually.

quote:

Island forts are a good idea, not mainland. Say it's cost is 10 supply and 3 quarterly turns...On supply, I, until recently thought a chain of transports back to the factory was needed at the time of production, is that right, If not it needs to be.


I'm not sure what your saying here. If your suggesting I make forts a buildable unit, I can't. I'm also not sure what your asking about the transport link. If its concerning the changes I made to the way resources are collected in South America and South Africa, I can elaborate. Take Chile for instance, before my change, it could send its resource production by land back to the US. That's very unrealistic. After my change you now require a transport link back to a factory or its resource production will sit there and build up. Since Chile has 1 resource, it can stockpile up to 3 resources before there is waste. So if its at 3 and you do not link a transport to it that turn, then the resource generated that turn will go to waste. Hope that answers your question.

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 59
RE: Franco's Alliance v2.4 is here - 6/6/2006 6:18:21 AM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline 		On the last question I agree the chain of transports back to the the factories should be unbroken. If the resource is inland, non-coastal, allow for one area away to the coast. Why should you recieve Chile's resources because you have Brazil...On a different note If the Soviets can't attack Japan until Germany is defeated, then why not say Japan can't attack the Soviets until Moscow is occupied?...Goodbye double teaming, and realistic. I'm playing a guy right now who attacked me (Russia) in the Sum of 40. Somebody tell me, is that Megagaming!


Jon Pyle

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Franco's Alliance v2.3 is here Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.375