WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/8/2008 7:14:35 PM

xBoroNx

Posts: 404
Joined: 12/8/2007
Status: offline

I have finished my europe map and began working on my first scenario. It will be WW1.

Dgold has been so kind and already helped me a lot with some suggestions and some good links for oobs.
Dgold told me about a boardgame called Storm of Steel, currently i plan to use it as inspiration for the important fortifications and for production.

In addition to the terrain i have already finished painting the map with regime colors and railroads. For railroads i used my atlas data, so it is not entirely correct, but most railroads have been created in the pre-ww1-area. So it is imho good enough.

In general i will try to design the scenario in the style Tom uses. Gameplay and choices over too much historic accuracy.

Currently i need to design the units for WW1. Suggestions are very welcome.

At the moment i have in mind the following types for SFTs:
Land:
-Guard infantry
-Regular infantry
-Reserve infantry
-Conscript infantry
-Cavalry
-Rail
-MGs
-artillery
-siege artillery
-mortars
-coastal artillery
-armored car
-engineers

Researchable:
-Flamethrower
-light mg/smg
-railroad gun
-light tank (archetype FT-17)
-heavy tank (german A7V, british mark tanks, french schneider tanks)
-"fast" tank (british whippet)
-gas
-shock troops
-flak
-anti tank gun
-anti tank infantry

Air:
-Zeppelin
-weak fighter (to simulate the early reckon planes)

Researchable:
-some fighter upgrades
-bombers

Naval:
-Dreadnought
-pre-dreadnought
-torpedo boat
-battlecruiser
-armored cruiser
-destroyer
-submarine
-light cruiser

Researchable:
-super dreadnaught
-heavy cruiser

< Message edited by xBoroNx -- 2/8/2008 10:12:58 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/8/2008 9:52:00 PM

GrumpyMel

Posts: 864
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

Some possibilties:

Alpine Infantry - I wouldn't mind actualy seeing this in the regular WWII game scenerio's too. Thier equipment was slightly different, and they definately recieved specialized training. In game could be given bonus's to moving and fighting in mountain terrain.

Marines - Same thing as above but bonus's to amphibous invasions/river corssings... not sure if that is something that can be tweaked in the editor for SFT types. I don't remember seeing anything in there like that...but I wasn't looking specificaly for it.

Engineers/Sappers - Very important for trench warfare.

Bicycle Infantry - I believe both the Italian and German armies made use of these in WWI. Essentialy Infantry with better movement capabilities in open terrain/roads and maybe better recon.

(in reply to xBoroNx)

Post #: 2

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/8/2008 10:15:28 PM

xBoroNx

Posts: 404
Joined: 12/8/2007
Status: offline

Thanks for the suggestions

Yeah alpine infantry i was considering too, there is also mountain artillery then. Maybe those 2 types should be the only land sfts then that can enter mountains.

Engineers i forgot in the list indeed, but they are included too.

Marines and Bicycle Infantry both would be possible, but i think those are rather for a ww2 scenario. Because in WW1 i want to simulate the slow trench warfare, and those 2 types would be hard to balance then imho. Either you make them so crappy that nobody builds them or you make them too good and then everybody only builds those.

(in reply to GrumpyMel)

Post #: 3

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/8/2008 10:44:05 PM

Dgold

Posts: 794
Joined: 4/23/2000
From: BC, Canada
Status: offline

Regarding the railroads - please email me your map and I will cross-reference them to my game maps.

(in reply to xBoroNx)

Post #: 4

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/9/2008 12:15:53 AM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

Ideas:

-Biplane heavy bomber
-Seaplane (for naval recon)
-Early aicraft carrier
-Early naval fighter

(in reply to Dgold)

Post #: 5

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/11/2008 5:27:10 AM

Dgold

Posts: 794
Joined: 4/23/2000
From: BC, Canada
Status: offline

Hi Boron,

The following changes to railways on your map should be made for 1914:

No rail between Kars (Russia) and Erzerum (Turkey)
No rail in Egypt west of Alexandria
No rail along Russia's Black Sea coast from Poti to Sotchi to Armawir
No rail in Greece south of Salonika
No rail in Italy south of Naples or West of Taranto
No rail in Persia south of Tabriz

Need rail from Odessa to Ismail to Konstanza (Rumania)
Need rail from Danzig to Berlin

Others look good.

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 6

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/12/2008 5:48:03 PM

jjdenver

Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline

I have a random comment. Counter-battery is turned on in Tom's Great War scenario. This makes counter-battery fire VERY powerful and most players will put artillery in every single stack to prevent artillery from hitting them. If there is a way to tone down the effect of counter-battery fire it might be good for the scenario as it seems super-effective currently.

Another thing is that you might make a way to build trenches w/o spending PP's - and in particular to make those trenches resistant to artillery fire to some extent as the massive trench lines of WWI don't currently show up in the scenario. When forts are built they are often destroyed by the first artillery barrage - thus wasting the 2 PP's spent on them. :(

(in reply to Dgold)

Post #: 7

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/13/2008 12:56:04 AM

xBoroNx

Posts: 404
Joined: 12/8/2007
Status: offline

Regarding counterbattery-fire i am not sure yet if i should enable or disable it. To enable it would be more realistic, but as you say jjdenver the counterbatteryfire in AT is very effective.

Regarding trenches. I think i found an elegant solution for that issue. All infantry generate now a small amount of ep per turn. So a standard infantry unit then that consists of 50-70 infantry can build a trench (took the small fort for that) every 3-5 turns. Those trenches cost 0 pp and will offer some protection vs. artillery. But eventually with lots of artillery you will be able to destroy them. And then there are the large forts, they shall represent serious fortification lines like the siegfried line. Those cost PP though and need 10 times the ep you need for trenches. This means that only engineers can build them. To avoid engineer abuse for trench building i will somehow limit the engineers, either by making them quite expensive or non-combat troops or the like.
But so far i like my approach. Theoretically with a 500-1000 infantry stack you could build those very large forts too, but who makes a 1000 infantry stack on such a large map :).

(in reply to jjdenver)

Post #: 8

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/16/2008 2:49:37 AM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

How is your scenario going, XboroNx?

(in reply to xBoroNx)

Post #: 9

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/16/2008 11:37:26 AM

xBoroNx

Posts: 404
Joined: 12/8/2007
Status: offline

It's progressing, but slower than i hoped. The great GPW scenario distracted me quite a bit. At the moment i am designing the units, i am about half done with them. Then "only" unit placing, events and city/factory placing is left.

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 10

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/16/2008 5:16:28 PM

SailingGuy

Posts: 483
Joined: 2/11/2008
Status: offline

French cabbies.

Saved Paris during the Marne.

On the serious side: Cossaks.

Sounds like a great scenario.

(in reply to xBoroNx)

Post #: 11

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/16/2008 5:45:35 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

The Germans also developed special assault troops later in the war, well it really was more of admitting the on line march into machinegun tactic didn't work.

(in reply to SailingGuy)

Post #: 12

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/16/2008 6:22:34 PM

SailingGuy

Posts: 483
Joined: 2/11/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The Germans also developed special assault troops later in the war, well it really was more of admitting the on line march into machinegun tactic didn't work.

IIRC they were the original stormtroopers. Specialized in infiltration tactics.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 13

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/17/2008 2:00:02 PM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

How will you deal with the possibility of revolutions?

(in reply to SailingGuy)

Post #: 14

RE: WW1-Scenario - Discussion and brainstorming - 2/17/2008 2:37:42 PM

xBoroNx

Posts: 404
Joined: 12/8/2007
Status: offline

Currently my idea regarding revolutions is to try to model an abstract and very light economy.

There will be a couple of producing locations, similiar to the GPW-Scenario. Some will build only supply, some only pp, some only ships, some troops and some artillery/tanks.

PP i will simply abstractly use as a common good. You use it to buy research, you can send pp to some of your allies and they will also be consumer goods. Every month (3 or 4 turns, not decided yet if i chose 1 week turns or 10 day turns) you will get 4 action cards then which cost variable pp: no consumer good production 0 pp. This will greatly increase a revolution counter game variable though. Limited consumer goods. This will cost some pp and somewhat increase the revolution counter. Normal amount of consumer goods. Will cost more pp then the limited consumer goods card, no changes to the revolution counter. And then one for excess consumer goods, which will cost a lot of pp but somewhat reduce the revolution counter.

Furthermore i have to check in detail the unit options, i currently think that it might be possible to make a setting that always if a unit dies a regime counter is increased by 1. If this should indeed work as i think then based on casualities the revolution counter will also rise. If this doesn't work as i think i can use a simpler method via victory points giving every country victory points for cities and then events can check based on vp how good/bad a country currently does and trigger revolution counter increases once a country is in trouble, e.g. if russia has lost warsaw, riga etc. it will have lost x vp, enough to trigger revolution counter events.
All in all this is inspired by Toms Great War scenario revolution mechanic, i just plan to make it more detailed and a bit more complex.

Also somewhat related to this are those ideas i have:

-Trade:

Germany and GB will get some far sea hexes which will produce tradegoods for them (supply and pp). Then the other side can try to interdict them with ships, thus giving germany incentive for sub war and the brits to try to blockade germany. I think AT is flexible enough that this can be handled directly by the game instead of abstractly via action cards :).
Also the Usa will have to ship their stuff to europe.

-Units:

You can specify that building a unit changes a game/regime variable like e.g. manpower. WAW is a good example for that. My plan there is that troops need MP and heavy stuff like tanks or ships need steel or raw materials or however i will call this then.
Manpower you get some starting manpower then and every year an increase for the drafting of this years men. Similiar with steel probably.
There will also be dealt 2-3 action cards each year from which you can use one, at the cost of an increase in the revolution counter you can draw additional recruits then.

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 15