Triumph of the Reich - possible changes

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Triumph of the Reich - possible changes

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 >> Triumph of the Reich - possible changes

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 12/20/2016 8:29:06 PM

RufusTFirefly

Posts: 1048
Joined: 8/29/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

Some comments on Triumph scenario:

I think it is a great scenario. Thanks for this great work.
The number of units takes a lot of time to handle. But the large amount offers to develop some strategy and to make it work step by step in small tactical movements. So far I have seen this only in ETO.

Playing 11 turns as Aixs now there are two main aspects that need some correction I think.

First is the balance between limitation of oil and the production capacity. Very early in the game,at turn 4 already, Axis ran out of oil. Even after nearly the whole German navy was sunk and did not consume oil any more, I decided not to use all of my air force to preserve some fuel to enable my fighters to fly during the opponents turn. Production capacity for mobile units is high. This leading to a far higher production than I could use on the battlefield. Meanwhile I dont use full capacity of my factories although there is enough raw material. But the number of armed vehicles in main HQ raises while being useless due to lack of fuel.

There should be limitations of raw and oil. And it makes sense to reduce factory output due to lack of raw. But to reduce it due to lack of oil feels a bit strange. It does not make sense to increase available oil for Axis to an extend as high as all produced units need. This might make Axis too powerful and change balancing. But I think it would be a good way to increase the amount of oil of maybe ten percent and to decrease production capacity for mobile units by ten percent as well. This way raw and oil are still limited and it would be necessary to keep an eye on it. And productuion capacity would be limited to raw only.

Second important aspect is Turkey as playable minor. In our game recently USA joined Western Allies. It looks like my opponent now tries to make Turkey join WA as well. Beside the historical situation, where Turkey entered the war very late, this would bring in another powerful nation on side of WA. I think it would spoil balancing completely. Axis has to prepare for an invasion by USA now and at same time another front is build up in an area that is weakly defended by Axis (and cannt be defended well, as there are already many enemies around). When Turkey joins WA it is game over for me. It does not make sense to continue playing when balancing changes to a big disadvantage for Axis!

To avoid this Turkey should become playable only in case it is attacked. Same with Spain. Btw, it is no option for me to make Spain join Axis once Turkey is in on side of WA. Spain is far to weak and would offer only a lot of possible invasion areas for the allies.

Post #: 1

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 12/20/2016 8:34:02 PM

RufusTFirefly

Posts: 1048
Joined: 8/29/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

Small bugs:
From time to time areas of unoccupied territory show up on the map. The screenshot shows two areas in Russian territory (NE of Salla and near Topozero Lake) and on Finnish territory at Inarijarv Lake.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by RufusTFirefly -- 12/20/2016 8:43:07 PM >

(in reply to RufusTFirefly)

Post #: 2

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 12/20/2016 8:39:11 PM

RufusTFirefly

Posts: 1048
Joined: 8/29/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

Minefield bug:
My opponent has laid a minefiled in the Channel that has attacked land based units at Cherbourgh. No SFTs were lost. But now the hex is marked as unoccupied territory and readyness of my units is at minimum.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to RufusTFirefly)

Post #: 3

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 12/20/2016 9:23:45 PM

ernieschwitz

Posts: 3893
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline

If I may help:

Re: Oil and Raw. It is very important to upgrade these sites very soon, or you will run into these kinds of problems.

Re: The neutral hexes. They are when lakes become frozen. Of course you could program a (rather advanced) event to do this. (or perhaps one could turn on Autoconquer).

Re: The mine bug. Hmm.. haven't seen that one before.

(in reply to RufusTFirefly)

Post #: 4

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 12/20/2016 10:49:53 PM

Twotribes

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

The first thing I do as Germany is have the Axis minors transfer another Oil hex to Germany. And I use one of their Engineer units to upgrade it.

(in reply to ernieschwitz)

Post #: 5

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 12/21/2016 4:42:47 AM

LJBurstyn

Posts: 626
Joined: 4/19/2011
Status: offline

The Axis powers had a lot of problems with oil but that did not become acute until later in the war...mid to late 1944. At the end of the war they had tanks and planes sitting in the factory lots but were unable to drive/fly them out because oil had become so rare. According to studies commissioned by the US strategic air command they wanted to gauge how productive their bombing had been on Germany and Japan. What they found surprised them. It was practically impossible to destroy a factory by air bombardment. The 500 pound bombs just bounced off the 50 ton iron machines inside factories doing little damage except to the controls which could be jury rigged in hours to bring the machine back into full production. The roofs and walls were gone but the factory was otherwise intact. Destroying cities by bombing civilian areas had little affect on the will of the "people" to continue the war...in some areas even made the population more willing to fight. The only "factories" that proved vulnerable to air bombardment were chemical and other refineries. That was because the product was flammable and that would destroy the equipment. This proved that bombing factories was unproductive....until nuclear weapons came about which vaporized or melted the equipment inside the factories (Nagasaki and Hiroshima). The overpressure wave of a nuke would do only a bit of damage to the factory heavy machines so to make sure the factory was destroyed we had to make sure we could hit the important area of the factory with the fireball itself.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 6

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 12/21/2016 5:45:35 AM

icym

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/15/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline

Thank you for the comments and suggestions regarding the Triumph scenario.

German Oil:

This has proved a problem for many players. It is briefly mentioned in the game manual (last para of Germany, p.21) that Germany needs to improve mines and wells and work with its allies to maximize resource production, but that warning is easy to miss.

In the May turn, Germany should move most of their army up against the Russian lines as German movement (and consequently oil consumption) are discounted in May.

As ernie and Twotribes have suggested, transferring a second Axis Minor oil well to Germany and upgrading the oil wells is vital.

Germany begins with 27,500 oil production (including their synthetic oil plants). Upgrading the already gifted Romanian oil well from level I to III increases that to 42,500. Gifting a second Lvl. 3 Romanian oil well to Germany brings the total per turn to 62,500. Germany begins the game with an oil reserve of 22,500 which should be enough to sustain them through the first few months until the improved oil wells from Romania start to have an effect.

If following the above plan, Germany should have enough oil through 1941 to be fully active in Russia, poke its nose into the Med, fight an air war over France (if the British get frisky) and engage in some troublesome anti-supply operations with its subs. If Germany does run short, gifting the third Romanian oil well for a turn or two should alleviate the problem (the Axis Minors don't need a lot of oil). In a revised scenario version coming in 2017, the SS is given the option to "loan" its synthetic oil plant to Germany for a while, giving an extra option.

With the onset of Winter, German operations will mostly cease in the east and they will have the chance to rebuild their oil reserves for the 1942 offensive.

Is it possible for Germany to run out of oil, even if juggling oil resources between the Axis Minors or even Italy? Probably. The most likely reason would be building too many new factories and too many motorized/mechanized units.

Running out of oil/raw/supply are all painful and take a while to recover from. The suggestions to reduce production of oil-consuming units and/or boost oil production slightly are both worth consideration. Probably before I tried doing that I would like to hear how a new game worked out if the above ideas were employed.

Turkey and Spain:

Turkey and Spain are specifically prohibited from allying with the Western Allies (see rule book, Spain and Turkey, p. 21) unless Germany has declared war on Spain first. If this alliance is happening/has happened in your existing game, I would suggest a house rule that no allied units be allowed to enter Spain or Turkey and Spain or Turkey not be allowed to move/attack outside their borders. I agree an alliance such as you described destroys game balance and should not be allowed.

For a more realistic game, Spain and Turkey could probably benefit from some ernieschwitz-style diplomatic magic being introduced into the game. Unless that happens I would politely refer your opponent to the Spain Turkey section of the rules to show what is and is not legal in this scenario.

Small Bugs:

Ernie is right, the inland neutral hexes are frozen lakes. This could be fixed, but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

Minefield Bug:

Yep, that is a bug and it's my fault. One of the late changes made to your version of the scenario messed up preselection for what hexes could be attacked by minefields. In the earlier, correctly-functioning version, land hexes (including ports) couldn't be attacked. Moving any ground unit into Cherbourg from an adjacent hex will restore the situation for next turn.

In the meanwhile, remind your opponent he can only play mine attack cards on sea hexes (Minefield attacks, p. 27).

This will be corrected in the next version.

Bombing factories

I acknowledge Larry's post is a good summary of the effect of early-war bombing. Most games have not progressed to the stage at which strategic bombing becomes a major factor. It is certainly possible that it might be necessary to make some adjustments to play balance if this aspect of the game proves unrealistic.

Again, thank you all for the feedback.

< Message edited by icym -- 12/21/2016 10:45:23 PM >

(in reply to RufusTFirefly)

Post #: 7

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 12/21/2016 4:22:29 PM

RufusTFirefly

Posts: 1048
Joined: 8/29/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

Thanks at all for these comments.

It is some time since I read the manual and obviously had forgotten some points. Mainly the rules about Spain and Turkey.

The frozen lakes were not recognizable as lake hexes, but it makes sense to have them marked as unoccupied while freezing. No need to correct anything.
With regards of the oil comsumption an upgrade of the facilities is of course the best way to handle this. Should have thought about it myself.

The strategic bombing of Britain is something I am just preparing. First probes have already been made by sending fighters across the Channel, attacking British airfields.

(in reply to icym)

Post #: 8

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 12/21/2016 10:40:39 PM

icym

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/15/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline

Glad to have clarified a few issues.

Those frozen lakes don't have specific graphics on the map, although on the right hand side of the screen, under the mini-map they are correctly identified as frozen lakes and they use a different picture.

If you are looking to wage a true strategic bombing campaign against the UK be aware that Strategic bombers do cost Germany 30% more to research. Also the early strategic bombers aren't terribly effective. Level II are better, Level III - which are buildable in 1942 - are good.

Medium bombers are ineffective against structures, although good vs. troops out in the open.

Germany does have a third option: to research and build V-Weapons. These become available earlier than they did historically and cause quite high structural damage as well as being able to avoid flak and fighter interception. They are only available if you have build a V-weapons plant though.

I would be interested to hear how the bombing campaign works out. I suspect that achieving air superiority may prove difficult.

(in reply to RufusTFirefly)

Post #: 9

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 10/25/2017 6:06:59 PM

Floofy

Posts: 4
Joined: 10/25/2017
Status: offline

Hello!
Pardon if this isn't the right place to adress it but I couldn't find more that 2 threads on the forum about the mod.
In any case ,
I was wondering , since you actually added the goverment in exile of France and Denmark, would the creators of the mod be interested in adding rest of them? For example the Polish / Czech / Belgian / Dutch / Greek etc.? They all had their own important roles in the war , for example dutch civilians helping the allied effort with intel , czech/polish uprising ( Prague/Warsaw/Vilnius ) as well as the "home army"? ( on of the biggest partisan organizations in the ww2 ). While we're on the topic of armies from counqered countries - what about the Russian Liberation Army led by Vlasov? Or The Ukrainian divisions? ( several cossack division serving in the wehrmacht , ukrainians/russians were also fighting alongside the germans in the last days of war ( Battle of Seelow hights and Berlin ). While on the allied side we had : Polish/czech pilots ( 2600+ pilots ) as well as forces on the ground several army corps , including 1st armoured division ( and several others ). Plus the 1st and the 2nd polish army serving alongside the Red Army. Also , maybe I just haven't noticed but are there the Indian/SouthAfrican Forces present? It's not about diversity but historical accuracy - as those forces were sizeable ( ghurkas? ).I'm rather suprised as that those countries ( and many more that I just didn't mention ) eren't added in the mod , I understand that there this mod isn't supposed to be a 100% historical simulation , but why add some ( like the norwegian goverment in exile ) but not include others? The Ukrainian/Polish/Czech ( alongside with others ) were a massive strain on the axis logistical network. If not , I'm genuinely curious as to why actually not? ( Limitations to the game engine/too many players etc.? )

Again , I'm sorry if this isn't the right place to post it ( if it's so , then could you tell me where that which thread that would be ? ).
Pardon for any gramatical or spelling errors.

Thank you for your time and have a nice day/evening!

< Message edited by Floofy -- 10/25/2017 6:31:37 PM >

(in reply to icym)

Post #: 10

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 10/26/2017 2:16:24 AM

icym

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/15/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline

You raise some good questions. As the person who created this scenario I will try to explain the thought processes that led to the game being the way it is.

The ATG game engine does not have many limitations as to what can be done, although for smooth running I understand having too many regimes can slow things down. The recommended number of players is ideally between two and five which I consider a manageable number.

When deciding what Regimes would be represented in the game, I tried to keep the number reasonable and did make some compensations in force strength and production locations to keep the Regimes roughly representative of their total strength.

One major consideration was playing time, which is already near the upper limit of what I feel is manageable. The first game played by forum members began in September 2016 and is still going (although nearing the end now). Adding extra forces as separate Regimes would not add that much to the playing time, but I had to draw a line somewhere. Kudos to those the players for fighting it out to the end.

As to making changes, forum member Twotribes made the point in the mods and scenario sub forum in December 2016 that "I have found that once a mod is done that it gets "tweaked" till it is ruined. Everyone, including me of course start asking for changes and eventually the mod is nothing like it was originally." I am well aware of this possibility and have resisted adding things that alter the game's basic structure. Even so, since late 2016 around 150 changes have been made to the scenario. Many of them are minor but I have to satisfy myself that the benefits will justify the effort. My priorities for making changes are fixing things that are wrong and making changes that add to the enjoyment or playability which are not too time-consuming to implement.

That said, a few special events such as the uprisings you mentioned could be added without upsetting the balance while providing extra interest. I will consider doing something about those.

Norway and France do have governments in exile and are playable regimes, although the allies have to liberate territory for them to play any real part in the game. Norway, with its one ore mine plus the two mines in adjoining Sweden is such an important strategic site that it was garrisoned with around 300,000 German troops and so easily warrants inclusion as a separate entity though it can't really do anything until it is liberated by the Allies.

Action cards allow liberated Norwegian and French territory in France/North Africa to be returned to control of the original owners so at some point they may warrant their existence.

I don't know if you have participated in a game of Triumph, but I would humbly suggest giving it a try, if you have the inclination to do so. Even with the missing regimes you mentioned, I would like to think you would find the scenario complex and challenging enough to keep you fully occupied and entertained, even if you are not fully happy with the omissions. I continue to play 2-player games of Triumph with an old war gaming friend, both for enjoyment and to weed out bugs or scenario imbalances. I should add that my friend has found the learning curve quite steep. Playing Triumph is not too hard, but playing it well isn't easy. I hope that eventually we will have a game (we are about to start a new one) that warrants posting an after-action report.

For an outstanding game that covers the whole of WWII I would suggest the GD1938 mod which has many of the things you miss from Triumph.

Thank you for your interest, your feedback is appreciated.

(in reply to Floofy)

Post #: 11

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 10/27/2017 1:30:25 PM

DRommel

Posts: 288
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline

Hi ICYM is it possible to set Spain and Turkey to the AI without upsetting the game? Both of them aren't historically of interest for the game and of course the house rule must be that Germany wont declare war on them.

(in reply to icym)

Post #: 12

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 10/27/2017 3:35:08 PM

LJBurstyn

Posts: 626
Joined: 4/19/2011
Status: offline

Even later in the war strategic bombing was mostly ineffective. The only place where strategic bombing was effective was refineries and explosive facilities where the product being produced often did more damage than the bombs dropped on them. Bombing civilians (such as Tokyo and cities in Germany) were counterproductive as it often caused the locals to be more supportive of the war effort. Germany produced more tanks in the early months of 1945 than they did in the early months of 1944 but they could not move them out of the factories because they lacked the fuel supplies needed and they lacked the manpower (trained soldiers). The attacking of anything that moved was more effective against production than the bombing of factories.

German and Japanese factories often were producing when the walls and roofs of the factories were completely destroyed--often under tarps less than 24 hours after they were "destroyed" by hundreds of bombers.

This is why I think the recovery rate of bombed factories should be increased greatly (except refineries and chemical plants).

< Message edited by LJBurstyn -- 10/27/2017 3:36:59 PM >

(in reply to DRommel)

Post #: 13

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 10/27/2017 11:05:34 PM

icym

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/15/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline

It would be possible to allow Spain and Turkey to be played by the AI. Currently there is an event that detects if any Regimes are set to be played by the AI and if there are the game gives a message that this is not permitted and you can't continue.

As to what would happen if Spain and Turkey were AI controlled I have no idea, but I suspect it would not be terribly satisfactory.

However, if you really wanted to try a new game with the block AI event turned off, I can send you a modified scenario file and you are welcome to give it a try.

(in reply to LJBurstyn)

Post #: 14

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 10/27/2017 11:32:53 PM

icym

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/15/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline

In one of my recent playtest games, the US prioritised strategic bomber production and by mid-late 1942 they were causing significant problems for Germany. The Allies were managing to destroy one, sometimes two, factories most turns and sometimes damaging others. Also, this happened after changing research so that new tech Strategic bombers were available one year later than previously.

I agree the factory repair rate should be greatly increased and changes to reduce the effectiveness of strategic bombers will be implemented.

An updated version with these changes will made available within the next few days.

< Message edited by icym -- 10/29/2017 4:46:16 AM >

(in reply to icym)

Post #: 15

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 10/29/2017 4:51:10 PM

DRommel

Posts: 288
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline

Hi ICYM,
what's the latest version of Triumh and where can I/we find it

(in reply to icym)

Post #: 16

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 10/29/2017 11:18:22 PM

icym

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/15/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline

I am having trouble with Dropbox links and am trying to get some help to fix.

I will get back as soon as the problem is resolved.

Sorry for causing a hold-up.

(in reply to DRommel)

Post #: 17

RE: Triumph of the Reich - possible changes - 10/30/2017 11:49:21 AM

icym

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/15/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline

The problem with Dropbox has been resolved.

For the latest game RufusTFirefly now has both the scenario file and the Game Manual pdf and he will take it from there.

(in reply to icym)

Post #: 18