RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

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: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

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] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 1/10/2018 10:39:05 AM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Here is my first pass at a Soviet rifle division (65% proficiency):

I've started work on a British infantry division (which is easily the hardest one to do).

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by VHauser -- 1/10/2018 10:40:59 AM >

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 31

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 1/10/2018 5:08:53 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Update:

As I started research into the British infantry division, I quickly discovered that there are problems with my first pass of the divisions I'd already done. I guess I should have started with the British first. Oh well.

Anyway, from what I can see right now, the British infantry division is very different (mainly significantly larger) than those other first pass divisions. That means that I'll have to increase the size of those other divisions if what my current research on the British is correct. I'll know more in a day or two.

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 32

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 1/11/2018 9:40:44 AM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

By 1945 all nations faced serious manpower problems. Those problems were compounded by industrial production needs on the home front. So, as one example, even though the USA had more theoretical manpower available than the Germans (since the USA had a larger population than the Germans) they needed an enormous amount of skilled labor to drive their war production (the USA was producing about as much war material as the rest of the world combined). So, practically speaking, the USA could only field around 100 divisions and still leave enough manpower at home to keep the factories running at full capacity. The British could only field around 50 infantry divisions. The Germans needed far more divisions to secure and maintain their far-flung empire. The Soviets needed an enormous amount of divisions to offset the quality superiority of the Germans (also, Soviet commanders were not as skilled at commanding larger formations compared to the German commanders which meant smaller Soviet formations).

Thus, the British and American divisions will be the largest (since they have fewer divisions to maintain) while the German and Soviet divisions will be smaller (since they have to spread their manpower over a large number of divisions). However, even if I play fast and loose with the numbers, it looks like the British will still have the largest divisions which means that I'll have to scale all the other divisions based on the British. And that means that until I come up with a British template, then those other divisions I started to work on are incorrect and will all need to be re-scaled based off the British template. Stay tuned...

Addendum: Another factor that will influence the size of infantry divisions is their role. British and American infantry divisions are expected to attack. All other nations use infantry mainly as defenders. So, British and American infantry divisions will be larger and more powerful to fulfill their role. Other nations use other kinds of divisions as attackers (panzer, shock, etc.) and those kinds of divisions will be larger/more powerful as a result.

< Message edited by VHauser -- 1/11/2018 6:05:34 PM >

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 33

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 1/12/2018 12:36:37 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Update #2.

I've been doing a lot of research the past 3 days. Turns out that my initial assumptions regarding E47 were incorrect. Here are the results of my research to date.

1. US Army and British infantry divisions are around 18,000 men. The large size is mainly due to increased mechanization and addition of tank units and expanded divisional assets. Base proficiency is 70%.

2. German infantry divisions are around 16,000 men for standard infantry and 13,000 men for Type 44 infantry (which were actually introduced during 1942 but not formally standardized until 1944). Volksgrenadier and Volkssturm divisions were never needed by the Germans in E47 and the Luftwaffe Feld divisions were all absorbed by 1945. Base proficiency is 80% for standard infantry and 75% for Type 1944 infantry.

3. All other nations have infantry divisions around 10,000-12,000 men. Most all of those divisions (except Soviet and Italian) use older/obsolete equipment. Exception: Divisions equipped by the USA/British are organized as USA/British divisions. Base proficiency for most all these divisions is 65% (except divisions equipped/organized by the USA/British is 70%).

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 34

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 1/14/2018 9:57:00 AM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Organizational Trends.

1. All nations were improving the level of mechanization of their forces, some faster (USA/British) than others (Axis Allies).

2. The "Panzergrenadier" Model. All nations were trending their divisions towards an infantry-to-tank ratio of around 3 to 1, some faster (USA/British) than others (Axis Allies).

3. The USA and British divisions were becoming mirror images of each other.

I'm almost ready to start working on the second pass of infantry divisions.

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 35

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 1/15/2018 3:39:12 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Here is pass #2 for the German infantry division:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 36

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 1/18/2018 9:29:44 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Update.

1. Recently I've been working on the map. As of now, I'm satisfied that the map is ready for playtest.

2. I've revised the unit colors in order to improve �force support�.

3. I've re-examined high-altitude AAA. Turns out that by the time of E47, bombers were flying well over 30,000 feet. Only a few AAA guns were capable of effectively reaching such altitudes (the German 128mm, the USA 120mm, and the British 5.25�). And even those guns were useless as bombers approached operating altitudes of 40,000 feet by 1948 in E47 terms. So, I'm debating leaving those guns in service for 1947 as high-altitude AAA, and then converting them to AT and artillery after 1947.

4. Related to #3 above, it turns out that the higher bombers flew the more difficult they were to intercept. This is because the large wing areas of the bombers allowed them to remain in stable flight whereas fighters found it increasingly difficult to maneuver (or even fire their weapons) without stalling out. So even if a fighter could theoretically reach over 40,000 feet, that's about all they could do since they couldn't maneuver or fight when they got there. I'm still figuring out what this means and how to represent this in E47.

5. Some house rules: 1) No Allied airdrops more than 10 hexes from a friendly-owned hex; 2) Jewish units may not leave Palestine, but they may limited attack across the border; 3) Arab units may not enter Palestine, and they may not participate in combat with Jewish units.

< Message edited by VHauser -- 1/19/2018 3:06:51 PM >

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 37

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 1/20/2018 4:14:39 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Unit Reorganizations. I've put unit TO&Es on hold until I figure out how I want to handle unit reorganizations over the course of the game. As one example, sometime during 1948/49 (in E47 terms) the Soviets undergo a complete reorganization of their military. As another example, every year large-scale equipment upgrades due to technological advances will transform many units. I am working hard to figure out ways to handle these issues. One way I'm thinking about dealing with this is to perform organizational withdrawals/returns during December each year as winter sets in since operations will be minimized during that time anyway. Another way I'm thinking about handling this (in combination with the December withdrawals/returns) is to minimize equipment upgrades within each unit in favor of annual/biannual withdrawals/returns. This is possible since TOAW4 now allows up to 10,000 events.

Air units. It's starting to look like 160 aircraft per unit is the optimal unit size for the 25km game scale of E47. Also, strategic air assets are generally outside the scope of TOAW4 since they are conducting strategic operations that cannot be represented in TOAW4. However, strategic air units were occasionally used tactically. So, rather than simply removing all strategic air units from E47, I'll leave a few to account for tactical use of strategic assets.

Naval units. The naval divider of 100 is way too high. I'm going to drop it down to 20 (or lower) for playtest. Also, I'll be adding a variety of naval units to account for technological upgrades over the course of E47.

< Message edited by VHauser -- 1/20/2018 6:47:23 PM >

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 38

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 1/25/2018 6:48:57 AM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Airpower.

I've identified 106 air units in the Luftwaffe OOB. That's 17,000 aircraft at 160 aircraft per unit (160 is roughly the size of a reinforced geschwader). 17,000 aircraft is double the maximum size of the Luftwaffe in 1944. Even if I believe that the Luftwaffe had the manpower and the ability to train and operate 17,000 aircraft, a sizeable fraction of that 17,000 would have operated on strategic defense against the Allied strategic bombers (which I've pretty much removed from the Allied OOB). The USAF 8th, 15th, 20th, and 21st Air Forces plus Bomber Command represents a very large fraction (quite possibly the majority) of the total Allied airpower commitment (Soviet strategic assets are small).

Anyway, I can easily remove the Axis night fighters because they would have certainly operated on strategic defense. Next, only the best high-altitude fighters would be chosen for strategic defense (since nothing would have been higher priority). But the question is how many? Right now I don't know, but I'm working on that.

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 39

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 1/28/2018 7:19:18 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

I've been sick recently (heart problem). But I am back and will have another E47 update within the next 7 days.

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 40

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 1/28/2018 7:24:00 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

I've been sick recently (heart problem). But I am back and will have another E47 update within the next 7 days

We really appreciate your dedication and everything but really....take care of yourself. We need you around a
bit more. And don't work when it's not fun. That will just burn you out.

_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 41

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 1/28/2018 8:41:11 PM

Silvanski

Posts: 2506
Joined: 1/23/2005
From: Belgium, residing in TX-USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser

I've been sick recently (heart problem). But I am back and will have another E47 update within the next 7 days.

Looking forward to it, but take your time.

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 42

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/2/2018 1:28:00 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Thanks for your concern, guys.

Turns out that I had to go back into the hospital because my heart still isn't working right. It might take a few weeks to figure out how to fix it...

Anyway, I'll get back to work on E47 as soon as I can.

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to Silvanski)

Post #: 43

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/4/2018 2:16:58 AM

Lav2566

Posts: 28
Joined: 12/23/2017
Status: offline

Love this scenario and the work that's gone into it. Anyway to speed up the game, besides hitting the caps lock?

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 44

RE: Europa 1947 v5.8 for TOAW IV - 2/4/2018 2:21:28 AM

Lav2566

Posts: 28
Joined: 12/23/2017
Status: offline

Love this game and scenario. Any way to speed up the game besides hitting Caps lock?

< Message edited by Lav2566 -- 2/4/2018 2:24:45 AM >

(in reply to Silvanski)

Post #: 45

RE: Europa 1947 v5.8 for TOAW IV - 2/4/2018 2:36:02 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

You COULD press the space bar and toggle the units invisible. That might speed up things.

_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to Lav2566)

Post #: 46

RE: Europa 1947 v5.8 for TOAW IV - 2/4/2018 8:34:10 AM

olaui13

Posts: 17
Joined: 10/7/2017
Status: offline

Dear VHauser
I really appreciate your work but I think that you underestimate number of trucks in for eksampel in Soviet infantry division. Just 30 trucks for whole division seems too few.
Best regards

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 47

RE: Europa 1947 v5.8 for TOAW IV - 2/4/2018 9:56:21 AM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: olaui13

Dear VHauser
I really appreciate your work but I think that you underestimate number of trucks in for eksampel in Soviet infantry division. Just 30 trucks for whole division seems too few.
Best regards

Kamerad

the 30 trucks (in game system terms) are more than sufficient to keep most of the division motorised. Notice, that supply, logistic, maintenance trucks or assets don't really make a difference, except in losses.
You can check this one out in toying around with the various tutorials I especially created for newbies (and veteran players!).

Tutorial '41: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4382552
Tutorial '42: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4387818
Tutorial '42 - Editor: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4401098
Tutorial '43: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4390285
Tutorial '43 - Combat: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4394374
Tutorial '44: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4397183
Tutorial '45: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4412329

Klink, Obersrt

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to olaui13)

Post #: 48

RE: Europa 1947 v5.8 for TOAW IV - 2/5/2018 1:39:24 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

My heart meds seem to be working and I can't stay away from E47. So, onward!

Steel Armor.
In 1939 the USA produced 75,000,000 tons of steel, and 20,000 tons of steel armor. The 1941 battleship Bismark used 19,000 tons of steel armor to build--equivalent to almost all 1939 USA steel armor production. The 1941 Bismark consumed the equivalent of more than 600 1941 Pz-IV tanks' worth of steel armor. In other words, the 1941 Bismark consumed more than 3 1941 panzer divisions' worth of steel armor (and remember that a single biplane Fairey Swordfish torpedo that jammed the Bismark's rudder and sealed its fate). The Germans planned even larger battleships...

Big Battleships are Inefficient. Even if nations could afford big battleships (e.g., Montana, H-42, Lion, etc.), they were all obsolete by 1944. Why? Because they were too slow to keep up with the aircraft carriers. The USN Iowa class were the only battleships fast enough to keep up with the carriers. And even the Iowas were only useful as massive antiaircraft platforms when escorting carriers. And the USN could build lots of Cleveland and Atlanta class cruisers, which were much more efficient antiaircraft platforms, for each Iowa battleship. Also, it was more cost effective to modernize and upgrade existing slow/old battleships for use as shore bombardment instead of building new ones.

So, even if I include some big German battleships (as tributes to Hitler's vanity), there will be a cost in panzer divisions that will be paid. As for the Allies, there were plans for 6 Iowas (instead of the 4 built) and 4 Alaskas (instead of the 2 built), which won't strain Allied production much by E47. As for the 6 British Vanguard class (smaller, faster Lions) only 1 was built and I haven't figured out what to do about the other 5.

Naval Stacking. I'm thinking about a house rule to limit naval stacking to 1 task force per hex. If capital ships maintain 1km spacing, then there is a very finite number of ships that can safely operate together in a 25km hex.

< Message edited by VHauser -- 2/5/2018 5:36:49 PM >

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 49

RE: Europa 1947 v5.8 for TOAW IV - 2/5/2018 4:56:47 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Soviet Air Force.
The Soviets raised 18 air armies. Each air army had ~4 air divisions and each air division had ~4 air regiments. Each air regiment had ~40 planes, so each air division had ~160 planes, which means that each air army has ~640 planes (4 x 160 = 640). Of the 18 air armies, 5 were on permanent strategic defense so don't need to be counted. And one of the remaining 13 air armies has 4 "specialist" divisions (2 naval patrol, 1 heavy bomber, and 1 intruder). Of the remaining 12 air armies, I'm still working out the proportions, but it looks like 1-2 fighter divisions, 1-2 bomber divisions, and 1-2 attack divisions per air army, in some combination totaling 4 divisions per air army. To keep things simple, I'll probably go with 2 fighter, 1 bomber, and 1 attack divisions per air army.

Edit: Another possibility is since there are 48 divisions in the remaining 12 air armies, then 48/3 = 16 divisions of each type (fighter, bomber, attack). But that would weaken the fighters so that fewer bomber/attack units will reach the target and losses will be higher. Still leaning towards the 2F,1B,1A template...

< Message edited by VHauser -- 2/5/2018 5:15:03 PM >

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 50

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/6/2018 3:50:35 AM

NikolaiEzhov

Posts: 738
Joined: 7/23/2014
Status: offline

Hey there.
Should Russian cities named after Soviet leaders, e.g., Gorky, Voroshilovgrad, Ordzhonikidze, Stalinogorsk convert to their "pre-Soviet" names (i.e., Nizhnij Novgorod, Luhansk, Vladikavkaz and Bobriki) after they are captured by the Germans?
Regards, Nikolai.

< Message edited by NikolaiEzhov -- 2/6/2018 3:52:39 AM >

_____________________________

Proletariat of the world, unite!

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 51

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/6/2018 3:16:28 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NikolaiEzhov

Hey there.
Should Russian cities named after Soviet leaders, e.g., Gorky, Voroshilovgrad, Ordzhonikidze, Stalinogorsk convert to their "pre-Soviet" names (i.e., Nizhnij Novgorod, Luhansk, Vladikavkaz and Bobriki) after they are captured by the Germans?
Regards, Nikolai.

Yes and no. If you believe that the Germans will keep all those cities in E47, then yes. If you believe that the Soviets will re-capture those cities in E47, then no. Probably simpler to keep the Soviet names since it is more likely that the Soviets will re-capture those cities.

Soviet Air Force, part 2.
Further research indicates that the Soviets were operating ~15,000 combat aircraft in their 18 air armies. This means 5 air divisions per air army instead of 4. Also, ground attack aircraft were as plentiful as fighters. So, the new template is 2F,1B,2A divisions per air army.

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to NikolaiEzhov)

Post #: 52

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/6/2018 4:01:09 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

USAF.
Even after removing strategic air units (~20,000 aircraft), and not counting the US Navy, the USAF was operating ~16,000 aircraft for E47. This results in ~100 air units, of which ~50 fighters, ~25 bombers, ~25 ground attack. In addition, a variety of USA equipped nations (France, Brazil, Portugal, etc.) will add air units to this total.

Commonwealth AF.
Even after removing strategic air units (~8,000 aircraft), and not counting the Royal Navy, the Commonwealth was operating ~10,000 aircraft for E47. This results in ~60 air units, of which ~30 fighters, ~15 bombers, ~15 ground attack. In addition, a variety of British equipped nations (Iran, Iraq, etc.) will add air units to this total.

Air Reorganizations.
As the Allies wear down the Axis, fighters can be re-trained/re-equipped as ground attack. This can be tied to occupation events.

German V-weapons.
Some time pressure must be introduced to motivate the Allied player to eliminate the German V-weapons. Still thinking about this.

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 53

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/8/2018 6:43:58 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Generic/Hypothetical Units.
E47 requires generic and hypothetical units. This is perhaps the main reason I like E47 so much. I've believed for 15 years that Norm Koger got the ratings wrong for many (most?) "historical" units. E47 gives me the freedom to rate the majority of units in the scenario because the Axis don't have ANY "historical" post-WW2 units. EVERYTHING is hypothetical when it comes to the post-WW2 Axis units. And I have to rate all the Allied post-WW2 units based on the benchmarks I have to create for the Axis units. This makes me happy to be freed from any and all "historical" restrictions and restraints. This is a major reason why I think that E47 is the best of all TOAW scenarios.

Air Ratings.
I will be finished with all E47 air ratings by this weekend.

Axis Tank Names.
Lion(H), Sabertooth(H), Mammut(H), Wolf(M), Leopard(M), and Jaguar(M). Ocelot, Serval, Caracal, Cougar are some additional possible names. I have no clue about Italian tank names yet. Also, the Axis will have new TD units that have no names yet, possibly putting "Jagd" in front of the new tank names.

Turreted AFVs vs. non-Turreted AFVs.
Turreted AFVs are better (more effective) than non-turreted AFVs. This is a fact. The reason that some nations built non-turreted AFVs was because they only cost 75%-80% as much as turreted AFVs. Also, rating turreted vs. non-turreted AFVs is very problematic (and a problem I haven't solved yet). Is Germany wealthy enough by E47 to be able to afford to get rid of non-turreted AFVs? Still thinking about this.

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 54

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/8/2018 8:33:31 PM

Nicholas Bell

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline

Considering the Germans were producing the Kanonenjagdpanzer in the 1960s, it would seem likely they would assault guns & panzer jaegers in the 40's.

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 55

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/8/2018 9:47:23 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

Considering the Germans were producing the Kanonenjagdpanzer in the 1960s, it would seem likely they would assault guns & panzer jaegers in the 40's.

Agreed. Right now it's looking like 200+ infantry divisions, 30+ panzer divisions, and 40+ panzergrenadier divisions for the Germans in E47. Pretty much have to build non-turreted AFVs to equip all those divisions. Same with the Soviets, and even the Italians (since they have such a weak industrial capacity). Looks like only the USA/British are wealthy enough to build turreted AFVs across the board.

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)

Post #: 56

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/9/2018 2:53:30 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Resolving Turreted vs. non-Turreted AFVs.
I'll reduce the TOE of the unit by 25% and increase replacements by 25% to compensate. For example, if the TOE of a unit has 48 JagdPanthers, then I'll reduce that TOE by 25% to 36 and raise the replacement rate of JagdPanthers to 125% to compensate. That way I don't have to mess with the .eqp ratings of the JagdPanthers themselves.
EDIT: This isn't correct. Reducing JagdPanthers (for example) TOE by 25% might increase casualties on those remaining JagdPanthers. So I might have to fiddle with the percentages a bit. Maybe reduce TOE by 20% and raise replacements to 125%, or maybe reduce TOE by 25% (which I currently prefer) and raise replacements to 133%. Still thinking about this.

High-Altitude AAA.
All high-altitude AAA artillery will be removed and SAM missiles will be used from the start of the game to compensate. This greatly simplifies and streamlines the game (I don't have to perform hundreds of unit withdrawal/reorganization events). This won't have any significant effect on the game since the AAA ratings of the missiles won't be unbalanced compared with the AAA artillery they are replacing (I'll simply adjust the quantities of missiles to compensate).

< Message edited by VHauser -- 2/9/2018 5:01:17 PM >

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 57

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/10/2018 8:21:11 AM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Air Units.
I've finished rating air units and updating the .eqp file. But I've only just started the process of working on the air OOBs.

Naval Operations.
Submarine Equivalents. This is how to pay for naval units in E47. Since TOAW doesn't model submarine operations, I can pay for naval units using submarines instead of panzers. Both the Allies and the Germans built hundreds of submarines. Allied submarines are around twice as big as Germans, each Allied submarine is about as big as a destroyer. However, the Germans built more submarines and the Allies have to leave some in the Pacific to blockade Japan, so the net effect is about the same. This is how the Germans can afford some big battleships (H-41 Class is the most reasonable).

Capital Ships. It takes about 5 years to build and train a big capital ship. This is inefficient in E47 terms. Also, there is a big difference between a British Warspite (30,000t built in 1916) and a German H-41 (70,000t built in 1945). I'm working on something I call a "battleship slice" or a "carrier slice" to rate big capital ships as well as handle incremental replacements for them. This might take me weeks or even months to figure out, but I'm working on it.
EDIT: Here is my current thinking: Generic destroyer-sized replacement "slices" for light, medium, heavy, and carrier units distributed something like ~6, ~4, ~2, and ~4, per month (for the USA, others scaled down from there). A USN carrier task force might look something like ~48 light, ~36 medium, ~24 carrier slices. A bombardment task force might look something like ~36 light, ~36 medium, ~36 heavy slices.

EDIT2: Here is the historical USN strength in 1945: 23BB, 28CV, 71CVE, 72CA, 377DD, 232sub, 361DE, 833misc (I'm guessing things like rocket ships, PT boats, etc). Those frigates and subs will be folded into the replacements and I'll leave the misc alone (but adjust replacements for them accordingly). Here is the British RN in 1945: 15BB, 55 carriers, 67 cruisers, 308DD, 162 subs.

< Message edited by VHauser -- 2/10/2018 2:17:39 PM >

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 58

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/12/2018 3:30:28 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

Been a long weekend. I've finished the Allied air and naval OOBs. I'll start on the Axis air and naval OOBs tomorrow and hopefully finish by the end of the week.

Soviet Minor Allies.
I've decide not to delete the Soviet minor allies (Romania, Poland, etc.). Instead I will tie their release to occupy events (as the Soviets close in on their 1941 borders).

< Message edited by VHauser -- 2/12/2018 11:19:28 PM >

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 59

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/15/2018 3:09:44 PM

VHauser

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

I'm almost finished with the Axis air and naval OOBs. Probably by Saturday.

Major Change in Development Philosophy?
After spending the past several days with the Axis OOBs, I've started to consider a big paradigm shift regarding the Allied OOBs. Currently, the Allied ground forces are composed of "combined arms" units. This works for the P.O. Axis since the P.O. doesn't have a brain capable of combined arms decisions, so the P.O. Axis units are more efficient as combined arms units. But not for the human Allies. In addition, equipment upgrades/reorganizations are more problematic for human Allied units (the P.O. Axis doesn't care) in the rapidly changing technological environment of E47. So, I'm seriously thinking about breaking Allied ground units into homogenous "building block" units that the Allied player can mix and match as needed. Thus, Allied ground forces would be separated into "armor" and "artillery" and "infantry" components and the Corps (or Army for the Soviets) would contain all necessary components for self sufficiency. For example, a USA infantry division would consist almost entirely of infantry plus transport (plus small stuff like HMGs and 81mm mortars which would be considered organic to the infantry). The artillery and tanks would be stripped out and made into corps assets to be parcelled out as the human player sees fit. This gives the Allied player improved operational flexibility and makes the job of dealing with equipment reorganizations/upgrades easier for me to manage (it will minimize the number of unit withdrawal events I have to deal with). I haven't definitely decided to do this, but currently I am very favorably disposed to this idea.

Flak Towers.
Working with the naval OOBs has given me the idea to apply the same principle to select ground forces. Germany historically build flak towers in Berlin, Vienna, Hamburg, Frankfurt, and Stuttgart. They were extremely tough (4 meters thick hardened reinforced concrete probably capable of withstanding a near miss by a Hiroshima nuke). I've decided to add some more to include the Ruhr. On a more limited level this same principle could be applied to more modest fortifications. Still thinking about that.

Forts in General.
I've decided to make forts using the heavy artillery symbol instead of the fortress/coastal artillery symbol. This gives all forts a movement of 1 instead of a movement of 0. The reason for doing this is to allow them to go back into defending/entrenched/fortified status after they fire (units with a movement of 0 cannot do this). Thus, the Gibralter fort can now fire on turn A and go back into defend/entrenched/fortified status on Turn B and later. I realize that flak towers moving around the map is silly, so it is my job to ensure that through the proper use of objectives and orders that that doesn't happen. I think I can make it work.

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)

Post #: 60