Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme)

Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios

Message

Widell -> Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (9/21/2008 9:20:18 AM)
Playing the Warzaw Pact in the WWIII scenario by Grymme, and figured I'd post some observations since it is a playtest game. First of all, the scenario seems to be ready for approval as there seems to be no game breakers so far. The following observations may/may not be interesting to tweak for future versions: Some units (like the Albanians, Ethiopia, Cuba) are out of supply with basically no possibility to connect to a supply source. There should maybe be a minor supply source for these units? Air vs Ground is largely over effective. This is not specific to this scenario and may also be biased by my own opinion. It is not realistic IMHO that air attacks cause >50% losses in an Army Corps. I tried to address this is my mod of Delyn Locksmith's WWII in Europe scenario, and managed to get results were air attacks reduce readiness rather than cause losses. Israel seems over powered when they and the Arab states enter the game. For balancing purposes, Israel should have to choose if they go for Syria or Egypt. They should have enough defensive power to hold a strong defensive line vs the one they don't go on the offence against. The Afghan rebels are IMHO over powered. It's unlikely they should be able to mount an offensive into the USSR, specially since they have to cross "Big Land" terrain coming out of the mountains. I propose to keep them as is = cheap to build(?), and either provide more USSR units to maintain the border, or the Afghans should have really lousy defensive abilities when out of the mountains. Cuba seems to be too easily conquered. I state this for two reasons: The US can launch amphibious landings more or less unopposed, and secondly, Cuba is almost unsupplied. Proposal may be to include small coastal batteries and fortresses with static defensive units as well as more supply on the island. Havana should maybe be more fortified. Warzaw Pact moves first, followed by NATO, USA and last China. Why? If anyone starts WWIII, it's the WP[;)] - OK, so, how to manage this? The US gets bases along a line from Hamburg to Frankfurt, which means the Pact will push forward quickly in the initial stages. Depending on how the US player choose to go ahead, significant air and ground assets can be moved to Europe after the initial WP attack. This should mean WP will have a hard time capturing Hamburg and Frankfurt and moving beyond that north / south line. France should be neutral at the start (are they neutral already btw?) and joins NATO after the initial WP attack. This may also have implications on the game in North Africa as Algeria and Libya may be pulled into the WP forcing Spain and France to intervene there. Submarines to be at sea at the start of the scenario rather than being despatched by action card. Coming back to Israel. They are able to capture Syria and most likely the Iraqi oil fields as well as threaten Egypt within less than 6 months. Not sure, but I think both Syria and Egypt needs some work so Israel must decide on one direction and defend in the other direction. In Turn 7 it is obvious that Egypt will also fall, which means that Israel has managed to capture Syria, Egypt and Iraq in about 6 months without even being close to be under threat. This is, IMHO, the one major area that is severely unbalanced in the scenario. What about trying to model Iran and Iraq? I understand it would be a major pain from a mapping standpoint, but it would make the whole region even more exciting. It would also improve the balance of the Israel vs the Arab states situation. While we're at it, why not map the Middle East to the same detail as Europe as this would be one of the really interesting areas in a hypothetical conflict like this? Again, major pain from a mapping perspective, but might add a lot to the game. I'm starting to miss the (expected) naval and air battles around Iceland, but I may have read "Red Storm Rising" too many times [:D]. Adding a few sea hexes to the north of the map would open up for some interesting options. Also, both the US and USSR should maybe have more strategic air assets at the start of the game. I'm thinking of units capable of flying from Murmansk to Iceland for example, and vice versa for the US A continuation of the overpowered air discussion. The US Stealth Bombers have now knocked out more or less all bridges in China as well as a fair amount of resource locations in the USSR.....completely. Again, I have confidence in the power of stealth, but this 1986 and 1. the stealth was a relatively new type of weapon and 2. even by going stealth, deep penetrating raids into China and the USSR with huge, huge success seems a bit unrealistic. If we talk B-52's I agree, stealth, no way. Either but static flak units on these locations, or change the air power (all sides!) so it disrupts rather than wipes out things. Nukes should be used to wipe out. Bombers do damage at best, and disrupt most of the time. Yugoslavia staying out of a conflict like this for 7-8 months. I realize there's an event to bring them into the war, but give the Warsaw Pact an Action Card to increase the likelihood by diplomatic actions. More on the air. The number of deep missions into the heartland of the Soviet Union and the amount of damage done is close to ridiculous. Even if the stealth bombers were new in 86, the likelihood they'd do more than symbolic damage deep in the USSR is very limited (as they are not carrying nukes so far). Either place flak units in all Soviet locations or reduce efficiency of the stealth bombers. The Soviet Union needs a way to counter the deep missions from the US. Read Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" for some ideas on what could have been expected in terms of air missions from the USSR in this timeframe. Strategic attacks on Iceland for example. Romania and Yugoslavia should join the war (at least very likely to do so) in response of a US landing in Greece and the capture of Albania. Combined with successful WP operations in Turkey and Austria, this should go to 100% More to come.....??? Well, I guess this shows my bias from playing the Warzaw pact and taking a beating [;)] EDIT: Added a few bullet points based on the discussion in the thread. EDIT: Added more content after turn 6 of the ongoing game. EDIT: Turn 7 comments. EDIT: Turn 8 comments. EDIT: Turn 9 comments. EDIT: Turn 10 comments.

GrumpyMel -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (9/21/2008 7:48:01 PM)
Well, there are a few areas where every power is going to be over-matched....and I think that's largely ok. Cuba really SHOULDN'T be much more then a minor distraction for the U.S. and I think that is largely OK. Also, the Arab states are going to get pounded if the U.S. throws any support to Israel. Conversely, as NATO... pretty much the best you can do in Finland is a delaying action. Turkey is also very tough to hold.... and if China's fleets aren't destroyed by the U.S., good luck trying to hold Malaysia. For the U.S., there is not much you can do about South Korea and Burma. I don't think this makes for a bad situation.... as some times it's not about whether you loose something or not, but about how you loose it....and how long and costly is it for the enemy. Air power certainly can be dominant...but I don't think this is entirely inaccurate. It's not impossible to counter though... build up a decent number of AA batteries with transport back these up with a reasonable intercepter force.... and you can pretty much nullify an opponents air superiorty.... especialy if you make good use of cover to protect your units. Only thing I might suggest here is reduce flak costs from 1500 to 1000.

Grymme -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (9/21/2008 8:31:26 PM)
Nice to see some discussion. Some of these issues have been covered in the Modthread. Widell: - Isnt 2000 supply each turn enough for Cuba based units? They do have a 4k city. Units in ethiopia also have supply from addis adeba. The only unit that is totally out of supply is Albania. I am thinking about what to do here. Dont agree with you at all that Cuba is underpowered. Its one of the most unitdense places in the map. If USA really has nothing else to do they would be conquered within 6 months. Will have to check on the Arabs. They are underpowered, but have more production (3 times) and could possibly get help through offensive against turkey/or airtransportbridge. - The afghan rebels, i might agree with you on these. Well se how the game plays out. - Air/Ground, in a modern game i think large amounts of air should have a serious impact. Possibly weather should be reimplemented which could ground air units. On the other hand i think there wouldnt be a problem if the airunits on both sides were balanced so that bombers had to look out for fighters. If it turns out that NATO kills of USSR airforces everytime this might have to be changed. So i generally agree with Grumpymel, but we will have to see how the game goes as it drags out a little.

Grymme -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (9/21/2008 8:39:46 PM)
Widell: Did change the initial Cúba production from 1K supply & 4PP to 2K supply. This might help a little atleast. Btw. You can always airsupply Albania :)

Widell -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (9/21/2008 9:25:05 PM)
[:D] Don't get me wrong, this is a great scenario! It is labelled a play test, and I will still be biased after getting pounded here and there [;)]. It is a great scenario and a fun game so far. Also good to hear the opinions from the other players. I may be wrong on Cuba, but a landing should still cost at least something... One idea may be to raise militia as an event from a US landing, or limit the places a landing can take place. Would make it a little harder and costly, but still achievable in a reasonable time. For air, I am not suggesting a reduced air power as such, only that the kill ratio is reduced = More retreated units = You still need ground units to destroy your opponent after reducing their ability to defend themselves as a result of air attacks.

Grymme -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (9/21/2008 9:33:05 PM)
Hi Widell. Its ok. I really like feedback, and on some points i agree with you. Some thoughts i have around expanding the scenario. - Possibility to attack/drag india into the conflict on the NATO/USA side - something in south america on the USSR/PDRC side - making Canada NATO-land - Something with Libya and/or Saudiarabia - Something to make USA be more involved in the conflict in Europe (possible bases for USA. Any suggestions?) - Weather in the scenario? Yes or no? I am also thinking about the airthing. Possibly nobody should start with bomberII. I do not want to change the basic rock-paper-scissor formula of the game without serious thought though. Maybe lowering the cost of Flak as Grumpymel suggests. Have anyone seen any effect of the Anti Air infantry? BTW. Does anyone know any famous modern fortresses/defensive lines that could be relevant in the scenario?

Widell -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (9/22/2008 10:06:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grymme - Possibility to attack/drag india into the conflict on the NATO/USA side I think China might be given an action card or similar to attack India. What happens to Pakistan is not obvious in this case, and you also need to decide what to do with Bangladesh. Treat it as if it joins India I assume? You could also model an event where there's a certain (low) risk that Afghanistan intervene in Pakistan who then join USSR or China followed by India joining NATO. As a Commonwealth country, they should not join the US. quote: ORIGINAL: Grymme - something in south america on the USSR/PDRC side Basically I guess you have Brazil and Argentina as any major players. Argentina can have a certain likelihood of occupying the Falklands (doesn't even have to be on the map. Event only. NATO / UK then gets either an action card, or an event (50/50?) to declare war on Argentina who then (somewhat unrealistic really) join the Warzaw Pact, while there's a likelihood Brazil joins the US. This is very far fetched, so likelihood should be low for this development. Other than that, Central America and the minor countries in South America can be at more of a civil war state with militia and spec ops from each side fighting some kind of low key conflict? Not sure if this is possible to model? quote: ORIGINAL: Grymme - making Canada NATO-land Again, an old Commonwealth country that would join Great Britain, aka NATO, quite early on in a conflict like this. Again, some percentage per turn for Canada to join? May be low initially, but increase as time goes by, and if the Warzaw Pact make significant breakthroughs in Europe, the likelihood increase a lot more. In the very unlikely event of a Chinese or WP landing in North America, Canada should join NATO immediately. quote: ORIGINAL: Grymme - Something with Libya and/or Saudiarabia Libya should definately go against the US in this scenario. When the Arab States go against Israel, Libya should have a high likelihood of joining. Saudi Arabia has been closer to the US, but here's lot's of complexity to deal with. Maybe you need to check a combination of Arab / Israel status and the Pakistan / India development? Would it be possible to treat Saudi Arabia as a neutral supply provider and let them send supply to both sides until either side decide to invade them in which case they join either China/WP or the US? quote: ORIGINAL: Grymme - Something to make USA be more involved in the conflict in Europe (possible bases for USA. Any suggestions?) US bases would be logic. You can offset this in any of two ways: 1) The Warzaw Pact gets the first turn (more logic since NATO would probably not have started the conflict in the first hand) and/or 2) French units are not activated on the first turn since France is not part of NATO and would not join immediately. A realistic scenario would probably see a WP advance almost to Hamburg and Frankfurt followed by NATO counter attacks as the US bases would get reinforced and French units become available. Delaying the French would also make it possible to have them go campaigning in their old colonies in Algeria etc making North Africa an interesting theatre also in WWIII. quote: ORIGINAL: Grymme - Weather in the scenario? Yes or no? I would say Yes, but I may not understand the full consequence. Maybe more experienced AT players can provide more detail to the pro's and con's here? quote: ORIGINAL: Grymme I am also thinking about the airthing. Possibly nobody should start with bomberII. I do not want to change the basic rock-paper-scissor formula of the game without serious thought though. Maybe lowering the cost of Flak as Grumpymel suggests. Have anyone seen any effect of the Anti Air infantry? Grymme - Have a look at The Modified Third Reich scenario I posted a couple of months ago. I did the changes I am talking about here to both sides air units, and while you can now do a lot of damage with well planned air attacks, you cannot wipe out entire corps. The Allied tried this during WWII and did not succeed even when they had 100% air superiority near the end. Changes like this need lots of play testing and planning, but you are still in the editor and not changing the basics of the game IMHO.

Widell -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (10/1/2008 8:29:33 PM)
Bumping this thread as I have added a few more comments.

Grymme -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (10/2/2008 7:40:49 AM)
Hi Widell. Always thankfull for your comments. / The israel/arab conflict. i am seriously thinking about your comments about this. i do think this is a conflict that israel would win if ussr doesnt give major support. do agree that in game scope and turns 6 turns to conquer entire egypt\jordan\lebanon\syria is a lot. Difficult to play it out so that there is a stalemate. Maybe some more infantry for the arabs. We will se. In our first test game Israel have actually been beaten back a little in the north and only taken the suez area on turn 12. We will see but i am open to suggestions on this. \ Initialy i did place 1 USSR wolfpack at sea. NATO or US always started the scenario by hunting it down so i removed it. Maybe just a couple, but at better areas. Will think about this also. \suggestions? / Iran-iraq. Impossible with current scope of map. Pakistan took up the last black hexes i had to work with. If someone remakes entire map for me ill think about it. Would love to see it though. \ have also read Red storm rising. Severly irritating book. Always end up cheering for the soviets because the book changes from EVERYTHING going the soviet way to EVERYTHING going as NATO wants it. Would also love more naval action. But thinks scenario is more realistic than the book. Wont add more hexes to the north. But will think about adding a little more strategic assets. / some questions back. How do you feel about the afghans after playing a while? / you wrote that cuba was underpowered. As it turned out in your game US spent all their initial PP on stealth bombers that knocked out Cuba. So i can somehow understand your reaction. I did change the cost of stealth bombers a little as a result. Given a more conventional us of US PPs do you still feel that 4k production is to little for USSR? (it should me more than enugh to support the units without major US strategic bombing) Basicly were i feel that i am with the scenario is that i am done with the big issues. That means major map changes, nations involved, major events etc. Were i am more open to suggestions is with smaller OOB changes, balancing issues and all changes that doesnt affect the map. IE new units, technologies etc I would also be very much open to the thought of someone building on the scenario with me. (as have happened with the WAWscenario). ......... btw have a nice time drinking sangria in barcelona. I am sipping Raki in Crete as we speak.

Barthheart -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (10/2/2008 1:56:29 PM)
Yeah, after I flattened Havana with the stealth bombers they went to the mid-east and did the same to Addis Abba(sp?), Damascus, and Cairo. The result was Isreal capturing all of the mid-east by the end of turn 7. The only counter to this is for the Arabs to build lots of fighters.... maybe..... or flak..... As for Cuba there's not much hope as they only have 1 turn before the USA flattens Havana beyond repair. As the USA I would always concentrate on taking out Cuba first as they are just to close to home. I feel this is as in real life as Cuba would not stand a chance against a full on US assault. And since at the beginning the US has no action in Europe it's easy to concentrate on Cuba and the mid-east unitl Russia opens a path through NATO for he US to attack.

Barthheart -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (10/2/2008 6:21:06 PM)
Some small map errors (maybe) I noticed while planning my presicion stealth bombing raids....[;)] Hex 99,28 and 100,29 - there is a bridge between these two hexes but no road and no river. Hex 101,28 and 102,29 - there is a bridge between these two hexes but no river. Hex 53,21 and 54,21 - there is a bridge between these two hexes but no road. Hex 107,36 and 108,36 - there is a bridge between these two hexes but no river.

Grymme -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (10/5/2008 3:18:08 PM)
Thanks Barthhearth. - Fixes bridges. Although i choose to put a river in vietnam hex instead of deleting bridge. - Also fixed so that infantry II-IV is called that and not Rifle II-IV. - Seemes USSR reserve infantry isnt working. Dont really know how to fix it though.

Widell -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (10/17/2008 6:36:56 PM)
Bump... Added more comments. The overpowered air (in general) and the inability to have real allies (aka allowing an ally to send troops through friendly territory) is tremendously annoying! Both of these are generic to AT, but the air can be fixed by tweaking the SF-types. Sadly, the other issue will not be fixed [:(].

Grymme -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (10/17/2008 10:54:38 PM)
widell: We have 3 test games going. It seems atleast 2 of the games are leaning towards the west. I will check the 3d game. Right now i am inclined to think that the West airpower is the problem. Generall USSR weak position (lot of vulnerable satelite states) might also be a problem. Now NATO - Fighter lvl2, Bomber lvl2, 200 pp start USSR - bomber lvl 2, artillery lvl 3, 200 pp start PRDC - Subs lvl 3, 200 pp start USA - Fighter lvl 2, Bomber lvl 2 - 200 pp start Thinking of changing everything to lvl 1 and 100 pp start, except China subs. Also thinking about giving US a stealth bomber unit from the start but upgrading cost seriously to 40 pp or so. Other Question. How does the war of convenience card in GPW work. I think it might be possible for NATO-USA or USSR-PDRC to declare war on eachother if nescessary.

Barthheart -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (10/18/2008 12:16:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grymme ... Other Question. How does the war of convenience card in GPW work. I think it might be possible for NATO-USA or USSR-PDRC to declare war on eachother if nescessary. You play a "War of Convienence" card so that you temperarialy declare war on an friend. At the end of the turn the an event set the two back to peace. Can be trouble if air units are near they will intercept. But it does give a way to cross ally territory. You'll have to look in the events for GPW as I have no idea how to program it or ask Tom.

Grymme -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (10/18/2008 7:07:21 PM)
Made some small changes (mostly balancing issues). I do not know how they change the game dynamic yet. Uploads made daily. What i am attempting to do with these changes (apart from fixing bugs) is to reduce the roll of airwarfare a little (on both sides), to give the USSR/PDRC a little more naval power to give the naval game some more fun & to reduce the weakness of USSR allies on some places (mainly Arab states & Cuba). In the middle east - Made Cairo 4K city instead of 2k. - Changed Iraqi oil from resource to City - Changed Tripoli from resource to City (these changes were made to reduce arab weakness) - Fixed broken bridge south of Cairo - Meddled a little with Egypt OOP. - Changed Lebanon terrain a little (added a low mountain & a light forrest) - Made USSR marine air corps a little stronger - Added Sinai low mountain - Removed "river in Sea" on the north border of Sinai/Red sea. In Asia - Added siberian city Magadan (no production) with police brigade in it. - Added 1 extra inf corps to Pakistan army. - Added extra police brigades to India & Pakistani armies. - Fixed Vietnam ground unit bug. - Reduced size of Mujaheddin corps that US can deploy - Split US aircorps on Okinawa into two Aircorps Marine Aircorps & Strategic bombing Air corps - Gave China a small Marine Air Corps. - Gave China extra inf corps on border to India In Europe - Made city Lvov smaller (now 0 pp) & Dnepropretovsk bigger (now 4k pp). I dont want increase the amount of cities so i made this change to keep the number of cities the same because of extra city in Cuba. - Gave USSR 2 small wolfpacks & PDRC 1 small wolfpack at sea from the start. - Made USSR regime european to fix bug that they couldnt build reserve infantry. - Lowered cost of NATO AWAC from 4pp to 3pp In the americas - Made Havanna 2k city instead of 4k instead i added a second city called Santiago de Cuba with 2k production (to reduce vulnerability of Cuba). Also changed placement of i inf corps in cuba. - Beefed up a Sandinist brigade a little & added some horses to their HQ General/other changes - Took away all lvl 2 techs from the start (mainly to reduce roll of air warfare) - All regimes now start with 100 PP instead of current 200. - Changed cost of building fortifications & Fortresses from 250/500 to 150/300. - Changed cost of Stealthbombers to 40PP (they seemed way to good) - Gave the US 2 stealtbombers from the start. - Changed HQreach from 3 to 5 - Changed maximum AI HQ distance from 5 to 15 so that the AI doesnt need to create new HQ all the time. - Changed carrier carrying capacity from 5 airplanes to 7. To do list - Fix the USSR sub event. They still get 0 supply whatever i do. - Working on war of convenience cards for all sides. Thinking they would cost 5PP for each turn used and come online on turn 2. ____________________ Upploaded this update. Also checked out the war of convenience event in GPW. I am all for it, but it seems programmed with some game/war-variables. I dont know how to work those. But if someone knows they are welcome to mod it for me. Just give me a headsup. Also suggestions on AI modifications are very velcome.

Grymme -> RE: Improvement proposals WWIII (by Grymnme) (10/25/2008 7:27:13 PM)
Just uploaded another update (WWIII62v2 is the current file) The major changes are - Implemented the "war of convenience" actioncards. Each player can pay 10PP to "declare war" on their ally for a turn. This can be used to move through each others territory among other things. The war ends at the end of the current turn. - Finally fixed the USSR sub event. Instead of placing the subs in Barents sea the subs can be placed in Cuba, Jemen or Vietnam ( and they now appear with 12 turns of supply) - Mangled the Chinese navy a little (made it bigger and renamed it historicly). - Gave china an extra production city (2k) - Wrote a short briefing on each major power so that people get a sence of what to expect. See below My sincere hope is that the scenario will near its completion now. ____________________ Briefing European NATO with Canada. The European alliance have their back against the wall and have to fight USSR head on. They have good equipment, strong air assets and a respectable navy. Play this power if you want to play with a major land front. USSR with Cuba, Vietnam (among others). USSR have major ground forces & a decent size airforce. Their navy is divided into several different fronts and not very strong anywhere. Also some of the USSR puppet states are vulnerable and have to be defended. Play USSR if you want to play with several big land fronts and small naval action. PDRC (China). China has a decent sized navy and a medium sized army and a sligthly weak airforce. The strenght of China is that their territory is very concentrated and difficult to attack. China has to very aggressive to try to weaken USA & NATO. Play China if you are interested in playing small land campaigns & large naval and air campaigns. USA with Japan, Australia, the Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand & Indonesia (among others). USA have a huge navy, a large airforce and a small but well equipped army. USA have a large industry but have to shipp their reinforcements to the fronts. USA can be involved everywhere from Europe to the Pacific. USA have to be very offensive to defend their many minor allied state. Play USA if you are good responding to upcoming threats everywhere. USA can expect to se major air & navar campaigns and some land battles also.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

6.125