WAW serial - few toughts (Full Version)

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



Message

cveta -> WAW serial - few toughts (10/29/2010 10:35:34 PM)

After playing more than 15 games of WAW scenarios ( diferent versions ) I must sey that it is realy great. Thanks Tweber for making it and thanks to all who did some changes. But every good thing may become better.
Here are my ideas for WAW
1- See lion is too easy for Germans. I did it few times without problem, and in one game I did it in February 1940. So if West dont prepare exelent defence wery early, England is doomed. USA should wake completly after fall of London. This will be good compensation.
Also - Kondor is testing a attack on Su wery early. He claim that he may take Leningrad in 1st turn from see attack, and that he may blast thru Su after Poland fall, and before USA enter war.
2 - Su player is defenetly too weak. I belive that cost of Su units must be reduced by 50%. I attack su very late ( 1943, summer ) and still menage to storm thru Su without much problem. Of course that I secure England and Africa before that.
3 - Japan - too low manpower. In three games Japan lost manpower in 1942. And too easy for play. In 1st turn JA take Burma, Borneo, Jakarta and Surabaja without problem. In same turn JA may attack Pearl, and still have an option either to advance towards Australia or India. So with JA player may get a wictory condition in few first turn.
4 - West - well all depend of gameplay. It he find a way to learn what Axis are up to he may defend properly, and if he fail west is doomed. West player must counter few stiles of gameplay. Fight agains a large number of subs, fight to keep a England alive, fight to keep Africa as open battleground, fight to retake Norway to help Su, and finaly to counter JA moves. Too hard for most of players.

Now - I open this subject to hear your ideas and sugestions about WAW. Let us make this best scenario ever.



ehzorg -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (10/30/2010 5:47:54 AM)

Since the game engine won't allow sea units to intercept enemy units, England's ability to defend against Sealion is severely hampered. To counter this I would agree that england needs a little help. I would suggest adding "City Garrison" SFTs in London and Manchester, perhaps a 50 stack (or less) each. This wouldn't be too unbalancing because the City Garrison units aren't good for anything else. As it currently stands, the allied player must go all-out toward defensive production of England from Sept '39 until Barbarossa to prevent Sealion (but perhaps this is as it should be...?)

I think the SU is a bit weaker in this scenario than historically, but that's fine with me - it makes the game a bit more of a toss-up. If SU production is boosted, I'd suggest a small boost to start with (perhaps double the production capability of Omsk starting in Jan 1942). 50% unit cost for SU would be a bit too much.

I can't speak on JA manpower or ease of victory since none of my games have progressed into 1943 yet.



cveta -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (10/31/2010 9:33:32 AM)

In two games I played JA manpover goes under 100 in late 1942 or beguining of 1943. And that is not directly conected to results in China/JA war. Fast expansion of JA uses lot of manpower to cover the taken lands.



cveta -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/1/2010 12:32:18 AM)

I have a screenshot from early attack on SU. Kondor did fantastic opening after he conquer Poland. There is no way that SU may defend after this. Leningrad fell in first turn from seeborne assault together with planes and ships docked in town.
[image]local://upfiles/33723/6542F040C1964B66964B7EE2094BA7B6.jpg[/image]



cveta -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/1/2010 12:34:38 AM)

And look at the all loses in first turn. Something must be done in WAW scenario to make SU stronger and to prevent gameplay to interfere in historical development. And have a note at the date when he did this.

[image]local://upfiles/33723/D5D118B6850A4ACD8A9E15B0AF9AF1B7.jpg[/image]



cveta -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/2/2010 4:06:05 PM)

After early declaration of war against SU and after thouse hewy loses on 1st turn Su stay almost without any sugnificant forces redy to defend. Siberian army need few turns to reach Moscov, airforce is wiped out and worker battalions are not redy to demolish bridges, so Germany have an easy job.



ehzorg -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/2/2010 4:24:22 PM)

Wow... yeah, I suppose that is all due to the 150% 1st turn combat bonus GE gets if attacking before 1941. With that kind of bonus you could probably drop a 40 strength paratrooper unit onto a Soviet Light TankII stack and wipe it out. That is completely ridiculous.

I suppose the only way to fix this would be to reduce the first turn combat bonus. As an alternative, the combat bonus could be extended over multiple turns. So:

GE attacks in 1939: Combat Bonuses: 1st turn = 50%, 2nd turn = 50%, 3rd turn = 25%
GE attacks in 1940: Combat Bonuses: 1st turn = 50%, 2nd turn = 25%, 3rd turn = 10%
GE attacks in 1941: Combat Bonuses: 1st turn = 25%, 2nd turn = 10%
GE attacks in 1942: Combat bonuses: 1st turn = 10%

And I've been thinking a bit more about SU production. I do think it is a bit too low... Not at first, but by the middle of 1942 the Soviet Union should be producing nearly as much as GE. By the middle of 1943 (assuming a historical progession) the SU should be outproducing GE in heavy equipment by a good margin. As it stands, I don't think SU production increases that much. Manpower is about right, historically SU did have a manpower shortage after the disastrous defeats of '41-'42.

Especially considering the evidence cveta gives here. However, both changes might be too much. I would be in favor of spreading out the GE combat bonus, and a slight increase to Soviet production, perhaps doubling Omsk and Gorki starting in Jan '42.



zzmzzm -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/6/2010 9:49:07 AM)

I agree to make SU a little stronger.  Maybe add two light armor army since soviet have more tanks than german  historically in 1941.



cveta -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/18/2010 5:12:27 PM)

It will be nice if tweber gives us some ideas about this. After all he created this scenario



tweber -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/18/2010 5:32:41 PM)

Based on some recent games that I have played with, I think the German side is a bit overpowered relative to the Soviets especially.  I am actually working on a new version of WAW for AT Gold that has alot of new ideas.  Map is larger, US and Italy are separately playable, lots of historic variants (e.g., start in 1938 with invasion of Czechoslovakia), production has gearing limitations, research takes longer.   



cveta -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/18/2010 5:49:38 PM)

Jummmy - looks nice. But it will be realy bad to see that WAW scenario wont adopt changes we talked about. I still belive that this secenario have a huge potencial and it may be better.
Too bad I dont know how to fix scenario. But making SU stronger will give a game a good balance. And the easiest way for that is to boost SU production by 25% before war or maybe 50%. And the moment germany invade Su should be able to produce maybe 2 times more than now. Germany have huge advantage.



SMK-at-work -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/19/2010 7:06:29 AM)

A couple of things that may be relevant to some aspects - Glasgow is in the wrong place - needs to be a hex south and make hte Highlands more extensive.  Edinburgh should have a coastal defence - islands in the Firth of Fort were fortified, and there were some land batteries.

Also for the USSR - instead of giving Germany a huge bonus, how about giving the USSR no staff at all?  Not sure what effect that has....is it a useful possibility?

Also Soviet armour - in 1941 it was in the middle of being reorganised into the Mechanised Corps.  These had been abolished in 1939, then in 1940 they realised they had made a mistake.

The reorganisation was not supposed to be complete until mid 1942, so maybe they can be further penalised on top the the usual Soviet difficulties?



ehzorg -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/19/2010 1:48:41 PM)

So that would entail taking those two stacks of tanks and splitting the SFTs up amongst the infantry divisions on the front line. That sounds about right according to histories I've read. Or perhaps a few mechanized corps - but the majority of the armor should still be limited to the movement speed of the foot soldiers they were assigned to support.

Soviet production should also ramp up slowly but consistently in the 1942-44 timeframe so that it reaches the behemoth that it truly became. No other country, Germany included, was able to convert as much of their country's production capability to wartime efforts as the Soviet Union.



SMK-at-work -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/20/2010 12:36:15 AM)

IMO there should probably be more Soviet tanks...but they should be almost unable to move - they had major problems with reliability in 1941 - but that doesn't seem to be something hat AT can simulate, so the designers have gone for fewer SFT's.

The Soviets certainly did convert more of their economy to the war than anyone else....but they were still far from being a "Behemoth" IMO - they gave up a lot of "chrome" to concentrate on basics.....but for xample they got 500,000 trucks from the allies IIRC - so they didn't have to make those.  The allies also sent them millions of tons of food, which made that aspect of the war a lot easier for them.  And also aluminium, copper and explosives - IIRC maybe 50% of Soviet explosives came from lend lease? - somewhere on the net there are figures for it.....it is surprisingly huge %.

Looking at the production/GDP figures on wiki some things stand out for me
- the Sov's made enormous numbers of "front line" equipment - tanks, guns, mortars, fighters, ground attack a/c
- the US made huge numbers of everything - it's GDP is over half the allied total at the end of the war, and they made a lot of large and complicated stuff - almost 100,000 bombers, 22 aircraft carriers stand out particularly for me
- Germany actually had more coal and iron than the USSR, but made less with it

to me it seems that some basic technology is too important in AT - I think, for example, I would only have 3 infantry tech levels - 1 would be as 1 is now - start of war, not many AT weapons.  2 would be more SMG's and MG's so a little more lethal and resistant - maybe 10%, and 3 would be including infantry AT weapons so more resistant to armour.

MG's & mortars?  - I might have 2 levels for MGs & mortars - most countries made no changes to those through the war in real terms - they made more of them, and some made bigger ones, the Germans added the MG42...but other than that what major changes were there?  The Brits went through the war with the Bren & Vickers & 3" mortar, the Sov's had the DP LMG, the Maxim was supplemented by the SG (I think) but never really replaced, USA had Brownings & BAR.

So I'd let Germany get to MG2 with it's MG34 and Mg42 - but level 2 would again only be a little more resistant/dangerous to infantry for a moderate cost in PP.

Tech like a/c, tanks I'd leave as they are now tho.




ehzorg -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/20/2010 1:07:50 AM)

Thought I'd look up some quick facts re: lend-lease. I pulled these from "Russia's War" by Richard Overy.

Overall, western aid accounted for 4% of direct munitions used by the SU (guns/tanks/artillery). However, western aid accounted for much more significant portions of material indirectly responsible for Soviet military capabilities; one third of all Soviet vehicles, 57% of all aviation fuel needs, 53% of explosives, and approximately half of wartime aluminum/copper/rubber needs. Transportation needs were reliant even moreso on western aid; 56% of all railways, 95% of all locomotive engines and 90% of all railway cars. Enough foodstuffs to supply one half pound of rations for every Soviet soldier for every day of the war.

Of note is also the fact that virtually no lend-lease was sent in 1941, only very limited aid in 1942 - the majority occured in 1943-5. Most arrived via sea in Vladivostok, lesser amounts in turn through Murmansk/Archangel or overland through the Persian Gulf.

Some raw numbers, total supplied 1941-5:
14,200 aircraft
6200 tanks
363,000 trucks
35,000 radio stations
380,000 field telephones
956,000 miles of telephone wire
14,800,000 pairs of boots
780,000 tons of canned meat
340,000 tons copper
260,000 tons aluminum

So yeah... it is a rather shocking amount of stuff. I'd clarify my last post to label the combined output of Soviet industries and western supplies as a "behemoth" - not just SU production capability.



SMK-at-work -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/22/2010 7:41:49 PM)

There's a very good breakdown of volumes by each lend lease route, and a nice map, at Engines of the Red Army



SMK-at-work -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/24/2010 9:10:56 AM)

Another thing that needs to be done is to limit factories to a single product - you can't take a tank factory and change it to making aeroplanes overnight and vice versa!



ehzorg -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/24/2010 2:30:30 PM)


quote:

Another thing that needs to be done is to limit factories to a single product - you can't take a tank factory and change it to making aeroplanes overnight and vice versa!


Agreed, there should be some benefit to choosing an SFT and leaving it in your production queue. Perhaps when changing the SFT in a production slot, production slowly ramps up to 100% capability over the course of a few months. Again, might not be possible given the current game engine.



SMK-at-work -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/28/2010 7:08:29 AM)

Yes - engine limitations might be a bother.  Would having different factory types be achievable - ie a Tank factory, or an aircraft factory - just as some cities/locations can only produce supplies and others only supplies, PP & infantry?



ehzorg -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (11/28/2010 2:27:05 PM)

Perhaps AT Gold will feature some of these things ;)



cveta -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (12/9/2010 9:41:34 PM)

Cannot wait for At Gold. Hope it will be great.
Just to mentioned Kondor early opening on Su I alked before. It ended wrongly for Germany. Early attack boost Su production to 100% and I menage to slow down GErmans and make a counterofensive retaking Leningrad and Helsinki.
Germany must fight in France and then in Greece and in Africa simultaneusly with Su, so it is better not to wake Su until GErmany is completly redy.



SMK-at-work -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (12/10/2010 7:21:52 AM)

What is the purpose of the Warlord HQ in China?  Or is it something left from a previous build that has been forgotten about?



ernieschwitz -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (12/10/2010 7:13:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Another thing that needs to be done is to limit factories to a single product - you can't take a tank factory and change it to making aeroplanes overnight and vice versa!


Hi,

Iīve been looking over this thread a few times, and i thought you might want some answers. Though, i am not going to program them, i know what is achievable, in some cases. Your wish for making factories that could only produce say tanks is quite possible. You donīt need code for it even, the editor (in AT) is able to make any location, produce as little or as much as you would want.



ernieschwitz -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (12/10/2010 7:16:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ehzorg


quote:

Another thing that needs to be done is to limit factories to a single product - you can't take a tank factory and change it to making aeroplanes overnight and vice versa!


Agreed, there should be some benefit to choosing an SFT and leaving it in your production queue. Perhaps when changing the SFT in a production slot, production slowly ramps up to 100% capability over the course of a few months. Again, might not be possible given the current game engine.


Donīt think that the ramping up feature of a factory would be very easy to achieve. I think it would require some rather heavy coding, and the setting of a fixed people type pr. factory that is built. And I am not sure that is exactly what you want to achieve... Might be that the new AT Gold editor has some possibilities in this area, ... I havenīt seen it yet, but i doubt it will...



ernieschwitz -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (12/10/2010 7:17:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

What is the purpose of the Warlord HQ in China?  Or is it something left from a previous build that has been forgotten about?


I believe that it is a HQ that allows for transfer of Supplies (maybe PP, not sure) from SU to China.



ernieschwitz -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (12/10/2010 7:44:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz


quote:

ORIGINAL: ehzorg


quote:

Another thing that needs to be done is to limit factories to a single product - you can't take a tank factory and change it to making aeroplanes overnight and vice versa!


Agreed, there should be some benefit to choosing an SFT and leaving it in your production queue. Perhaps when changing the SFT in a production slot, production slowly ramps up to 100% capability over the course of a few months. Again, might not be possible given the current game engine.


Donīt think that the ramping up feature of a factory would be very easy to achieve. I think it would require some rather heavy coding, and the setting of a fixed people type pr. factory that is built. And I am not sure that is exactly what you want to achieve... Might be that the new AT Gold editor has some possibilities in this area, ... I havenīt seen it yet, but i doubt it will...


Just when i thought it was near impossible i figured out a way to do it, with coding. It would require that the factory being built was of one type, then after a turn, it would be upgraded to a location (another factory, same time) with larger production capacity, and so on, until it got to maximum production... Interesting how there always seems to be a way (well most of the time) to solve a problem with the editor :) AT is pretty unique...



SMK-at-work -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (12/11/2010 6:25:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

What is the purpose of the Warlord HQ in China?  Or is it something left from a previous build that has been forgotten about?


I believe that it is a HQ that allows for transfer of Supplies (maybe PP, not sure) from SU to China.


Maybe - I didn't notice it when I played. Someone else suggested it stops China surrendering?



SMK-at-work -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (12/26/2010 11:21:10 PM)

What is the naval scale, in terms of ships per counter?

I notice in recent game the Italian Navy gets 6 cruiser units, but only had 22 Cruisers - of which 3 were WW1 vintage.  Counting only the 19 "modern" ships thats 1 CA per 3 ships.  And not all the Italian ships had particularly good AA either - the Fiumes were apparently short of space on their superstructure & never had radar fitted, & the AA guns were slow to traverse & had not very good fire control according to Wiki - they probably should be a separate type that cannot be upgraded

And as an aside 1-turn upgrades of ships almost certainly need to be a lot slower :/

The Royal Navy, OTOH, had 63 Cruisers at the start of WW2 (and 23-25 under construction, depending on where you read), but (assuming I count correctly), gets 7 units in the game, + 2 CAII as reinforcements.  Assuming I got the count right that's 1 cruiser unit per 9 ships, and the 2 CA's received as reinforcements as 1 per 11 or 12.

I thought it might apply to only Heavy Cruisers, since the ships are "CA" - but even there the Brits had 15, including 2 Australian, to 7 Italian.

The French Fleet had 7 each BB's/BC's &  heavy cruisers, which are not represented at all before the fall of France - the Vichy fleet scuttled at Toulon had 3 BB's, 7 cruisers, 16 destroyers, 13 Torpedo boats and 15 subs - a couple of subs got away to Nth Africa, but the whole is represented, I think, by 2 BB, 2 CA and 2 DD units.



SMK-at-work -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (12/27/2010 4:49:39 AM)

FYI there's a nice page that lists every ship in the RN and where it was stationed at the outbreak of war here

There are a few discrepancies - even allowing that many ships might be assumed to be included in various other units:

BB's:  In the game there are 10 in home waters (7 Home Fleet, 3 Channel), which is more or less correct (1 of the 10 was refitting but was back in service at Scapa in early September), although it should be 8 and 2.  There are 4 in the Med when there should only be 3, and 1 in the Far East when here should be none - 2 BB's refitting in the UK seem to have made it into the order of battle some time before they were ready - they did not become available until Feb 1940 and Jan 1941.

CV's - there are 5 in the game - 1 each Home, Channel and Far East fleets, 2 in the Med Fleet.  Actual deployment was 1 in Home, Med and Far East (ie China Station) Fleets, 2 in the Channel, 1 at Rosyth (Edinburgh more or less) on training duties made into a front line unit, for a total of 6.

Cruisers:  28 Cruisers in the Home, Channel, North Atlantic & Med Fleets are represented by 9 Cruisers.  At an average of, say, 3 Cruisers per strength point, the British are missing about 10 Cruiser points scattered around the world - particularly from Asia/Pacific and Sth Atlantic.

Destroyers: the RN had about 110 modern and 70 old destroyers in service at the start of the war.  Some of the old ones were being converted the "escort ships".  Many others were scattered in squadrons around the coast of England and at stations empire wide.  There are 7 units in the game representing all "deployable" destroyers.

Submarines:  3 submarine units 1 each at home, Med & Far East, represent over 50 modern submarines.

A quick Summary for the Kriegsmarine:

3 BB's seems reasonable for 2 Scharnhorsts, 2 "Pocket Battleships" and 2 old pre-dreadnought BB's in service in Germany 1939 (Graf Spee was of course, famously, not there at the time!).

2 CA's for 2 heavy and 6 light cruisers is not unreasonable (viz 1 per 3 cruisers for known UK numbers they could arguably get 1 more)

2 DD's for 22 Destroyers gives a strength of about 11 DD's per point - in which case the UK should get about 4 more.

6 Sub II's for 62 subs (6 Type IIA, 18 Type IIB, 2 Type IA, 10 Type VIIA, 8 Type IXA, 11 Type VIIB, 7 Type VIC ) means the UK should get 2 more

The Italian fleet gets 3 BB II's and 1 BB1, 6 cruisers, 4 destroyers and 10 subs when it joins the war.  This represents 4 old reconstructed WW1 era BB's, and 2 new BB's.  The Roma joins later as a BBII.  The WW1 era BB's were only armed with 12" guns - and even reconstructed they probably should not be BBII's.

Andrea Doria and Caio Duilo's rconstructions were not finished until October 1940, so they should not be in the initial fleet, but should arrive in November 1940.

Given that much larger British "Super Dreadnoughts" of the Queen Elizabeth & "R" class are only BBI's, there is no case for the WW1 era Italian ships to be BBII's - the fleet should start with 2 BBI's and 2 BBII's, and get 2 more BBI's in November of 1940.

the 6 cruisers represent 19 heavy and light cruisers - there were also 3 pre-WW1 era old cruisers I don't count.  This seems reasonable if other navies are given Cruiser units at the same ration of about 1 per 3 ships - which means a lot more for the RN!

4 Destroyers cover 57 destroyers - at 1 per 11 they rate 1 more.

10 Submarines represent no fewer than 116 submarines - so is pretty close to the ratio for the Kriegsmarine - but again if the ratio is to be followed the RN needs about 3 more units.






tweber -> RE: WAW serial - few toughts (12/29/2010 6:49:23 PM)

After getting creamed by Cveta in a couple of games, I would say that the German and Italian navies are too strong relative to the French and British navy's



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.609375