RE: WAW update and notes

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: WAW update and notes

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 >> RE: WAW update and notes

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 12:58:55 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBoroNx

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

all that effort and you still let the French evacuate the Maginot line?

Hm you are correct, the maginot line issue should be solved too.

I'm not so sure about this. If you want to hamstring the player the way the French did their military then yes freeze them. But to allow the player to try something other than a "losing ploicy" thenI'd say no. Maybe make it an option - Historical French Political Realities

If you're going to have non-historical French policies then IMO they need to be balanced by a cost or by non-historical German policies too.

And the historical policies should be hte default IMO - the non-historical ones shuold have to be selected.

In regard to the French there's 2 options - evacuate teh wall, or build it to the sea (but not both)

both should come with a MASSIVE cost - building to the sea would simply cost a fortune - so less spending on other defence - I'd suggest remove all French armour and aircraft SFT's asa minimum! It would have to be an option selected at the start of the game.

Evacuating the wall is something that should be chosen in the game.

But think what it involves - withdrawing thousands of troops and trying to retrain them for "field" formations instead of as garrisons, dismounting hte artillery and finding field mounts for them, finding billets, training grounds, etc. IMO the minimum requirement should be 100PP (literally for the political costs involved - there would have been hell to pay!) and all troops evacuated take -100 readiness, because they were not equipped or trained to be field troops.

It should have no effect on the western blitz card.

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 91

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 1:01:56 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Forgot to add a possible non-historic German option - earlier mobilisation of war industries - something like lowering the cost of supply - ideally something like 2 supply for 3 points would be good - 1.5 pts each - can the system handle fractional costs?? Or maybe lowered PP's - 400 instead of 500?

Of course increased preparedness for war can be applied to anyone......hell why not start the game at 3000BC.....

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 92

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 1:23:08 AM

Barthheart

Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

All sounds great... when can we expect your mod?

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 93

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 1:42:27 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

When you can deliver ice for my G&T's in Hell - I'm the ideas man!!

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 94

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 1:50:47 AM

Barthheart

Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

When you can deliver ice for my G&T's in Hell - I'm the ideas man!!

Switch to a Real Man's drink, Vodka Martini, and you have a deal!

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 95

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 1:57:46 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

My name isn't Vodka Martini

, and there is no drink that is more of a real man's drink than that which travelled the British Empire...chin chin old chap

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 96

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 2:01:01 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Just a note xbx is doing a mod we are testing.. lots of changes in the production side.. I like the idea of German total war, but that is also going to come at a political cost, as would moving from the mag line in france.. all easily, cough, done with the events. I would say that a huge US response would be appropriate if German somehow is seen as having hte ability to overproduce in 1940 from historical...
So, Russia too, remember they had a large air force and some quality planes in 1941, just TERRIBLE top down leadership, can you say "thank you uncle Joeseph? " So there could be events for super rebuilt command Stalin is not crazy and does not kill 30 millian russains and many generals !
No German surprise and noreussian forward deployments and they start at the beginning in Russia, and have to choose to go forward into poland and the Baltic states, at the consiquence of reduced western aid when and if Germany attacks.. etc etc.. if you want to let the non historical GENIE out of her/his proverbial bottle then lets look hard at strange POSSIBLE options.. Like what about Brazil being oin the war as they really where ?

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 97

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 4:46:03 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

A point about the Soviet airforce....it wasn't the leadership that was teh problem there ....sure they had a few thousand modern planes.......but htir pilots were distrustful of them.

They had recently re-equipped from I-15 biplanes to I-16 monoplane as the main fighter, then reintroduced the I-153 since the I-16's weer outmanouvred by Japanese fighters.

All of these aircraft were relatively benign to fly compared with the new generation of Yak's, Migs and LaGG's. Regiments that had received the new aircraft often had not flown them at all in the 2-3 months they might have had them. Resistance to new equipment was not new -the same problems had happened when the I-16's had been introduced - they were seen as having high landing speeds, difficult to handle, poor manouvreability, etc - it took a couple of years before they were accepted.

Stories of the LaGG-3 being nicknamed the "flying coffin" seem true enough, while that saying LaGG standing for "guaranteed varnished coffin" is probably apocryphal, and even the Yak-1 was considered dangerous when first introduced, while the Mig-3 had such a long nose in front of the cockpit that several were lost to gound and landing accidents due to poor forward visibility. Even when designers and test pilots went around airfields showing off the capabilities of the new aircraft the "old" pilots were generally unconvinced.

I suspect that the death of a significant portion of the pre-war pilot force made eth introduction of the newer types somewhat easier!! Albeit that it also meant that the new pilots flying them were inexperienced, and it took until late 1942 before someone sorted out modern tactics to allow them to make proper use of the reasonably competitive technology they now had.

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 98

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 6:49:27 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Again, isn't that leadership issue in tha air force? Pilots need to be lead .. kill off the good leaders and you get a climate of no risk takers, seriously bad in the military.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 99

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 7:45:00 AM

tweber

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

I have this pretty much complete now in my mod just need to finish the events to change the production center types. the following peoples are in the scenario now:
Germans
SS
Italians
Russians
Siberians
British
French
Canadians
South Africans
Indians
Australians
Dutch
Belgians
Danish
Norwegians
Polish
Chinese
Japanese
Greeks
Yugoslavians
Hungarians
Rumanians
Bulgarians
Finish
Free French
Vichy French
RSI Italians

The benefit of having lots of people types is that each people type can have it's own production and combat modifiers. The disadvantage of having a lot of people types is that each sftype in a counter is really the sftype and the people type. So, you could have a counter with 8 rifles, each of a different people type. This adds considerable player complexity. However, you could argue it also adds realism. Once again, it comes down to design preference and that is a personal decision. But, I might suggest that you combine people types that are on the same side and not likely to have different attributes (e.g., Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians). We actually went round and round of this when originally designing the Russia scenario.

Also, with events, you can change the people type of a location. So, instead of increasing SS production, you could increase the number of SS producing cities.

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 100

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 4:13:18 PM

PDiFolco

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

Rgarding Campaign of France I've read several discutable statements here : first, the bulk of the French army was NOT in the Maginot Line. Maginot Line was manned by mostly reserve divisions, and the main French army rushed to Belgium when Germany invaded it.
Then the Germans stroke in the middle of these two "theaters", cutting the forces in Belgium, and the Maginot units were unable to oppose the breakthrough.
So I don't think we need special rules for defending or not the Maginot Line, the problem are the forces that went to Belgium, properly used they could have opposed seriously the Wehrmacht. But they suffered anyway for poor leadership, poor logistics, no motorization, and the Luftwaffe controlled the air.
That said, the interest of a wargame is to see what *could* have happened with different strategies, I don't like the idea of channelling the player to behave "historically", it kills the fun.

(in reply to tweber)

Post #: 101

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 5:31:57 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

well, in both the tomtest and xbx mod of this there is a card each for no axis blitz French prepardness, and no Vichy.. each costing pp

(in reply to PDiFolco)

Post #: 102

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 11:37:46 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Rgarding Campaign of France I've read several�discutable statements here : first, the bulk of the French army was NOT in the Maginot Line. Maginot Line was manned by mostly reserve divisions, and the main French army rushed to Belgium when Germany invaded it.
Then the Germans stroke in the middle of these two "theaters", cutting the forces in Belgium, and the Maginot units were unable to oppose the breakthrough.
So I don't think we need special rules for defending or not the Maginot Line, the problem are the forces that went to Belgium, properly used they could have opposed seriously the Wehrmacht. But they suffered anyway for poor leadership, poor logistics, no motorization, and the Luftwaffe controlled the air.

You are right about the history...but IMO wrong in concluding that nothing needs be done about the Maginot line in AT - because the French forces in the Maginot line are not immobile fortress units - there is no difference between them and "normal units" - they are as mobile as "first line" troops are, and have as good readiness, supply, etc..

Another possible option might be to give the French a "fortress garrison" SFT which has no mobility, low offensive capability, but a very high defence factor.

quote:

Australians

And New Zealanders please :)

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 1/24/2008 11:39:19 PM >

(in reply to PDiFolco)

Post #: 103

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/24/2008 11:57:40 PM

Barthheart

Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

...
And New Zealanders please :)

Well.... Kiwi-land is not on the map!

Draw me a new map and I'll add them....

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 104

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/25/2008 12:01:21 AM

Twotribes

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

...
And New Zealanders please :)

Well.... Kiwi-land is not on the map! Draw me a new map and I'll add them....

I will look again, actually I believe one of the Islands is there just misshapen. But there is no production from there.

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 105

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/25/2008 6:39:31 PM

Barthheart

Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

Ok, I added just the northern tip of the North Island and put Auckland on it. Not quite right but good enough. Now to add the Kiwi's as a people.

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 106

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/25/2008 8:06:45 PM

gingerbread

Posts: 2994
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline

If you are fixing islands on the map, you might as well consider these as well:

Crete
Corsica
Ballearics
Bornholm
Gottland

and why not also add Iceland (with a very small garrison)...

g

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 107

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/25/2008 8:13:10 PM

Barthheart

Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

If you are fixing islands on the map, you might as well consider these as well:

Crete
Corsica
Ballearics
Bornholm
Gottland

and why not also add Iceland (with a very small garrison)...

g

Crete - gave to Greeks
Corsica - made French
Ballearics - assume you mean off Spainish coast - made Spainish
Bornholm & Gottland - assume you mean off Swedish coast - are these Swedish? If so will change.

Iceland - is way up north off the map... kind of out of the picture.... so probably not.

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to gingerbread)

Post #: 108

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/25/2008 9:08:41 PM

rickier65

Posts: 14231
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

If you are fixing islands on the map, you might as well consider these as well:

Crete
Corsica
Ballearics
Bornholm
Gottland

and why not also add Iceland (with a very small garrison)...

g

wasn't Iceland important waypoint for ferrying bombers from us to England? Or is that not needed in this scenario.

Rick

(Have to admit - I haven't played it yet just when I get ready to, seems like someone is changing something).

(in reply to gingerbread)

Post #: 109

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/25/2008 9:27:11 PM

gingerbread

Posts: 2994
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Bornholm (54,11) currently Ge --> Denmark --> Allied Minors
Gottland (57,7&8) currently Su --> Sweden --> Neutrals

Also, ~half of New Guinea (west part) should be Dutch --> Allied Minors, but since that would be west when Pacific goes live, so to say, it does not matter that much - needs house rules in any case.

g

(in reply to rickier65)

Post #: 110

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/25/2008 9:34:11 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Rick, Iceland Greanland Brazil Azores etc could be added, BUT as a workaround I just build alot of cargo ships and ferry the planes via hq transfers..
But I do think the mid atlantic stpping point should be included and be heavily fortified as to not allow axis to take it, or simply use an event to stop them from wantingtoo ala theus activation if enemy enters the north american area..

(in reply to gingerbread)

Post #: 111

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/26/2008 7:22:14 PM

Barthheart

Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

I was just looking at adding Greenland and Icland to the map at the edges with an airbase for ferrying. Since planes only have a range of 10 hexes, you'd have to fly from Toronto to Goose Bay (new airbase in Labrador) to Greenland to Iceland to Ireland to London. That's 5 turns, months, to get from Canada to England. Seems like a long time.... but it's safer than strategic transfer or SFT transfer or cargo shipped across the ocean...

Opinions?

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 112

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/26/2008 8:45:18 PM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

I was just looking at adding Greenland and Icland to the map at the edges with an airbase for ferrying. Since planes only have a range of 10 hexes, you'd have to fly from Toronto to Goose Bay (new airbase in Labrador) to Greenland to Iceland to Ireland to London. That's 5 turns, months, to get from Canada to England. Seems like a long time.... but it's safer than strategic transfer or SFT transfer or cargo shipped across the ocean...

Opinions?

You could take a slight liberty with the map projection and place Reykjavik (Iceland) in 15,8. This would allow a single transfer from Toronto, and Boston, to Reykjavik, and another single transfer from Reykjavik to either Plymouth or Dublin. Keep in mind that air SFT transfers and unit movements are at double the movement rate, so a 20 hex range is what you're looking at, for the hops.

Also, in the winter, the range would be reduced by readiness losses, if Iceland is in the northern zone, so it might be a good idea to make it non-northern for purposes of transfers. The SFT transfers would be unaffected in the Toronto and Boston jump offs, so long as freshly built SFT's are transferred out each turn, since they always start with 100 AP's.

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 113

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/26/2008 9:52:39 PM

Barthheart

Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

...unit movements are at double the movement rate, so a 20 hex range is what you're looking at, for the hops.
...

DOH! Your're right. Air units use half AP when moving instead of performing a mission. That will make it much easier and faster.

Thanks James.

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 114

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/27/2008 12:40:53 AM

PDiFolco

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

Re Maginot line : I suggest the Line be manned by special "Fort garrison" SFTypes with hiiiigh Entrench ability, plus some second-grade standard infantry.

As for Air ranges they should be cut seriously given the map scale : 10 hexes is like 1000km (France N-S is 1000 km and 10 hexes on the map) , in early war fighter range was a third or even a quarter of that, even by end of war I'm not sure they could go from S England to Berlin (12-13 hexes) - only bombers could.

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 115

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/27/2008 3:45:17 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Ranges are goofy at this scale, no weapones could shoot 100 miles.. or more two hex save the v series of terror weapons.. and forturnately the germans having discovered a toxic nerve gas never used it ...
So
Art and aa range two is WAY off, you want historical accuraccy, double the size of the maps and leave the ground forces pretty myuch as they are , then use bi monthly turns

(in reply to PDiFolco)

Post #: 116

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/27/2008 7:33:32 AM

Twotribes

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Ranges are goofy at this scale, no weapones could shoot 100 miles.. or more two hex save the v series of terror weapons.. and forturnately the germans having discovered a toxic nerve gas never used it ...
So
Art and aa range two is WAY off, you want historical accuraccy, double the size of the maps and leave the ground forces pretty myuch as they are , then use bi monthly turns

Wrong thought process. The land units are not fighting 100 miles apart, nor are the naval. The attacker would move to engage the defender, if the attacker wins he can keep the space, if he loses he can not take the defenders space. They have closed to range to engage. Standard concept in all strategic games.

The air ranges are probably wrong. As pointed out they could not fly the distances we can now. In the early years 300 miles was a stretch for most fighters. And even later they were not going more than about 1000. A few exceptions existed but they had other glaring problems ( Zero was a death trap if someone fired on it)

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 117

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/27/2008 7:43:35 AM

tweber

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline

I just uploaded a new test version. 3 changes:

- Added Iceland, Azores, Bermuda, and New Zealand. They all have airbases so you should be able to ferry across the Atlantic.
- Made a new unit called fortress troops. They are manning the maginot line. They are terrible on offense, terrible outside of fortress / urban / fortifications. In forts, they are very tough. They are also difficult to move and have low mobility.
- Tokyo and the Japanese fleet is separate from Japan until the Japanese play the major offensive card. This should make Japan move survivable in the early years.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 118

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/27/2008 7:49:24 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

I just lost all my supplies once Germany played its Blitz card.. None of my Jap factories produced ANY supplies, and the stockpile went to Zero.. whats up with that?

(in reply to tweber)

Post #: 119

RE: WAW update and notes - 1/27/2008 12:27:05 PM

Twotribes

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber

I just uploaded a new test version. 3 changes:

- Added Iceland, Azores, Bermuda, and New Zealand. They all have airbases so you should be able to ferry across the Atlantic.
- Made a new unit called fortress troops. They are manning the maginot line. They are terrible on offense, terrible outside of fortress / urban / fortifications. In forts, they are very tough. They are also difficult to move and have low mobility.
- Tokyo and the Japanese fleet is separate from Japan until the Japanese play the major offensive card. This should make Japan move survivable in the early years.

I must be missing something. How does removing Japan's largest city and her fleets help her survive? If you do not get the fleets until the offense card how do you move those fleets into position to attack Pearl harbor when you play the card?

No supplies and no fleets is not a help if I understand this right.

(in reply to tweber)

Post #: 120