"Ostfront" - a GPW-based mod (semi-grog version)
Moderator: Vic
- Captain Cruft
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: England
"Ostfront" - a GPW-based mod (semi-grog version)
I have asked tweber if he would mind me doing a mod of his GPW scenario, to which he has graciously consented [&o]
[ EDIT: I have decided to call the thing "Ostfront", being not very good in the making up names for things department ... ]
The things are I am seeking to achieve with this are:
1) Greater unit granularity. What I mean by this is that you have more as a "norm" than e.g. 2 tanks in a division. As it is now if you lose one that's 50% of the force gone (essentially a disaster), whereas if you had e.g. 10 it would only be 10%. Which, at least to me, would feel a lot more realistic.
2) An alternative more constrained production model, using what I would call "R&D Labs". I have just discovered (and verified) that instead of the standard PP model you can implement research via Regimevar counters. Without going into the details this means that you can set absolute minimum delays on various equipment but also allow the player to accelerate the stuff that they want. Perfect for the historical context, no more "Medium Tank IIIs" in 1942 etc. This will also mostly remove the magical upgrade via supply consumption thing. New equipment will actually have to be built and physically despatched to the front line, with a few exceptions e.g. infantry.
3) Alongside this new model, a substantial SFType revamp with different non-generic equipment for both sides.
4) Removal of arbitrary unit creation, replaced by real named units being brought onto the map via ActionCard. Either fully filled out or as "cadres" which need to be built. Whilst not fully overcoming the ToE/OOB issue this may go some way towards it.
Of course 1) and 3) will require the combat and production parameters to be tweaked and subsequently a lot of testing to get the balance right. It seems worth it though ...
This will take a lot of work, so don't hold your breath. However, for a taster here is a view of what a Panzer Division may look like at start.
[ EDIT: I have decided to call the thing "Ostfront", being not very good in the making up names for things department ... ]
The things are I am seeking to achieve with this are:
1) Greater unit granularity. What I mean by this is that you have more as a "norm" than e.g. 2 tanks in a division. As it is now if you lose one that's 50% of the force gone (essentially a disaster), whereas if you had e.g. 10 it would only be 10%. Which, at least to me, would feel a lot more realistic.
2) An alternative more constrained production model, using what I would call "R&D Labs". I have just discovered (and verified) that instead of the standard PP model you can implement research via Regimevar counters. Without going into the details this means that you can set absolute minimum delays on various equipment but also allow the player to accelerate the stuff that they want. Perfect for the historical context, no more "Medium Tank IIIs" in 1942 etc. This will also mostly remove the magical upgrade via supply consumption thing. New equipment will actually have to be built and physically despatched to the front line, with a few exceptions e.g. infantry.
3) Alongside this new model, a substantial SFType revamp with different non-generic equipment for both sides.
4) Removal of arbitrary unit creation, replaced by real named units being brought onto the map via ActionCard. Either fully filled out or as "cadres" which need to be built. Whilst not fully overcoming the ToE/OOB issue this may go some way towards it.
Of course 1) and 3) will require the combat and production parameters to be tweaked and subsequently a lot of testing to get the balance right. It seems worth it though ...
This will take a lot of work, so don't hold your breath. However, for a taster here is a view of what a Panzer Division may look like at start.
- Attachments
-
- divpz.jpg (186.37 KiB) Viewed 440 times
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
Wow....that´s great!!!!!
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
Maybe you could tweak the Power points value, else we'll get lots of 999 value units if a '41 PzDiv is already 542 !
PDF
- Captain Cruft
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: England
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
Power Points have been reduced by 90% for armour SFTypes, along with their production costs. Later tanks and so on will therefore not increase the totals by much.
Here is a first draft at a starting Infantry Division for comparison, which is even bigger
Grenadier 41 will be able to upgrade to Grenadier 42, Grenadier 43 and Grenadier 44, but these SFTypes will all have the similar production costs and power points. Artillerie, MG 34/42, 81mm Moerser and Pionier are not upgradable. The only thing that will increase in power points is the PaK 36, which can go to PaK 38, PaK40 and PaK 43. So the overall increase in power points should not be large.
Here is a first draft at a starting Infantry Division for comparison, which is even bigger
Grenadier 41 will be able to upgrade to Grenadier 42, Grenadier 43 and Grenadier 44, but these SFTypes will all have the similar production costs and power points. Artillerie, MG 34/42, 81mm Moerser and Pionier are not upgradable. The only thing that will increase in power points is the PaK 36, which can go to PaK 38, PaK40 and PaK 43. So the overall increase in power points should not be large.
- Attachments
-
- divinf.jpg (180.87 KiB) Viewed 438 times
-
- Posts: 507
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:58 am
- Location: Netherlands
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
That looks *very* promising.
Have to get used to the numbers though...693!
Have to get used to the numbers though...693!
- Captain Cruft
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: England
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
All divisions on both sides will be of similar size.
This mod will not have anything like the upgradability present in the generic masterfile, so 1944 power points will only be incrementally larger than 1941 power points. Infantry units will essentially remain unchanged, apart from enhancements in AT capability. Bazookas are gone and will instead be rolled into the Rifle (Grenadier) types.
The whole idea is to get away from the semi-exponential RTS-like buildathon that you get with the generic masterfile.
However I do agree that having loads of 999s about the place is not good, so I will try and avoid that ...
This mod will not have anything like the upgradability present in the generic masterfile, so 1944 power points will only be incrementally larger than 1941 power points. Infantry units will essentially remain unchanged, apart from enhancements in AT capability. Bazookas are gone and will instead be rolled into the Rifle (Grenadier) types.
The whole idea is to get away from the semi-exponential RTS-like buildathon that you get with the generic masterfile.
However I do agree that having loads of 999s about the place is not good, so I will try and avoid that ...
- Captain Cruft
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: England
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
Also ... just remembered. Since the screenshot was in-game rather than in-editor these values have the x2 "Blitzkrieg" bonus applied to them. So you need to divide by 2 to get the real picture.
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
Your mod looks very promising .
Just one request for the final scenario: Please don't put artillery in infantry units. While it is historic for a division in AT a player would immediately seperate the artillery from the infantry to use it in artillery brigades.
Just one request for the final scenario: Please don't put artillery in infantry units. While it is historic for a division in AT a player would immediately seperate the artillery from the infantry to use it in artillery brigades.
- Captain Cruft
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: England
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
The Artillery that you can see in the divisions is modelled like "Infantry Gun". It has no indirect-fire capability. You need to forget the generic master file ...
At 12 miles (c.20km) per hex, which is what this scenario is, there were very few guns which could fire more than one hex. I will however make a few long-range "Heavy Artillery" units which will be useful for fort busting and counter-battery.
At 12 miles (c.20km) per hex, which is what this scenario is, there were very few guns which could fire more than one hex. I will however make a few long-range "Heavy Artillery" units which will be useful for fort busting and counter-battery.
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
Ah i see. You could name it SIG then though .
May i eventually use your mod when you have finished it for my huge europe map? Currently i am working on my WW1 scen, but when that is finished i plan to make a WW2 one, so if your mod is out then would be great if i could use your units then. In PT Tom made one russia scenario where he used 10 times the tanks like you. I have the same feelings, currently 1 tank destroyer or 1 heavy tank is already a lot and if you unluckily lose it your armor division is almost anillihated . In your mod then it will rather be only 10% or 20% or maybe 50%
May i eventually use your mod when you have finished it for my huge europe map? Currently i am working on my WW1 scen, but when that is finished i plan to make a WW2 one, so if your mod is out then would be great if i could use your units then. In PT Tom made one russia scenario where he used 10 times the tanks like you. I have the same feelings, currently 1 tank destroyer or 1 heavy tank is already a lot and if you unluckily lose it your armor division is almost anillihated . In your mod then it will rather be only 10% or 20% or maybe 50%
- Captain Cruft
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: England
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
The Artillery is in fact supposed to be a combination of artillery and infantry guns. There are not enough sub-formation slots to separate them out. My intention is that it will have an "Infantry Gun" type effect but a bit stronger.
I am very willing to share my work, however as of right now I do not know how to convert a scenario to a masterfile. GPW is detached and does not use a masterfile. Finding out about that is on the todo list, about item 3487 ...
This project is likely to take months, but I will do regular updates to the forum.
I am very willing to share my work, however as of right now I do not know how to convert a scenario to a masterfile. GPW is detached and does not use a masterfile. Finding out about that is on the todo list, about item 3487 ...
This project is likely to take months, but I will do regular updates to the forum.
- Captain Cruft
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: England
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
Actually, I've just played a hunch and overcome this. It seems that the .PT2 and .PTMASTER formats are the same, so I just copied the scenario to scen.ptmaster and can edit it. I will just have to delete the map and associated scenario-specific stuff.
Cool! I knew Vic was too sensible for this not to be the case
Cool! I knew Vic was too sensible for this not to be the case
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
Will it be playeble only on the huge map ?
I'd tried tweber division level, but it's too big for my game time slots and attention span.
I hope to find some kind of East Front Lite, even smaller in scope than original 1941/1942 scenarios. Or separate operations, like Typhoon, Crimea, Stalingrad etc.
I'd tried tweber division level, but it's too big for my game time slots and attention span.
I hope to find some kind of East Front Lite, even smaller in scope than original 1941/1942 scenarios. Or separate operations, like Typhoon, Crimea, Stalingrad etc.
- Captain Cruft
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: England
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
No, this will be a full map scenario. There won't even be the option to split into 3 fronts as with GPW.
Sorry ...
Sorry ...
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
The Artillery is in fact supposed to be a combination of artillery and infantry guns. There are not enough sub-formation slots to separate them out. My intention is that it will have an "Infantry Gun" type effect but a bit stronger.
Well, if you want to go historical you should note that Inf Guns were a very secondary weapon, mostly obsolete by '43, whereas indirect fire arty was *the* battlefield killer. So I don't think it's a good idea to mix them together, and above all to remove indirect fire ability from divisional arty. You can keep the range bombardment value of arty in division units without problem : in non ranged combat they' ll fight, and else they can be used to bombard at the cost of using the whole div'AP pool.
PDF
- Captain Cruft
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: England
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
Yes I know that Infantry Guns were mostly marginal. That is why I am calling the SFType "Artillery" ... The type will not have a range, that would be very inaccurate given the hex scale. I am thinking however of giving it a land anti-supply capability in order to make it useful when not involved in an assault. Subject to testing ...
There is always abstraction, and since my focus is on the whole tank/anti-tank warfare part I am quite happy to just try and model a "bunch of guns that help the infantry when attacking" in a fairly simple manner and concentrate on the more interesting stuff.
There is always abstraction, and since my focus is on the whole tank/anti-tank warfare part I am quite happy to just try and model a "bunch of guns that help the infantry when attacking" in a fairly simple manner and concentrate on the more interesting stuff.
- Captain Cruft
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: England
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
Actually ...
It seems I was labouring under a delusion, which was that artillery only had indirect capability fire if the range was more than 1 hex. A quick test shows that not to be true though, and with a range of 1 hex you can bombard adjacent hexes without assaulting.
So that is probably what I will do with the divisional level "Artillery". It means that front-line units will have to maintain their grunt (and MG) count at a high level in order to prevent the enemy from assaulting and over-running the artillery. That is probably not a bad thing.
Everything is subject to change though depending on testing.
-----
Below is another taster, namely a Pz-Kpfw IV-f2(s), or as it will appear in game a "Pz-Kpfw IV 75mm/L48" (the L43 and L48 variants of the gun will be rolled together for simplicity). This tank, which was the workhorse of the German panzer divisions, is a good illustration of the way I want to implement something of a "chassis-based" tank production model.
You will not be able to stop producing the Pz-IV chassis (so no "uber-conversion" to an all Panther army).
The long-barrelled Pz-IV will be scheduled to arrive sometime in mid 1942, but you will also be able to accelerate its availability to an extent by re-directing factory points from existing production of the short-barreled version.
You will also be able to research and produce other vehicle types that were produced on the Pz-IV chassis e.g. StuG IV, Hummel.
The same type of thing will also apply to the other mass-produced chassis i.e. Pz-II, Pz-38(t) and Pz-III. Panthers/Tigers and other more recent designs will have their own separate factories. So you will have a bunch of tank factories called e.g. "Tank Factory (Pz II)", "Tank Factory (Pz 38(t))", "Tank Factory (Pz III)", "Tank Factory (Pz IV)" and "Tank Factory (uber)".
Of course the Soviets will also get their own version of the same thing.
As I say, it's all very much up in the air at the moment, but that's the sort of thing I'm trying to achieve. The SFType, Itemtype, Loctype and Events configuration for this methodology have all been successfully tested though.
It seems I was labouring under a delusion, which was that artillery only had indirect capability fire if the range was more than 1 hex. A quick test shows that not to be true though, and with a range of 1 hex you can bombard adjacent hexes without assaulting.
So that is probably what I will do with the divisional level "Artillery". It means that front-line units will have to maintain their grunt (and MG) count at a high level in order to prevent the enemy from assaulting and over-running the artillery. That is probably not a bad thing.
Everything is subject to change though depending on testing.
-----
Below is another taster, namely a Pz-Kpfw IV-f2(s), or as it will appear in game a "Pz-Kpfw IV 75mm/L48" (the L43 and L48 variants of the gun will be rolled together for simplicity). This tank, which was the workhorse of the German panzer divisions, is a good illustration of the way I want to implement something of a "chassis-based" tank production model.
You will not be able to stop producing the Pz-IV chassis (so no "uber-conversion" to an all Panther army).
The long-barrelled Pz-IV will be scheduled to arrive sometime in mid 1942, but you will also be able to accelerate its availability to an extent by re-directing factory points from existing production of the short-barreled version.
You will also be able to research and produce other vehicle types that were produced on the Pz-IV chassis e.g. StuG IV, Hummel.
The same type of thing will also apply to the other mass-produced chassis i.e. Pz-II, Pz-38(t) and Pz-III. Panthers/Tigers and other more recent designs will have their own separate factories. So you will have a bunch of tank factories called e.g. "Tank Factory (Pz II)", "Tank Factory (Pz 38(t))", "Tank Factory (Pz III)", "Tank Factory (Pz IV)" and "Tank Factory (uber)".
Of course the Soviets will also get their own version of the same thing.
As I say, it's all very much up in the air at the moment, but that's the sort of thing I'm trying to achieve. The SFType, Itemtype, Loctype and Events configuration for this methodology have all been successfully tested though.
- Attachments
-
- pziv_75_48.jpg (34.66 KiB) Viewed 438 times
-
- Posts: 507
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:58 am
- Location: Netherlands
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
Please do keep us informed on your progress..... because my mouth is watering. [&o]
I'm also with Serg3d1, in that I, and I guess many more players, don't always have the time to play on huge maps. Yes I know they're awesome, but sometimes just a "small" map with a balanced play is a lot of fun too.
I'm also with Serg3d1, in that I, and I guess many more players, don't always have the time to play on huge maps. Yes I know they're awesome, but sometimes just a "small" map with a balanced play is a lot of fun too.
- Captain Cruft
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: England
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
Well the generic game excels at small maps and balanced games This masterfile will most definitely not be balanced, the balance will come (hopefully) from the actual scenario.
Therefore I will not put any effort into making the masterfile work with random scenarios, but it will certainly be suitable for use in making other historical-based scenarios of whatever size with a 10-20km hex scale.
Therefore I will not put any effort into making the masterfile work with random scenarios, but it will certainly be suitable for use in making other historical-based scenarios of whatever size with a 10-20km hex scale.
RE: GPW mod (semi-grog version)
ORIGINAL: Joshuatree
Please do keep us informed on your progress..... because my mouth is watering. [&o]
I'm also with Serg3d1, in that I, and I guess many more players, don't always have the time to play on huge maps. Yes I know they're awesome, but sometimes just a "small" map with a balanced play is a lot of fun too.
Joshua,
I'm planning on doing some smaller, operational level sceanrios. I'm not nearly as profficient or quick as a few of the other workers here, but I also seem to find time easier to manage with the smaller games (although I'm going to make time for Twebers GPW and for Captain Cruft's product when it comes out).
Captain Cruft,
I'm anxious to see your results as well. This looks pretty nice. I'v been mentally tinkering with putting together some sftypes like these myself. I haven't mainly because of the effort/uncertainty involved in balancing their attack/defence factors vs other units. I've also been thinking of adjusting their power pts rating, to avoid such high numbers though.
I'm not quite as bothered as some are by losing chunks of forces. I recall the original games I started with (SPI, AH, and GDW) where I had one strength on top side of counter, a second 'reduced' strength on reverse side, and then it was gone. Although I have to admit, I prefer losing peicemeal.
In any event - this project looks pretty nice. I"m looking forward to seeing what youu've done, and may I ask if you mind my 'borrowing' parts of it when you're finished?
Rick