Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: FITE MOD 2010

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: FITE MOD 2010 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/10/2010 9:42:49 PM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
I think the scenario would be better with less overwhelming Soviet reinforcements. The amount of soviet fighter planes seems especially imbalanced. The difference between production values for soviet reinforcements is really huge depending on what cities are taken. I think the historical value the scenario designers used based on the values for taking all the cities that were captured in the campaign is ~37% of base reinforcements. So if the German player doesn't capture a few cities the Soviet player gets in effect double the production of men and weapons of the Soviet Union in the actual war, which seems way way off.

The easiest change would be to just set soviet production at a fixed value and work out how much different cities should affect that later.

Also I think German fighter production should be increased to 25 or 35 along with reducing soviet fighter numbers as per above so that the Soviets don't get total air superiority at the end of 1941. Apparently even at the battle of Kursk in 1943 both sides could put a lot of planes in the air, but in my experience in FITE the Soviets have crushing air superiority no matter what around turn 50 or 60.

(in reply to morleron1)
Post #: 61
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 2:07:53 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

but in my experience in FITE the Soviets have crushing air superiority no matter what around turn 50 or 60.


Yeah, because the Soviet players don't even fly. This is about as bad as it gets. Should be required to put everything in the air every turn, not making Moscow an airpark and building everything up and then flying. The Soviet's would have executed people for this.

There is much about this game that isn't a problem with the game but with the people playing it.

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 62
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 8:00:39 AM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
This can be solved with air shock...I'm experimenting with lower than 100 shocks to see what this does. So far so good...

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 63
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 11:50:22 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4635
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Yeah, because the Soviet players don't even fly. This is about as bad as it gets. Should be required to put everything in the air every turn, not making Moscow an airpark and building everything up and then flying. The Soviet's would have executed people for this.


I was thinking of a multiplayer project. Three or four players on the Soviet side. Every five turns, whichever player has fallen back the furthest gets "executed" and is replaced by a new player.

One would only need a couple of spare players, just cycle them round.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 64
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 12:04:01 PM   
Jeff Norton


Posts: 2043
Joined: 8/8/2000
From: MD, USA (You're not cleared for specifics...)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Yeah, because the Soviet players don't even fly. This is about as bad as it gets. Should be required to put everything in the air every turn, not making Moscow an airpark and building everything up and then flying. The Soviet's would have executed people for this.


I was thinking of a multiplayer project. Three or four players on the Soviet side. Every five turns, whichever player has fallen back the furthest gets "executed" and is replaced by a new player.

One would only need a couple of spare players, just cycle them round.

Yikes! Sounds like history repeating itself, only not as violent..

Question is, who gets to be Beria?


_____________________________

-Jeff
Veritas Vos Liberabit
"Hate America - love their movies" -Foos Babaganoosh - Anchor - Jihad Tonite

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 65
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 12:28:45 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

This can be solved with air shock...I'm experimenting with lower than 100 shocks to see what this does. So far so good...


Why not just require the Soviet player to fly every turn?

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 66
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 12:29:51 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Yeah, because the Soviet players don't even fly. This is about as bad as it gets. Should be required to put everything in the air every turn, not making Moscow an airpark and building everything up and then flying. The Soviet's would have executed people for this.


I was thinking of a multiplayer project. Three or four players on the Soviet side. Every five turns, whichever player has fallen back the furthest gets "executed" and is replaced by a new player.

One would only need a couple of spare players, just cycle them round.


roflmao, best idea i've ever heard.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 67
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 12:33:21 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

This can be solved with air shock...I'm experimenting with lower than 100 shocks to see what this does. So far so good...


Why not just require the Soviet player to fly every turn?


Because that would be a house rule, and the outcome would still be exactly the same; Soviet air supremacy by 1942 latest.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 68
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 2:16:37 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

This can be solved with air shock...I'm experimenting with lower than 100 shocks to see what this does. So far so good...


Why not just require the Soviet player to fly every turn?


Because that would be a house rule, and the outcome would still be exactly the same; Soviet air supremacy by 1942 latest.


What is wrong with house rules? TOAW obviously cannot cover every aspect of every campaign. 'House' rules are not bad, simply necessary.

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 69
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 2:25:01 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

This can be solved with air shock...I'm experimenting with lower than 100 shocks to see what this does. So far so good...


Why not just require the Soviet player to fly every turn?


Because that would be a house rule, and the outcome would still be exactly the same; Soviet air supremacy by 1942 latest.


What is wrong with house rules? TOAW obviously cannot cover every aspect of every campaign. 'House' rules are not bad, simply necessary.



Yes, but why have house rules when they are not necessary? And as I said, they wouldn't even solve the problem.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 70
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 2:25:31 PM   
morleron1


Posts: 102
Joined: 12/29/2006
Status: offline
I have to agree with Karri on this one.  Instituting yet another house rule doesn't seem to be the way to go here.  If nothing else the Axis player would have no way of verifying compliance with it so a Soviet player determined to win at all costs could simply withhold a few air units every turn and build up that way.  I suspect that jiggering both the Soviet base production, perhaps increasing the replacement losses for captured cities, and increasing German aircraft production would provide a partial solution.  One of the questions seems to me to be deciding how far off the German production rates according to historical numbers?  Do we want to try to reproduce historical replacement rates for the Luftwaffe?  I seem to recall that German aircraft production, particularly for fighters did not increase significantly until 1943, and that it was low in 1941 as Hitler and company figured the eastern campaign would be over quickly and that there was no reason to ramp up production.  If anyone has, or knows where I can obtain, the actual German production rates I could incorporate them into the mods that I'm making for FITE.  The same thing goes for the Soviet numbers.  For those numbers we've also got to incorporate the Lend-Lease production, which was significant.  IIRC, the U.S. sent the Soviets several thousand P-39s which the Red Air Force used to great effect for ground attack aircraft.  The British also sent numbers of Spitfires, though I have no idea how many.  In any case, this is another area in which the base FITE scenario can stand some work.  I'm more than willing to share the work if anyone wants to volunteer to help with the mods I'm making.

As Panama pointed out this is another area in which it is the actions of the game's players, rather than the game itself, which is part of the problem.  However, putting the Soviet player into a strait-jacket and forcing him to make the same mistakes, etc. as occurred historically would; a) be no fun, b) require dozens of house rules to implement.  It seems to me that what is needed is a way to "encourage" the Soviet player to defend farther forward than has been the case of late and to make use of his air power even if it does get all shot to hell.  I'm trying to address the first issue by increasing the VPs awarded the Axis player for capture of Russian cities in the western portion of the country, though I haven't messed with the production/replacement numbers as of yet.  That may be the next step.  So far as getting the Soviet player to put his planes in the air I suspect one way of doing that would be to increase the effectiveness of Axis interdiction strikes - though I have no idea how to incorporate that as it appears to be a function of the game engine, not something which the scenario designer/modder has any control over.  Increasing the destructiveness of interdiction strikes would then require the Soviet player to decide between saving his air force and watching his ground units get all chewed up or using his planes to try to prevent that.  The question is: how do we force the Soviet player to make that kind of choice?

The main goal that I'm trying for with the mods that I'm making to the "Buzz mods" is to get the Soviet player's overall strategy to reflect the realities of history (in which the Soviets could not simply turn tail and run back to the environs of Moscow because to do so would have caused Stalin to lose his position, if not his life) while still leaving him the flexibility tactically to do more-or-less what he wants.  Getting that balance right is really the issue that all scenario developers face; it's just that the task is magnified in FITE because of the sheer size of the beast.  FITE is one of those games in which making a change over "here" may have unintended consequences over "there" and those may not show up for a while.  If nothing else it's a lot of fun tinkering with the thing.

Just my $.02,
Ron
P.S.  I'm not responsible for errors in spelling, grammar, syntax, or logic in the above.  I just got up about ten minutes ago and have had no chance to wake up.


_____________________________

Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
GnuPG public key available at: pgp.mit.edu

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 71
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 3:55:40 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morleron1

b) require dozens of house rules to implement. 


If you play any card game it's 'house rules'. If you ever played any boardgame it's 'house rules'. I've played board wargames where the rule book was pages and pages of 'house rules'. Checkers is 'house rules'. Your entire life is 'house rules'.

The great thing about computer games is that much of the boring number crunching is done behind the scenes freeing the player to play the game, not be a math major. That does not mean there are things that people should not have to take care of. Total Annihilation is no 'house rules' but that type of game gets old fast because it is not as varied as a game that can be modified by sticking in things that the game engine cannot cover. For that matter the much ballyhooed HOI3 is no 'house rules' and there isn't a lot of variety in it. I would have gladly given up the money for a TOAW 4 instead. (are you listening Matrix?)

(in reply to morleron1)
Post #: 72
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 6:14:35 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Here's something you might want to consider when worrying about Soviet air power.

In 1941 the Soviets built 12.4 thousand aircraft. Germany 8.4 thousand
In 1942 the Soviets built 21.7 thousand aircraft. Germany 11.6 thousand
In 1943 the Soviets built 29.9 thousand aircraft. Germany 19.3 thousand
In 1944 the Soviets built 33.2 thousand aircraft. Germany 34.1 thousand
1945 doesn't really matter and the numbers are too uneven to bother with.

Three things about those numbers.
These are all modern Soviet aircraft.
The Soviet aircraft production does not include lend lease.
The German aircraft production is for all fronts, not just the East Front.

The Soviets built 24 thousand more aircraft than the Germans plus they received thousands from their allies plus Germany had to send thousands of theirs to other fronts including the home front to try and protect industry.

The common response seems to be to hammer the Soviets with negative shock. What's really wrong with that is the Soviets flew sorties from day one. You would have them hardly fly at all if ever in 1941. If they fly they die. Make them fly. Simple as that.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 73
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 7:52:03 PM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
I think the existing german fighter production values in FITE are already accurate, however the relative quality of the two airforces I don't think is represented well. From what I have read the Soviets did not have the kind of crushing air superiority in 1943 that they have in the game in the beginning of 1942, despite their superior numbers. So I think some change is in order. The most straightfoward would be to reduce soviet production and increase german production, I haven't tried playing it with shock changes, that could possibly work.

I don't think making soviets use fighters from the beginning of the game would have any difference at all. I-16 production is base 170 per turn. I think if the soviet player flew missions on turn 3 for example they would take some losses, and then go into reorg until turn 8 or 10, so you would really not be flying much, and replacements are so high losses don't matter. In fact as a soviet player I use my planes pretty quickly, I just put them far back enough so that only He-111s on interdiction are intercepted. I don't understand why it is unrealistic or unreasonable to have the soviet player withdraw his planes anyway, why not let them fight the war however they please?

When considering history there is alot of what ifs. What if the Soviets did much better in 1941 and they held the Germans comfortably at bay. Would the allies then send them so much lend lease? Maybe not, they didn't like the Soviets, they probably would have only sent them enough to keep them in the war, if there wasn't a big threat they might have not sent anything. What if the soviets produced twice as many tanks and planes, which can easily happen in FITE? Would they also produce twice as much fuel and ammunition and crews for them? Maybe they wouldn't so it might be better to fix production for those things at a lower level. What if the Germans didn't do well at all in 1941? Maybe they would have gone to full war production right away, instead of only after Stalingrad a year and a half after the campaign began. So right away you see that things can vary alot. One way to model things would be to tie the escalating event variable to capturing territory for either side, so if one side is doing worse they get more reinforcements, and if the other is doing well they get less, but that is complicated so I think something simpler would be better.

Here is something to think about. In the game city whatever is 5% or 10% of replacements. So lets take Sevastopol. In real life it was captured, but in a evenly matched game it is impossible. Taking the base production of rifle squads of 3492, not taking Sevastopol gives the soviets rougly 200 extra rifle squads per turn. Over say 250 turns the game might last, that is 50,000 extra rifle squads or 500,000 extra men. Is the population of the city even that high? In the real war the city had a chance of being evacuated, so any men could have gotten away and then joined the red army. Any who were left had a chance to join the partisans or join the red army after the city was liberated. So if you used real manpower for the red army the citizens of sevastpol should be counted the same whether the city falls or not, because in history they all eventually got a chance to fight. In the game not taking the city gives a huge increase in the number of soldiers which is unjustified.

Even worse is when you consider tanks and planes. The effect on tank and planes production for not taking Sevastopol is also to increase the red army's strength in those things much higher than their historical output, which is only reached if the German player takes the city and many others. But..wait for it... Sevastopol doesn't have any tank or plane factories! or atleast not both or not enough to make 10% of the countries weapons, or not ones that couldn't be moved. So in effect the Soviets get many more tanks and planes for defending a city that didn't matter one ounce in their tank and plane production, and if you provide the names of some factory there, i can just as easily name any other city that didn't have any.

So therefore I suggest just finding a balanced and historically close number for soviet production and stick to that, and removed the system of cities that give a % loss, or only add production loss for a select few cities that won't dramatically sway production either way.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 74
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/11/2010 10:55:45 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

I think the existing german fighter production values in FITE are already accurate, however the relative quality of the two airforces I don't think is represented well. From what I have read the Soviets did not have the kind of crushing air superiority in 1943 that they have in the game in the beginning of 1942, despite their superior numbers. So I think some change is in order. The most straightfoward would be to reduce soviet production and increase german production, I haven't tried playing it with shock changes, that could possibly work.



Yes, Soviet production is far too high. even if the Axis did as well as they did historically AND they take Leningrad Soviet tank production is STILL higher than it was historically.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu
I don't think making soviets use fighters from the beginning of the game would have any difference at all. I-16 production is base 170 per turn. I think if the soviet player flew missions on turn 3 for example they would take some losses, and then go into reorg until turn 8 or 10, so you would really not be flying much, and replacements are so high losses don't matter. In fact as a soviet player I use my planes pretty quickly, I just put them far back enough so that only He-111s on interdiction are intercepted. I don't understand why it is unrealistic or unreasonable to have the soviet player withdraw his planes anyway, why not let them fight the war however they please?


I-16 was used until 1943. Some Soviet pilots prefered it over the more modern models. Once again, I feel the Soviet should have to fly all the time. Anything less and you are throwing facts out the door. The Soviet army would have been extremely upset if the Soviet air arm did not attempt to do as much as was physically possible to keep the Axis air off their backs and help with ground support.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu
When considering history there is alot of what ifs. What if the Soviets did much better in 1941 and they held the Germans comfortably at bay. Would the allies then send them so much lend lease? Maybe not, they didn't like the Soviets, they probably would have only sent them enough to keep them in the war, if there wasn't a big threat they might have not sent anything. What if the soviets produced twice as many tanks and planes, which can easily happen in FITE? Would they also produce twice as much fuel and ammunition and crews for them? Maybe they wouldn't so it might be better to fix production for those things at a lower level. What if the Germans didn't do well at all in 1941? Maybe they would have gone to full war production right away, instead of only after Stalingrad a year and a half after the campaign began. So right away you see that things can vary alot. One way to model things would be to tie the escalating event variable to capturing territory for either side, so if one side is doing worse they get more reinforcements, and if the other is doing well they get less, but that is complicated so I think something simpler would be better.


The Soviets were incapable of keeping the Axis at bay. They had no training, no weapons, no supply, no leadership, no communications, no transport and no time. The only thing they had in any measure was the will and some didn't even have that. In fact in the game I don't understand why they have a proficiency of 60. Also the Soviets had far fewer resources than the Germans. You would be shocked at the numbers. They were extremely efficient in using what they had. I sincerely doubt they could have done better than they did production wise. The production in the game is so far off as to be laughable.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu
Here is something to think about. In the game city whatever is 5% or 10% of replacements. So lets take Sevastopol. In real life it was captured, but in a evenly matched game it is impossible. Taking the base production of rifle squads of 3492, not taking Sevastopol gives the soviets rougly 200 extra rifle squads per turn. Over say 250 turns the game might last, that is 50,000 extra rifle squads or 500,000 extra men. Is the population of the city even that high? In the real war the city had a chance of being evacuated, so any men could have gotten away and then joined the red army. Any who were left had a chance to join the partisans or join the red army after the city was liberated. So if you used real manpower for the red army the citizens of sevastpol should be counted the same whether the city falls or not, because in history they all eventually got a chance to fight. In the game not taking the city gives a huge increase in the number of soldiers which is unjustified.

Even worse is when you consider tanks and planes. The effect on tank and planes production for not taking Sevastopol is also to increase the red army's strength in those things much higher than their historical output, which is only reached if the German player takes the city and many others. But..wait for it... Sevastopol doesn't have any tank or plane factories! or atleast not both or not enough to make 10% of the countries weapons, or not ones that couldn't be moved. So in effect the Soviets get many more tanks and planes for defending a city that didn't matter one ounce in their tank and plane production, and if you provide the names of some factory there, i can just as easily name any other city that didn't have any.


Will someone explain to me exactly why Sevastopol has a 10% production hit? They had no factories. As far as I know nothing was produced there. It most certainly was not the type of production center Leningrad, Kharkov and Moscow was. Seems rather arbitrary. The only reason it had so much importance to Hitler was bacause Soviet bombers could reach Ploesti from there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu
So therefore I suggest just finding a balanced and historically close number for soviet production and stick to that, and removed the system of cities that give a % loss, or only add production loss for a select few cities that won't dramatically sway production either way.


And to this I heartily agree. If Leningrad falls the Soviets take a small hit since most of the factories didn't get evacuated in time. If Moscow falls a big hit since hardly any factories were evacuated. Stalingrad, small hit, still had some factories. But the rest of the production cities should be done away with and historical numbers should be used.

What the Soviets did lose was manpower, chemical production and food production. Reduce infantry type units and supply as more territory is lost.

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 75
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/12/2010 6:41:09 AM   
el cid


Posts: 186
Joined: 1/28/2006
Status: offline
Why not put less airbases in the back?

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 76
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/12/2010 9:51:09 AM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
Panama, have you tested this "force Soviet to fly" theory of yours? 

(in reply to el cid)
Post #: 77
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/12/2010 12:15:23 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Panama, have you tested this "force Soviet to fly" theory of yours? 


Playing three games now where they are constantly on either combat support, interdiction or air superiority. However, it's like people have been saying, the Soviets get far too many replacements. Only reason I'm doing it is to keep the Soviet air from becoming crazy big in 1941.

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 78
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/13/2010 4:38:23 AM   
morleron1


Posts: 102
Joined: 12/29/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

I think the existing german fighter production values in FITE are already accurate, however the relative quality of the two airforces I don't think is represented well. From what I have read the Soviets did not have the kind of crushing air superiority in 1943 that they have in the game in the beginning of 1942, despite their superior numbers. So I think some change is in order. The most straightfoward would be to reduce soviet production and increase german production, I haven't tried playing it with shock changes, that could possibly work.



Yes, Soviet production is far too high. even if the Axis did as well as they did historically AND they take Leningrad Soviet tank production is STILL higher than it was historically.


Does anyone have a source for production numbers for Soviet aircraft production or, since the historical rates may be too high for our purpose of developing a well-balanced scenario, suggestions as to what they should be? I'll be glad to make changes to the production rates in the mods I'm making. One thing which needs to be kept in mind here is that it is not possible, AFAIK, to change production numbers in mid-stream, as it were. That means we'll need to massage the numbers in order to come up with reasonable rates for the scenario as a whole.

That brings me to a point that I think we all tend to forget sometimes: the limitations under which scenario developers must work. Not being able to change production rates during the course of a scenario is one of these. Another is the inability to change victory levels in the game. In other words, the designer can set the VP values however he wants, but the game decides what VP levels match each victory level. The only way around this that I know of is to use the "Player # Occupies" event types to set up sudden death victory conditions. I suspect that is one of the reasons that cities which had no real production capability in real life are given them in the game. I think this was an attempt by the original design team to force the Soviets to defend the western portion of the country. It's why I've increased the VP point value of most of the western cities in my mods. Based on this discussion, though, I may take a look at eliminating most replacement rate losses and concentrate them in a few cities of consequence. Taking Leningrad from a 10% loss to 40% and doing the same for, say, Smolensk, Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, and one or two others forward of the currently fashionable Soviet stop line might make a Soviet player think twice about simply retreating out of reach of the German supply lines. Selecting the cities and determining how much to value each one will be the trick to this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu
I don't think making soviets use fighters from the beginning of the game would have any difference at all. I-16 production is base 170 per turn. I think if the soviet player flew missions on turn 3 for example they would take some losses, and then go into reorg until turn 8 or 10, so you would really not be flying much, and replacements are so high losses don't matter. In fact as a soviet player I use my planes pretty quickly, I just put them far back enough so that only He-111s on interdiction are intercepted. I don't understand why it is unrealistic or unreasonable to have the soviet player withdraw his planes anyway, why not let them fight the war however they please?


I-16 was used until 1943. Some Soviet pilots prefered it over the more modern models. Once again, I feel the Soviet should have to fly all the time. Anything less and you are throwing facts out the door. The Soviet army would have been extremely upset if the Soviet air arm did not attempt to do as much as was physically possible to keep the Axis air off their backs and help with ground support.


There are two issues here: is it our goal to force the Soviet player into a particular course of action as regards the Air Force?; assuming we do want that, how can we ensure that the Soviet player is abiding by this house rule? I'm not sure that requiring a player to adhere to a particular course of action is the way to fix some of FITE's problems. And there is still the issue of assuring compliance. AFAIK, there is no way for the Axis player to review the moves made by the Soviet air force. Simply looking at the map will not give him this information, particularly with my mods in which I've cut down the Axis player's recon level (as suggested by Panama some time ago). If anyone knows how to get around this I'd be interested in hearing it. Personally, I tend to trust that my opponents are abiding by house rules, but we all know players who aren't trustworthy in that regard and something like this is a large enough issue that I would be more comfortable with a "trust but verify" setup, if such could be arranged.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu
When considering history there is alot of what ifs. What if the Soviets did much better in 1941 and they held the Germans comfortably at bay. Would the allies then send them so much lend lease? Maybe not, they didn't like the Soviets, they probably would have only sent them enough to keep them in the war, if there wasn't a big threat they might have not sent anything. What if the soviets produced twice as many tanks and planes, which can easily happen in FITE? Would they also produce twice as much fuel and ammunition and crews for them? Maybe they wouldn't so it might be better to fix production for those things at a lower level. What if the Germans didn't do well at all in 1941? Maybe they would have gone to full war production right away, instead of only after Stalingrad a year and a half after the campaign began. So right away you see that things can vary alot. One way to model things would be to tie the escalating event variable to capturing territory for either side, so if one side is doing worse they get more reinforcements, and if the other is doing well they get less, but that is complicated so I think something simpler would be better.


The Soviets were incapable of keeping the Axis at bay. They had no training, no weapons, no supply, no leadership, no communications, no transport and no time. The only thing they had in any measure was the will and some didn't even have that. In fact in the game I don't understand why they have a proficiency of 60. Also the Soviets had far fewer resources than the Germans. You would be shocked at the numbers. They were extremely efficient in using what they had. I sincerely doubt they could have done better than they did production wise. The production in the game is so far off as to be laughable.


I've got to agree with Panama on this one. The Red Army in 1941 was not a force capable of simply stopping the German attack at some point significantly west of where the Panzers did stop. The Soviets got lucky when Generals Mud and Winter proved to be better at stopping the Germans than was the Red Army. A milder winter or a shorter period of fall rains and the Germans probably end up partying in the Kremlin for Christmas.

However, I have to think that the 60 proficiency level for the majority of Soviet forces is the result of yet another compromise more or less forced on the original designers. Given the size of the OOBs involved it is not possible to define what amounts to two different Red Armies: the one which fought in 1941 and had problems getting out of its own way at times, and the one which fought from roughly mid-1942 on. I think that the post 1942 Red Army (and certainly the 1943 and later force) was more capable than the 60 rating shows. But given the impossibility of doing a mass force change (and I know of no other way to change the proficiency levels of units) a compromise had to be made. Given that, I do think that Panama's point, which he's made in several threads, about the initial Red Army forces being far too well provisioned needs to be addressed. Again, if someone can point me at reliable resources, I'm willing to make such changes in the mods I'm doing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu
Here is something to think about. In the game city whatever is 5% or 10% of replacements. So lets take Sevastopol. In real life it was captured, but in a evenly matched game it is impossible. Taking the base production of rifle squads of 3492, not taking Sevastopol gives the soviets rougly 200 extra rifle squads per turn. Over say 250 turns the game might last, that is 50,000 extra rifle squads or 500,000 extra men. Is the population of the city even that high? In the real war the city had a chance of being evacuated, so any men could have gotten away and then joined the red army. Any who were left had a chance to join the partisans or join the red army after the city was liberated. So if you used real manpower for the red army the citizens of sevastpol should be counted the same whether the city falls or not, because in history they all eventually got a chance to fight. In the game not taking the city gives a huge increase in the number of soldiers which is unjustified.

Even worse is when you consider tanks and planes. The effect on tank and planes production for not taking Sevastopol is also to increase the red army's strength in those things much higher than their historical output, which is only reached if the German player takes the city and many others. But..wait for it... Sevastopol doesn't have any tank or plane factories! or atleast not both or not enough to make 10% of the countries weapons, or not ones that couldn't be moved. So in effect the Soviets get many more tanks and planes for defending a city that didn't matter one ounce in their tank and plane production, and if you provide the names of some factory there, i can just as easily name any other city that didn't have any.


Will someone explain to me exactly why Sevastopol has a 10% production hit? They had no factories. As far as I know nothing was produced there. It most certainly was not the type of production center Leningrad, Kharkov and Moscow was. Seems rather arbitrary. The only reason it had so much importance to Hitler was bacause Soviet bombers could reach Ploesti from there.


As with several aspects of FITE I suspect that this was the original design team's attempt to encourage the Soviet player to defend further west than the outskirts of Moscow. As both of you have noted the current replacement rate system needs to be re-worked. Given that the question then becomes which cities will we concentrate production in and what values will they have. While we're at it we might take a look at coming up with a way of simulating the Soviet movement of a huge amount of their production capacity from European Russia to east of the Urals. I can see that being a Soviet Theater Option which would greatly lower Soviet replacements for some period accompanied by a reduction in the replacement rate loss per city. Failure to exercise the option to make the move would result in greater replacement rate losses. Not being an event editor expert (as evidenced by the problems I've had getting it right to date) this may be a significant "programming" effort; not that that should stop us if such a change is thought worthwhile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu
So therefore I suggest just finding a balanced and historically close number for soviet production and stick to that, and removed the system of cities that give a % loss, or only add production loss for a select few cities that won't dramatically sway production either way.


And to this I heartily agree. If Leningrad falls the Soviets take a small hit since most of the factories didn't get evacuated in time. If Moscow falls a big hit since hardly any factories were evacuated. Stalingrad, small hit, still had some factories. But the rest of the production cities should be done away with and historical numbers should be used.

What the Soviets did lose was manpower, chemical production and food production. Reduce infantry type units and supply as more territory is lost.



I'm open to suggestions for which cities to make the changes to. Let's try to take the law of unintended consequences into account when/if we make these changes. I think that what we'll end up with is still a scenario in which most cities have VP values higher than they are in the stock FITE (for those west of some more-or-less arbitrary line) and only a few with replacement point losses - though those will be much higher than the stock losses.

Just my $.02,
Ron


_____________________________

Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
GnuPG public key available at: pgp.mit.edu

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 79
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/13/2010 6:57:41 AM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
Well here are a few thoughts:

Copying a few ideas from the scenario DNO you could do a few things.

Set the capture of certain soviet cities to cause an increase in the scenario EEV. When EEV reaches a certain level trigger shock and pestilence penalties for the Soviets. After a certain date remove the event so the capture of the city no longer increases the EEV.


Create factory units in garrison mode in cities with important factories. Link the destruction of those factories to a reinforcement decrease. Link a theatre option to move the factories that will bring them out of garrison status so they can evacuated by rail. Exercising the theatre option will also reduce reinforcements, but by less than having the factory destroyed.

The basic effect here is if the Soviets abandon too many cities too early they get a big penalty, but if they hold out for long enough they get a smaller one.

Another way DNO encourages the Soviet player to defend westerwards is by having units appear on western cities like Kiev. If the soviets abandon the city that unit won't appear until it is recaptured, if ever. If they hold out for a certain amount of time then they get reinforcements right on the front line. So you could change the starting location of some of the reinforcements. A cool thing here is you can have tanks brigades appear at cities with tank factories and air units appear at cities with air factories and so on. This is kind of an easier thing to do and it has a balance to it.


Between rules or objectives on not retreating or not using your airforce in the first few turns, I personally don't want any of it. Let the Soviet player decide how he wants to fight. I personally have found it the most fun to defend forward as possible and to use my air units as soon as possible, so the incentives are already in the scenario I think. If other players don't like playing like me though, I don't care. I've tried playing different ways pulling back and moving forward, and moving forward is just as viable, and even maybe more effective, so if players don't want to do that I don't want to force them, it is their loss.

Personally I don't care at all about victory points, so adjusting their values to change my behavior would be a waste of your effort, of course everyone can chime in and say if they have a different opinion.

I think you can just decide for yourself. If you put up a good fight against a difficult opponent I think you win something even if you have less points. If you clobber someone who doesn't know how to play, then your points are meaningless. Most games end in either one side anhilating the other, or a stalemate, either way I think the result is obvious and you don't need points to tell you anything.


Here is a proposal for a few things. Rifles squads = 1100 per turn T34 = 56 KV = 11 T34 'late' = 150 I-16 = 120
MIg 3 = 46 Yak 1 = 36 Lagg 3 = 52

To get historical numbers is not too hard. Load up the scenario in the editor and look up Edit--->replacements--->Force replacement editor

This gives the equipment type, the number issued in units, the turns of production and the base production value. To get a historical number the easiest way is to type the desired equipment into wikipedia, subtract issued equipment from the total produced value and divide the remainder by the number of turns the piece in question is in production to get the per turn production you want. Going backwards you want the number produced as reinforcements + the number appearing in units to equal the historic production, so you are solving for the number produced each turn as reinforcements.

If you want to make the Soviet 1941 army suck and the Soviet army in 1942+ better it could not be easier. Just adjust the relative shock values and/or supply values to achieve the desired effect. A negative shock value has the seemingly appropriate effect of making random formation freeze in place every turn, a pretty good representation of poor communications, supply, and leadership I think.


(in reply to morleron1)
Post #: 80
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/13/2010 6:50:23 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2739
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
For Soviet production and replacements, consideration also has to be given the 66% turn 1 reduction of the numbers that appear in the replacement editor, the increases of 200% at turn 48, and 150% at turns 78 and 352, along with the 5 to 10% production hits for lost cities. Another factor is the rate at which lost equipment returns to the replacement pool. Early in the campaign the Soviets were unable to recover most of their lost equipment, but the game engine will put much of it back into the replacement pool (unless the equipment had no line of communication when lost).

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 81
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/13/2010 7:10:27 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2739
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

...the limitations under which scenario developers must work. Not being able to change production rates during the course of a scenario is one of these.


This can be done, it depends on the situation. If you provide a specific example, I can probably come up with a solution.

quote:

...the initial Red Army forces being far too well provisioned needs to be addressed.


Especially the Mechanized Corps, Glantz gives some excellent reviews on these units and how, as stated earlier, most of them were reduced to foot infantry units after a few days in contact with the enemy.

(in reply to morleron1)
Post #: 82
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/14/2010 5:23:32 AM   
morleron1


Posts: 102
Joined: 12/29/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

...the limitations under which scenario developers must work. Not being able to change production rates during the course of a scenario is one of these.


This can be done, it depends on the situation. If you provide a specific example, I can probably come up with a solution.

quote:

...the initial Red Army forces being far too well provisioned needs to be addressed.


Especially the Mechanized Corps, Glantz gives some excellent reviews on these units and how, as stated earlier, most of them were reduced to foot infantry units after a few days in contact with the enemy.


How would one change the production rate of, by way of example, Soviet infantry squads from (again, just by way of example) 1100 per turn to 750 per turn and you want to do it if a specific target hex is occupied by player 2? I'm just looking for a general example that could then be tailored as necessary for specific equipment types.

Sounds like it's time for me to hit ABEBooks and pick up more of Glantz's books. I've got his volume on Kursk and the first of his trilogy for Stalingrad, but those are a bit late for what we're talking about. Do you have any specific titles in mind? I just hate it when I have to go buy more books.

Thanks,
Ron
P.S. BTW, for those of you not familiar with it, ABEBooks.com is a great site for picking up used (and new) books at very reasonable prices. It's a co-op website of independent booksellers and I've always gotten great service from any whom I've done business with.

_____________________________

Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
GnuPG public key available at: pgp.mit.edu

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 83
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/14/2010 1:08:06 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2739
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

How would one change the production rate of, by way of example, Soviet infantry squads from (again, just by way of example) 1100 per turn to 750 per turn and you want to do it if a specific target hex is occupied by player 2?


For that example units could be used, but there are no Soviet unit slots available in FitE. Maybe for TOAW IV, replacement begin and end dates could be tied to turn and event, as unit arrivals are. Maybe that is on the Wishlist already.

Glantz's Colossus books are good. I also like Seaton's Russo-German War.

(in reply to morleron1)
Post #: 84
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/14/2010 6:05:46 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Does anyone else think that there's a problem with rail movement for either side? Too many rail lines? Too high of a rail capacity?


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 85
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/14/2010 6:29:19 PM   
Da_Huge_D

 

Posts: 194
Joined: 8/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Does anyone else think that there's a problem with rail movement for either side? Too many rail lines? Too high of a rail capacity?



I think rail capacity is enough. Sometimes feel as Soviets, that there would be lots more RC. If you move one full tank corps by rail, it uses almost all of your RC. That's why i don't usually rail them at all.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 86
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/15/2010 12:33:08 AM   
morleron1


Posts: 102
Joined: 12/29/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

How would one change the production rate of, by way of example, Soviet infantry squads from (again, just by way of example) 1100 per turn to 750 per turn and you want to do it if a specific target hex is occupied by player 2?


For that example units could be used, but there are no Soviet unit slots available in FitE. Maybe for TOAW IV, replacement begin and end dates could be tied to turn and event, as unit arrivals are. Maybe that is on the Wishlist already.

Glantz's Colossus books are good. I also like Seaton's Russo-German War.


I understand how to change production rates by designing a new unit with different equipment types that would have different production rates. I also know that such an approach isn't possible with FITE and TOAW as they currently function. That's why, in an earlier comment I'd mentioned that. I was under the impression that perhaps I'd missed something with the current scenario editor that would avoid that problem. Wouldn't you know, the one time I was hoping that I was wrong, I wasn't. In any case, I'm with you on hoping that TOAW IV will avoid this problem by not setting arbitrary limits to force sizes, equipment lists, etc.

Thanks for the tip on the books. I'll definitely get them on order asap.

_____________________________

Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
GnuPG public key available at: pgp.mit.edu

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 87
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/15/2010 12:38:12 AM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
quote:

How would one change the production rate of, by way of example, Soviet infantry squads from (again, just by way of example) 1100 per turn to 750 per turn and you want to do it if a specific target hex is occupied by player 2?


Set the target hex to incur a pestilence effect on the Soviet player. Pestilence only effects infantry equipment, removing a portion of it every turn.

(in reply to morleron1)
Post #: 88
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/15/2010 12:45:10 AM   
larryfulkerson

 

Posts: 20966
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ, USA, Earth, Solar System
Status: offline
quote:

How would one change the production rate of, by way of example, Soviet infantry squads from (again, just by way of example) 1100 per turn to 750 per turn and you want to do it if a specific target hex is occupied by player 2?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu
Set the target hex to incur a pestilence effect on the Soviet player. Pestilence only effects infantry equipment, removing a portion of it every turn.

So um....does the pestilence effect Affect only those that move that turn or everybody regaurdless of whether or not they move?

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 89
RE: FITE MOD 2010 - 6/15/2010 12:38:41 PM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
The Force Pestilence Level

This value represents a force’s vulnerability to disease losses, and is limited to the range 0 to 50. It sets a percentage of equipment lost by every unit in the force on every turn. Infantry, horse transport and cavalry equipment is lost at this rate, while all other types of equipment are lost at half the rate.  

  Half of infantry, cavalry, and horse transport equipment lost by units in supplied locations is sent to the replacement pool. All non-infantry, non-cavalry, non-horse transport equipment lost by units in supplied locations is sent to the replacement pool. All other pestilence losses are permanent.   This value should rarely be set above 5%, and in most cases should be lower. The default is 0%. This value may be set from the OOB editor Edit > Modify Current Force menu, or by use of the Force Pestilence Pestilence 1, or Pestilence 2) event effects.

< Message edited by Fungwu -- 6/15/2010 12:39:59 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: FITE MOD 2010 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.121