Matrix Games Forums

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! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod

 
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.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War >> Mods and Scenarios >> Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/3/2005 5:15:56 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
UPDATE

I updated Raw Deal campaign to v1.1, for GG WAW patched to 1.040, download it here:

Raw Deal Campaign

100 kB Zipped file.

Installation of this campaign is very simple, removal is simple as well. I suggest you try this campaign out, I think you will not want to remove it ;o)

Oleg

=======================

I've been working on a mod to this fantastic game. I think flurry of activity on this board and dozens of games being played since the release, highlighted some "areas" that can easily be solved and/or improved by mod.

Being the member of beta team, I posted these notes and ideas on the beta board as well, and it remains to be seen if some will be included on the "official" patches.

Keep in mind, in official patches, everything needs to be thoroughly tested as regards the playbalance and possible bugs.

In "mod world" - it's "free for all" And that's exactly why I am doing this. There's NO guarantee this mod is perfectly balanced. There's NO guarantee it will be more fun than stock game. (In fact it is harder for most sides.) But I DO guarantee every change I did is argumented, documented and researched.

AI should work fine with this mod.

RAW DEAL '40

****************************

- Caucasus resources reduced to 4, moved 1 resource to North Urals. IMO too many gamey techniques revolved around Caucasus' humungous pile of 6 resources, and this led to attacks with main purpose of destroying resources just to deny them to the enemy, and/or make him waste supplies to repair them. Not realistic. 6 resources there were too much anyway (note there are 2 more just north in Grozny). I moved one resource point to North Urals (huge coal mines of Vorkuta region), and removed 1 resource from the map. This still leaves huge 4 resources in the region. Net result: 1 resource less for USSR.

- Shuffled Ukrainian resources (Kiev and Kharkov regions). East part of Ukraine is richer with resources than West, so I took 1 resource from West, moved it to the East. Overall balance stays the same.

- Moved Soviet Far East factory from Vladivostok to Irkutsk. This is historic in itself, but my main motive was to slow down the Japanese advance in Siberia. One of recurring "problems" (ie. semi-gamey, and unrealistic techniques) is that Japanese attack on USSR Far East is too easy. Usually Irkutsk is easily taken, and then Vladivostok is isolated, reduced, and units there destroyed. Irkutsk WAS significant industry center (I would say even bigger than Vladivostok). Now, by allowing the Soviet player to control Irkutsk production before USSR is activated, he (Soviet player) would have some sense of control over his fate. Irkutsk stuff can retreat if attacked, Vladivostok usually cannot. Added 1 population point to Irkutsk as well.

- Replaced some French and Dutch INF with Militia. This reflects their low morale and training. See the next note for further explanation.

- Replaced some of starting German ARM units with INF (they didn't really have that much tanks and motorization in 1940). Although these changes are realistic and reasonable on their own, the real purpose is to make German "Spain-Gibraltar" strategy harder. Too many players were using their tanks to crush France on turn 1, and proceed to take Spain on turn 2, and usually (if UK player didn't counter them) Gibraltar by turn 3, in one huge "serial Blitzkrieg" to close the Med (with tanks). It was too easy to do, and not very realistic in my opinion. This way, France is still very easy to take, but proceeding further towards Spain etc. isn't that easy.

- Added 1 tactical air to Germany. Stukas, dude, ugly and sexy at the same time, need to have more of 'em...

- Removed rough terrain in Gibraltar and Malta. Rough terrain + forts result in attacker having to have 4:1 to capture the area. Given the miniscule size of these areas, I think their fort + rough benefits were unrealistic, so I decided to remove "rough" attribute (they are still fortified, so now you need 3:1). Gobi desert is example of "rough terrain", Gibraltar and Malta are not, because they're so small, no matter how "rough" they really are, it's marginal given the scale of this game.

- Added railway to Gibraltar. In stock game Gib has no rail. That means in some situations Gib can be reinforced only via sea, even though Axis controls Spain! That's bizarre. Yes, you can move some units from Spain to Gib using tac movement, but you can't strat move, say, units from West Germany to this miniscule territory, couple square miles large. Technically, there is NO rail in Gibraltar, but there's rail in Spain just couple miles accross the border in Algeciras. Within 3 months period that is covered by one turn, some units could be transported from the nearest railhead in Spain, to Gib. So, if player decides to spend supply to repair Gibraltar "rail", he can strat move stuff there.

Big thanks to color for making the customized map graphic with Gib railway!

- Turkey, added INF+ ARTY to Anadolia, removed INF from Istambul. This prevents player from attacking Turkey's backdoor which could be exploited by Axis (attack through Syria) or Soviet player. Also, Turkey is now stronger overall.

- Added fort to East Germany. In most games Berlin fell too easy, while West Germany held out in its fortified area.

- Removed armor from USSR heavy bombers, added armor to USSR tactical bombers. Soviet tactical bombers Il-2 Sturmovik were heavily armored and known as "flying tanks". In fact I wanted to remove armor from all Allied bombers, maybe compensate by adding durability, but decided the game works OK as it is, and left the armor on heavies (except Soviet heavies, as explained).

- Added factory to Hungary. Hungarians historically had significant industrial production. In great scheme of things this factory won't help Axis too much because it's the resources that are the limiting factor for Axis, not factories. Hungarian factory limitations and multipliers are same as Rumanian.

- Added one Population to Hungary. So now they can produce militia units, which is realistic.

- Removed one starting militia from Hungary. Since they now have their own factory and are able to produce militia, I removed one (of three) starting militia from Hungary.

- Removed one starting militia from Bulgaria.

- Axis auto victory requires 72 PPs (instead of 70). In my opinion, 70 was too easy to get.

- Added transport link Alaska-Vladivostok. This is important change, and anyone thinking this game is too easy for Axis will have to reconsider. This is not widely known but is perfectly historic BTW – of three transport links for Lend Lease, Vladivostok was by far the most active one (more active than Arctic route or Persia route). Stuff was transported mainly in US built ships, with Soviet flags, to prevent being attacked by Japanese. Japanese took extra care not to sink Soviet ships, lest they start a war with USSR – something they wanted to avoid at all costs. In the game, Japanese (or Axis) player will face the similar choice: attack the Soviets, or watch tons of LL stuff go under your nose to help fight your German buddies? Transports and sea zones are frozen, and cannot be used for anything except ferrying supply (until attacked).

- Finland enters the war after Baltic States are taken. I don't think it is realistic for Finns to wait until the Leningrad is taken. Finns alone are too weak to take Leningrad anyway, and their "purpose" in this game should be to attack Murmansk region – something they tried to do historically (with limited success), without waiting for Leningrad to be taken. If player decides to use Finns to help attacking Leningrad – this could be taken to represent Finnish forces "tying" up some Soviet forces on the ishtmus and helping Germans in their efforts – which is historic.

- Removed Finland air unit. I don't think it makes sense on this scale.

- Changed two Finnish INF to Militia. Finns are too strong in the original setup, and since in Raw Deal they activate earlier, they will have to live with being weaker. Given the scale of this game, historical Finns didn't take any territory on the map. In Raw Deal they won't be able to take anything, unless they are very lucky, or the Soviets are uncautious, or they get significant help from Germans, which is all fine. Now they have 2 INF + 2 Militia.

****************************

That's it. I personally HATE badly documented mods, and never use them unless everything is clearly explained. So you can be sure this mod is going to be thoroughly documented, argumented, and explained. And of course - open to discussion...

Oleg


< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 6/17/2005 5:10:29 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/3/2005 9:22:58 AM   
sterckxe


Posts: 4601
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: Flanders
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I've been working on a mod to this fantastic game.


Why are you wasting time reading this ? - keep working on that mod, night and day untill it's finished :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 2
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/3/2005 3:55:25 PM   
Glabro

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:


- Removed Finland air unit. I don't think it makes sense on this scale.

- Changed two Finnish INF to Militia. Finns are too strong in the original setup, and since in Raw Deal they activate earlier, they will have to live with being weaker. Given the scale of this game, historical Finns didn't take any territory on the map. In Raw Deal they won't be able to take anything, unless they are very lucky, or the Soviets are uncautious, or they get significant help from Germans, which is all fine. Now they have 2 INF + 2 Militia.


I´m biased, I know. Still, I´ve got to comment on this.
In the ´39 thread, I think it was you who commented on the Yugoslavian army, saying that even though they were numerous, they had numerous issues making them much weaker than they actually appear. Here it´s a case of the opposite.
Looking at the numbers alone, the Finns had 16-17 division equivalents to start the Continuation War with in 1941. This alone warrants at least 5 infantry units, by the numbers.
You could argue that the Finnish army still wasn´t as well equipped as, say, the Germans, but the situation had dramatically improved since the Winter War, and the issue, if there is any, is at most enough to warrant the Finns NOT starting with an artillery unit.

About downgrading the existing Finnish units into militia - I am sorry, but this is simply absurd. Say what you will about my bias - but the average Finnish soldier was, in terms of troop quality, heads and shoulders avove the standard of everyone else. Of course, the main reasons for the Finnish successes in the wars were excellent leadership and usage of terrain, but even so, the average Finnish soldier was an excellent fighter - on par with the best of any nation. That´s not just patriotism on my part, it´s a simple fact. There´s no way Finland would have survived World War 2 if, as you put it, half the fighting forces would be classified as "crap" (which the militia units are). In fact, the German troops sent to Finland looked really sad in comparison - they were not suitable for the terrain, but still, they didn´t have half the fighting spirit the Finns had (which is understandable, since they weren´t directly fighting for the survival and sovereignty of their nation in Finland, at least early on.)

About your comment about the Finns "trying to take the Murmansk region, with limited success" - this shows that you don´t understand the situation at all. The Finns did not cut the Murmansk rail because they couldn´t - it was because they wouldn´t. When the Finns stopped their attack in Summer ´41 - it was because they had reached the best defensive positions available and guaranteed a big enough buffer zone to defend against Soviet attacks. Although in some circles there was talk of a "Greater Finland" whose borders would be drawn to the Urals with the sword, this wasn´t the case with High Command and the fighting troops. The Finns did not cut the Murmansk rail or join in the siege of Leningrad (which could have sealed the fate of the city, hanging on by the thread as it was) because a) High Command realized that aggravating the Soviets in such a critical way would have meant that the Finns would have no chance to remove themselves from the war - if the Germans lost, the Soviets would not forgive Finland for such a transgression, and would not have signed a separate peace simply for prestige reasons. Reason b) was because besieging Leningrad would have required a huge number of sacrifices, something the Finns could not have afforded long-term - again, since it was realized that there was a strong possibility of the Germans losing - even before the U.S.A. joined the war.

Hitler did try to pressure the Finns into attacking these objectives, of course, but to no avail - the Finns were fighting for their cause, not the Germans´. Thus, Hitler sent German troops to attack Murmansk instead through Northern Finland - the results of which we know now.

About the Finnish Air Force, true, if you again count the number of planes numerically, they wouldn´t be large enough for a normal air unit, I suppose. However, since the Finnish Air Force achieved kill ratios of 20-30 to 1, even though the Finnish aces didn´t quite achieve Hartmann-like kill counts, I think that overall ratio is quite enough to justify an air unit.

I encourage you to the little-known Finnish wars or World War 2 - they´re quite interesting!

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 3
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/3/2005 4:31:19 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Yes Glabro, you are very biased.

I know about Finnish history in WW2. In terms of this game historic Finns didn't take any area on the map. They simply sit in their area until 44, when they were overrun by vastly superior Soviet army and put out of the war in a matter of weeks. I give Finns four units - two INF, two Militia. That's roughly 4 corps. In stock game they have 4 *German* corps - that's German training, German equipment, German-sized divisions etc. Very unrealistic and leads to unrealistic results. Finnish army was mostly built on reservists, which should be represented by Militia.

Historically, in far north, around Salla region, joint Finnish-German attacks, aimed at cutting the Murmansk railroad, were repulsed by Soviets with huge losses to attackers (note Axis was stopped even though it was joint Finno-German operation). Germans used their "elite" SS mountain troops there (SS Gebirgsdivision Nord) and still failed.

In this game we have what I feel is quite gamey situation, a "sure fire" move by Germans, they concentrate ungodly amount of tanks in East Prussia and storm Leningrad on turn one, and Finland is *immediatelly* unlocked, and in the very same turn super-Finns with their 4 INF easily take Murmansk. All this happens with Soviet player totally unable to react. I feel this is not good, gameplay-wise, and is frustrating to Soviet player. And unrealistic to boot. In Raw Deal you'll have realistic Finnish army, your patriotism notwithstanding Murmansk will not be easy to take even with German help, which I think is perfectly realistic. Finns will be able to hold on to their homeland, but will not be able to help Axis offensive with more than 1, max 2 units. They will not be able to take any area by themselves (unless Soviets let them have it, or Germans send significant help).

As far as Finnish capitulation goes I think we should use something similar to Italian surrender rule. Perhaps I will implement it in some future version of my mod. If, and when, the Soviet player is ready to overrun Finland "subtle" capitulation rules usually don't matter much anyway

O.

(in reply to Glabro)
Post #: 4
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/3/2005 4:39:49 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Glabro

About your comment about the Finns "trying to take the Murmansk region, with limited success" - this shows that you don´t understand the situation at all. The Finns did not cut the Murmansk rail because they couldn´t - it was because they wouldn´t. When the Finns stopped their attack in Summer ´41 - it was because they had reached the best defensive positions available and guaranteed a big enough buffer zone to defend against Soviet attacks. Although in some circles there was talk of a "Greater Finland" whose borders would be drawn to the Urals with the sword, this wasn´t the case with High Command and the fighting troops. The Finns did not cut the Murmansk rail or join in the siege of Leningrad (which could have sealed the fate of the city, hanging on by the thread as it was) because a) High Command realized that aggravating the Soviets in such a critical way would have meant that the Finns would have no chance to remove themselves from the war - if the Germans lost, the Soviets would not forgive Finland for such a transgression, and would not have signed a separate peace simply for prestige reasons. Reason b) was because besieging Leningrad would have required a huge number of sacrifices, something the Finns could not have afforded long-term - again, since it was realized that there was a strong possibility of the Germans losing - even before the U.S.A. joined the war.

Hitler did try to pressure the Finns into attacking these objectives, of course, but to no avail - the Finns were fighting for their cause, not the Germans´. Thus, Hitler sent German troops to attack Murmansk instead through Northern Finland - the results of which we know now.


I will reply to your political remarks in separate post.

I know what Finns wanted and didn't want to do in WW2, and what Germans wanted them to do. I think what you said is actually good argument for what I did, ie. making Finns weaker.

Since WAW does not understand political considerations, your WAW Finns will NOT refuse to take Murmansk or whatnot, they will function exactly like any other German unit. So, all you have to do is use sure-fire, semi-gamey Leningrad tank invasion, to *immediatelly* unlock 4 unrealistically strong Finnish super-units, and use them to overrun the area Finns were historically unwilling or unable to take. "My" Finns will *have* to act in more historical manner. They will be able to *help* Germans here and there (which may be taken to represent them tying significant Soviet forces here and there, which they did historically) but won't be able to advance all on their own. That is exactly what I want to achieve in this mod.

And don't forget in Raw Deal Finns will activate earlier. You don't have to take Leningrad to have Finns activated, which is also realistic. Whatever Finns are able to do, they will do earlier, without having to wait for Leningrad to be taken.

Oleg

< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 5/3/2005 4:58:06 PM >

(in reply to Glabro)
Post #: 5
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/3/2005 4:59:39 PM   
Glabro

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
You constantly speak of the Finns being "unable to take terrain on this scale". Well guess what? That never was the intention, nor was it attempted. You speak of the attack on Murmansk - what I talked about was cutting the Murmansk rail, not taking Murmansk (While there were Finnish troops participating in the attack on Murmansk, it was mostly a German operation).

The Finnish army was indeed composed of reservists. By the logic that all reservists should be militia, go ahead and change all Finnish units into Militia. Clearly in your mind the Germans were superior troops compared to the Finns. Looking at the facts, however, it´s totally ridiculous.

And what´s this nonsense about capitulation and surrender? It was the Finnish objective all along to survive and get out of the war - true, taking back the lost territories of the Winter War was also an objective - but survival was paramount. You´re saying that that in ´44, the Soviets easily "took Finland out of the war" in a "matter of weeks". The massive amount of men, artillery and armour the Soviets concentrated on the attack were in fact resisted by the Finns, and after losses of more than 22 000 men out of the 150 000, the Soviet leadership decided that Finland was not takeable in the time frame required - the troops were moved off to fight the Germans, to ensure that the Soviets reached Berlin before the Western Allies, and an armistice was signed. Naturally the Finns are counted as the "losers" since they again lost territory, but capitulation and "surrender" is a totally wrong term in this case.

You could simply rule that Finland stays Politically Frozen in this game, no matter what - that´d represent the situation best, I think. They really were not committed to the Germans´ cause of taking the Soviet Union. You could argue that it was the Finns who started the Continuation War - but how would you react if 15 of your cities were bombed? If that´s not a declaration of war....I do not know what is.

Well, if you still cling on to your limited understanding of the situation, I can´t or won´t do much about it. Not worth my time in any case. I´m not a huge patriot (the Finnish army is actually crappy nowadays - the quality of the reservists has gone down the drain), believe it or not, but I do respect the accomplishments of the veterans, and am annoyed when some silly Croatian with his limited understanding of the subject matter claims to know more than he does and claims that Finnish divisions are that much weaker than German or Russian ones - totally laughable.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 6
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/3/2005 5:10:12 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Glabro

You constantly speak of the Finns being "unable to take terrain on this scale". Well guess what? That never was the intention, nor was it attempted. You speak of the attack on Murmansk - what I talked about was cutting the Murmansk rail, not taking Murmansk (While there were Finnish troops participating in the attack on Murmansk, it was mostly a German operation).


Unable or unwilling, does not matter - read my second post. I think what you say is actually argument for what I did in Raw Deal.

Sorry, no 4 super-Finn (actually German) units, taking Murmansk with ease, and cutting the LL line in my mod. Did you play TOAW by any chance? You remind me of one Finn dude from my TOAW days who thought any Finnish bicycle battallion was as strategically important as German SS division

You need to step away from your Finno-centric standpoint and take a look at the larger picture.

I repeat, you will have Finns activated earlier, no need to "force" German player into gamey-ness to take Leningrad to unlock the Finns.

First turn Panzer storm on Leningrad was largely devised as method to have 4 super-Finns unlocked, to have them take Murmansk. In Raw Deal there will be no need for this. Leningrad will be valuable in itself, but not as some magic key to unlock the super-Finns. Finns will not be super-Finns, and will unlock earlier. If German player wants to invest lots of armor to take Leningrad (valuable goal in itself) he may do so, but he does not have to this just to unlock the Finns (overpowered anyway).

Try it, these changes result in much more realistic, less gamey, and more challenging game for both sides (in this case German and Soviet). More options are in the play.

Oleg


(in reply to Glabro)
Post #: 7
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 2:55:43 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
UPDATE

Raw Deal v1.0 campaign for GG WAW is ready, download it here:

Raw Deal Campaign

100 kB Zipped file.

Installation of this campaign is very simple, removal is simple as well. I suggest you try this campaign out, I think you will not want to remove it ;o)

(I posted this as edit to the starting post in this thread too.)

Please keep the coments coming.

Oleg

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 8
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 8:20:42 AM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2132
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline
Hey, this sounds cool.

I don't have much time for play (I saw you asking for opponents who could do 3 turns a day ... how can you do that?!), wish I had time to try this but not now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
- Removed rough terrain in Gibraltar and Malta. Rough terrain + forts result in attacker having to have 4:1 to capture the area. Given the miniscule size of these areas, I think their fort + rough benefits were unrealistic, so I decided to remove "rough" attribute (they are still fortified, so now you need 3:1). Gobi desert is example of "rough terrain", Gibraltar and Malta are not, because they're so small, no matter how "rough" they really are, it's marginal given the scale of this game.


Aren't all small (ocean encircled) islands "rough terrain" in the standard setup? I considered that a small beni to compensate for the lack of places to retreat to and representing the problems with landing huge numbers of troops in a small area.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
- Removed armor from USSR heavy bombers, added armor to USSR tactical bombers. Soviet tactical bombers Il-2 Sturmovik were heavily armored and known as "flying tanks". In fact I wanted to remove armor from all Allied bombers, maybe compensate by adding durability, but decided the game works OK as it is, and left the armor on heavies (except Soviet heavies, as explained).


I suppose it's not the place for the discussion, but what bugs me the most about the air situation is that it is uneven amongst the nationalities. The Axis has an insurmountable disadvantage in heavy bombers. Were the Germans really technically incapable of developing bombers as durable/armored as the WAllies, even if they poured research into it? I'd rather see the differences be things that can be equalized with research, which seems both more realistic and more fun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
- Added transport link Alaska-Vladivostok. This is important change, and anyone thinking this game is too easy for Axis will have to reconsider. This is not widely known but is perfectly historic BTW – of three transport links for Lend Lease, Vladivostok was by far the most active one (more active than Arctic route or Persia route). Stuff was transported mainly in US built ships, with Soviet flags, to prevent being attacked by Japanese. Japanese took extra care not to sink Soviet ships, lest they start a war with USSR – something they wanted to avoid at all costs. In the game, Japanese (or Axis) player will face the similar choice: attack the Soviets, or watch tons of LL stuff go under your nose to help fight your German buddies? Transports and sea zones are frozen, and cannot be used for anything except ferrying supply (until attacked).


That seems like an uninterruptable chain (w/o Jap/WA war) that can funnel an awful lot of supplies ...

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 9
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 1:55:27 PM   
Drax Kramer

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 9/13/2004
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
quote:



****************************

- Added fort to East Germany. In most games Berlin fell too easy, while West Germany held out in its fortified area.


I suppose fort in Western Germany represents Siegfrid line. What should fort in the Eastern Germany represent? Historically, Germans had some prepared positions in Pomerania build prior 1939, but nowhere on the scale of Maginot or Sevastopol. Berlin region was woefully unprepared for fighting compared to say, Moscow with its Mozhaysk line.

quote:

- Removed armor from USSR heavy bombers, added armor to USSR tactical bombers. Soviet tactical bombers Il-2 Sturmovik were heavily armored and known as "flying tanks".


Only around the pilot. IIRC, the gunner was outside the armoured box and anyway, on ground strategic level, any formation of stormoviks caught unescorted by messerschmits was masacred. Simply, ground assault aircraft should not mess around with fighters.

quote:

- Added factory to Hungary. Hungarians historically had significant industrial production. In great scheme of things this factory won't help Axis too much because it's the resources that are the limiting factor for Axis, not factories. Hungarian factory limitations and multipliers are same as Rumanian.

- Added one Population to Hungary. So now they can produce militia units, which is realistic.

- Removed one starting militia from Hungary. Since they now have their own factory and are able to produce militia, I removed one (of three) starting militia from Hungary.


Excellent addition. Once I had in mind the moment I saw the "regionxx" files. How would I field the historical Hungarian army in 1944/45 without Hungarian factories?

quote:

- Removed one starting militia from Bulgaria.


Why? And when I am on the subject of militias, how about placing one in Portugal? I somehow doubt Portuguese would just give up and serve Porto to whomever cross their border first.


quote:

- Added transport link Alaska-Vladivostok. This is important change, and anyone thinking this game is too easy for Axis will have to reconsider. This is not widely known but is perfectly historic BTW – of three transport links for Lend Lease, Vladivostok was by far the most active one (more active than Arctic route or Persia route).


Excellent! Now, why doesn't it work under original rules? Lack of unassailable Soviet transports? Would it work if you placed sufficient number of Soviet transport fleets in Bering Sea?

quote:

- Finland enters the war after Baltic States are taken. I don't think it is realistic for Finns to wait until the Leningrad is taken. Finns alone are too weak to take Leningrad anyway, and their "purpose" in this game should be to attack Murmansk region – something they tried to do historically (with limited success), without waiting for Leningrad to be taken. If player decides to use Finns to help attacking Leningrad – this could be taken to represent Finnish forces "tying" up some Soviet forces on the ishtmus and helping Germans in their efforts – which is historic.

- Removed Finland air unit. I don't think it makes sense on this scale.

- Changed two Finnish INF to Militia. Finns are too strong in the original setup, and since in Raw Deal they activate earlier, they will have to live with being weaker. Given the scale of this game, historical Finns didn't take any territory on the map. In Raw Deal they won't be able to take anything, unless they are very lucky, or the Soviets are uncautious, or they get significant help from Germans, which is all fine. Now they have 2 INF + 2 Militia.


Despite the disagreement of our resident Finn, let me be another Croat who supports this modification. Finns were good soldiers, but were not capable of serious offensive warfare. Their army was not equipped up to the German standards and was not trained to undertake large offensive operations against prepared positions. Ambushing individual Soviet divisions in the freezing conditions was one thing, storming Soviet prepared defenses was another.

In 1944, Soviets penetrated several Finnish lines on the best prepared sectors in entire Soviet-Finnish front and caught Finns napping which resulted with the loss of Vyborg. When Finns realised the danger, they appealed to German help and with Luftwaffe and antitank reinforcements as well as usual skill and bravery of individual Finnish soldier they stopped Soviet offensive and asked for terms while Stalin was in the mood of giving them.

I have big respect for Finnish army as well as very well read group of Finnish contributors to WW2 usenet forums, but no army is completely built of first rate divisions. If British, Soviets and Germans could have militias, so could Finns.

****************************

quote:

That's it. I personally HATE badly documented mods, and never use them unless everything is clearly explained. So you can be sure this mod is going to be thoroughly documented, argumented, and explained. And of course - open to discussion...


Have you considered replacing Yugoslav infantry with militia? Why Malta doesn't have a port? It was surely a surprise for me to watch Scenario 1941 without British submarine fleet in Malta.

Keep up the good work, you saved me a lot of work for my mods.


Drax

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 10
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 4:30:30 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5107
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
This looks very good overall, Oleg. Some comments:

1. I like the idea of removing maybe one resource from the Caucusus, but remember that the resources here -- oil -- were particularly valuable to the Axis. So I'm not sure about removing two. Besides, the Axis often has trouble repairing all six resources, doesn't it? I sure did. That takes 60 supply, only some of which you can strategically-move there in one turn. I don't mind the idea of moving one to the Urals, but I guess my core objection is removing a second AND denying it to the Soviets. I'd just move one to the Urals and be done with it.

2. It may be historic to chop down France's armor, but I think it might detract from the "feel" of a Blitzkrieg if the player doesn't get to push a few tanks around on turn 1. Again, I'd suggest a more moderate approach: maybe just take out one tank. As for Spain...

3. ... I completely agree that it's far too easy to conquer Spain. It happens in every game I play now; it's a routine move. Why not beef up Spain's defenses instead of stripping Germany of tanks?

4. As for Gibraltar, if you're worried about it being overrun too easily -- and again, I see this happen every game -- then the last thing you want to do is remove its rough terrain. I've been to Gibraltar: the Rock is plenty "rough." It's a natural fortress if ever there was one. If the game allowes static base forces, I'd also advocate adding a static infantry unit there.

5. I agree that there should be rail movement to Gibraltar.

6. I have my doubts about the Vladivostok-Alaska supply route. Yes, the Americans did ship goods to the Soviets via that port before American entry into the war, but this sort of trade is normally handled as "free trade" or whatnot in the game, no? Indeed in the game, "lend lease" and the Murmansk Convoy can't start until the Soviets enter the war -- reflecting the much frostier relations between the USA and the USSR during the era of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, by which Russia carved up Poland with the Germans.

7. I like that Finland enters the war earlier. I've never taken Leningrad or had it taken on me, so I've never seen the Finns participate. That seems odd. In the actual war, the Finns participated without Leningrad falling. I suppose a compromise could be that the Finns enter the war once the German player attacks Leningrad with 5 or more ground units? Or just once the German player attacks Leningrad?

All in all, looks pretty good to me. On balance, the changes seem to balance the game a bit back toward the Allies, and I can live with that; right now, things seem a bit tough for them.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 11
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 4:35:29 PM   
dapamdg

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
I agree with both Oleg and Glabro.

In terms of the game scale, Finnish intent and probable player actions, I think Oleg's change to the Finns is fully justified. They should not be able to take the Murmansk area without significant German help, and his downgrade accomplishes this. On a side note, in the stock game the problem, it seems to me, is not the ease the Finns have in taking Murmansk, but rather the ease with which the Germans take Leningrad (first turn of invasion), thus activating the Finns.

However, Glabro is right that the Finns were superior troops. Throughout the war the Germans had to "corset" the units of their Italian and Rumanian allies -- integrate a small German unit into a larger allied formation to improve their combat performance. However, in Finland, it was the Germans who needed to be "corseted" by Finns to improve their fighting prowress in the frozen north. So when Oleg writes "Sorry, no 4 super-Finn (actually German) units. . ." he is completely wrong. Given a similarly sized unit of troops, I would much rather have had Finns over Germans. And this is speaking as an American of German descent with no Finnish national pride at stake (except, of course, for the soft spot all knowledgable Americans have for Finland).

In conclusion, I agree with Oleg's changes in terms of their game effects, but agree with Glabro that those changes do not accurately reflect the true abilities of the Finnish army.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 12
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 4:49:40 PM   
dapamdg

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

This looks very good overall, Oleg. Some comments:

1. I like the idea of removing maybe one resource from the Caucusus, but remember that the resources here -- oil -- were particularly valuable to the Axis. So I'm not sure about removing two. Besides, the Axis often has trouble repairing all six resources, doesn't it? I sure did. That takes 60 supply, only some of which you can strategically-move there in one turn. I don't mind the idea of moving one to the Urals, but I guess my core objection is removing a second AND denying it to the Soviets. I'd just move one to the Urals and be done with it.

2. It may be historic to chop down France's armor, but I think it might detract from the "feel" of a Blitzkrieg if the player doesn't get to push a few tanks around on turn 1. Again, I'd suggest a more moderate approach: maybe just take out one tank. As for Spain...

3. ... I completely agree that it's far too easy to conquer Spain. It happens in every game I play now; it's a routine move. Why not beef up Spain's defenses instead of stripping Germany of tanks?

4. As for Gibraltar, if you're worried about it being overrun too easily -- and again, I see this happen every game -- then the last thing you want to do is remove its rough terrain. I've been to Gibraltar: the Rock is plenty "rough." It's a natural fortress if ever there was one. If the game allowes static base forces, I'd also advocate adding a static infantry unit there.

5. I agree that there should be rail movement to Gibraltar.

6. I have my doubts about the Vladivostok-Alaska supply route. Yes, the Americans did ship goods to the Soviets via that port before American entry into the war, but this sort of trade is normally handled as "free trade" or whatnot in the game, no? Indeed in the game, "lend lease" and the Murmansk Convoy can't start until the Soviets enter the war -- reflecting the much frostier relations between the USA and the USSR during the era of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, by which Russia carved up Poland with the Germans.

7. I like that Finland enters the war earlier. I've never taken Leningrad or had it taken on me, so I've never seen the Finns participate. That seems odd. In the actual war, the Finns participated without Leningrad falling. I suppose a compromise could be that the Finns enter the war once the German player attacks Leningrad with 5 or more ground units? Or just once the German player attacks Leningrad?

All in all, looks pretty good to me. On balance, the changes seem to balance the game a bit back toward the Allies, and I can live with that; right now, things seem a bit tough for them.


1. Agree with Grotius

2. Don't you mean Germany?

3. Is it possible (and, if so, desirable) to make it impossible for Germany to declare war on Spain (the old alliance with Franco and the hope that Franco would willing join the Axis) in the same way that the WA cannot declare war on the USSR?

4. I agree with Grotius. The defense force of a militia in Gib. is too small and weak. An Infantry or two would be better, but not if the WA is allowed to pull them out and send them elsewhere. Is it possible to create new units in the game? A unit called "garrison" with no movement and no ability to build, placed at start in a few select locations would help a great deal.

5. Agree on Gib. rail.

6. The Vladivostok conveys kept on going throughout the war, it did not end with the PH attack. One of the war's ironies is that as Japanese and Americans were slaughtering each other in the South Pacific, American seamen in American ships were blissfully and peacefull sailing in plain view of the Japanese Home Islands on their way to Vladivostok. Additionally, there is nothing stopping the WA, in game terms, from setting up the Murmansk convoys and sending supplies to Russia before the Russo-German was starts.

7. How do you keep the Germans from taking Leningrad on the first turn? Only so much can be built there before the DoW and the Germans can hit it very hard.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 13
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 4:56:25 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
I see lots of comments piled up - which is excellent, and I will reply to each of them as soon as I find some time (I am in the middle of my work hours on job at the moment and have a pretty busy day )

Let me just cover the "Finnish question" quick.

Just like Drax and everyone else I have great respect for historic Finnish army, their bravery and skill. I read a lot about Finnish wars vs. Soviets (all three of them: 39-40, "war of continuation" and war of 44). I enjoyed watching that famous Finnish war film ("Winter War" IIRC? one of the best war movies I've ever seen) etc.

BUT, in stock game Finns are unrealistically modelled overall. First there is this "magic lock" in Leningrad that unlocks the Finns. Once unlocked, super-Finns take Murmansk *in the same turn* with ease. This "magic lock" just "invites" gameyness in strategy. Knowing that taking Leningrad will not only destroy Soviet fleet, deny the city and its industry to Soviets, AND, on top of it all, unlock mighty Finns, who would not do anything possible to take it on first turn?

Magically unlocked, after taking Murmansk super-Finns usually proceed to take Archangelsk in the next turn, very oftenly meeting up with Japanese (advancing from the East) on the Urals! Come on people... Spare a thought for a poor Soviet player who usually can only watch while this totally unrealistic scenario plays in front of his eyes, unable to do anything to prevent it. I think USSR is made into everyone's favorite "punching bag" in WAW, and something has to be done about it.

Not to mention that, by taking Murmansk and Archangelsk, and since there is no Vladivostok Lend Lease route in stock game, Finns effectivelly STOP ALL Lend Lease to Russia! Yes it's the Finns doing that, although players usually see them as "just another German army" after the first turn Same Finns who were historically unable or politically unwilling to advance further than couple border provinces in Karelia...

In Raw Deal, German player will not have to devise gamey strategies to take Leningrad to unlock the Finns. What little army Finns have, will be unlocked after Baltic States are taken, but they won't be able to advance on their own - which is EXACTLY what happened historically. If German player wants to take Leningrad by massing tank armies in the north - he still can do so, but he will be doing it just for the value of the city itself, NOT to unlock the mighty Finns. I think we will see a LOT less German players massing armor in the north, and I am fine with that. But, if German player still wants to try the "tanks north" strategy he's free to do so.

O.


(in reply to dapamdg)
Post #: 14
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 5:02:26 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5107
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
On Vladivostok, my main objection is that it shouldn't run much before Soviet entry into the war. In the game, lend-lease thru Persia and Murmanks isn't permissible before Barbarossa; that should be true of Vladivostok too. The game's "free trade" system is meant to model peacetime trade and gifts. The USA, UK and USSR didn't sign protocols on lend-lease until August 1941. (Remember, Molotov-Ribbentrop remained in force until July 1941.) Perhaps the Sovs could get a gift of a couple resoures a turn from the Americans?

After Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor, I'm all for Oleg's idea; I'd allow it to happen at that point. (But the game already does, doesn't it?)

As for the period between Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor, I have my doubts. One military historian writes:

quote:

The route to Vladivostok ran directly past the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido. Ships flying American or British flags could not proceed through waters controlled by the Japanese once Japan had gone to war against Britain and the United States. And even in Soviet flag shipping, a very scarce commodity in 1941-42, the United States did not dare risk supplies and equipment definitely identifiable as for military end use.


See http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_09.htm.

(in reply to dapamdg)
Post #: 15
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 5:04:59 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5107
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
BTW, I did mean Germany's tanks, not France's. As for Leningrad, in my games, the Germans have gone for the Caucusus, not Leningrad, so I haven't seen Finland activate. But I'm doing a game against the Axis AI now, so we'll see.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 16
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 5:14:32 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

quote:

The route to Vladivostok ran directly past the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido. Ships flying American or British flags could not proceed through waters controlled by the Japanese once Japan had gone to war against Britain and the United States. And even in Soviet flag shipping, a very scarce commodity in 1941-42, the United States did not dare risk supplies and equipment definitely identifiable as for military end use.


See http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_09.htm.


Good point Grotius. I will reply in more detail later (busy day at work!) let me just say that I like how this guy put it: "supplies and equipment definitely identifiable as for military end use". In WAW you transport little supply trucks, NOT tanks, guns and "equipment definitely identifiable as for military end use"

Here's another interesting quote:

"Murmansk and Vladivostok were among the most utilized ports. The route over the Pacific was safer, but it also took longer. Allied convoys had to first cross the Pacific, then the lend-lease aid goods had to traverse Siberia via train. Initially, Iran was hardly used as a trans-shipment route. The existing infrastructure needed to transport lend-lease goods to the Soviet Union was not optimal. After 1943, when the Allies developed better transportation networks in Iran and the Middle East in general, the Persian route became a more critical link. Of all the lend-lease aid, approximately 50% was delivered via the Pacific, 25% via Persia and 25% via the northern route to Archangel and Murmansk."

Note that roughly 50% of ALL LL was delivered via Pacific (little known fact, as Arctic conwoys got all the glory)! Also note that "The route over the Pacific was safer, but it also took longer". In Raw Deal I implemented the route that goes over Kamchatka. All supplies have to "spend" the turn on Kamchatka, before they are brought to mainland USSR, and are available to Soviets with what is effectivelly one-turn delay.

SO, if the supplies are required *immediatelly* or if more supplies is needed than Vlad route can bring, Allies still have very good reason to use Arctic route. Overall, this is exactly the historic effect I wanted to achieve in Raw Deal.

Oleg

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 17
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 9:44:29 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5107
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
Fair enough, Oleg. But -- correct me if I'm wrong -- lend-lease via Persia and Murmansk is only permissible after Barbarossa, right? If that's the case, shouldn't the same rule apply to a Vladivostok route -- fine after Barbarossa?

On the other hand, the Burma Road is clearly open from game start, so I guess that's a precedent for running the Vladivostok link from game start. On the other other hand, American support for China was more overt earlier than it was for the Russians, no?

Whatever you decide, I'm very glad you've raised this.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 18
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 9:51:38 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
I am 90% sure you're wrong - lend lease, any lend lease is permissible at any time. I need to check this to be 100 sure.

This is hard coded and has nothing to do with my mod or Vlad route "per se". If you have LL to spare you can establish supply route to USSR in the first turn via Arctic and send them supply. Problem is, WA does not have supply to spare that early in the game...

O.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 19
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 10:20:18 PM   
Barthheart


Posts: 3102
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline
You can send supplies to Murmansk as soon as you can setup a transport link. Don't wait until the Germans attack Russia. The more you can send right away, the more units Russia can build or tech up.

_____________________________

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 Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 20
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 10:43:26 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Let me try answer some of the comments/questions...

quote:

I don't have much time for play (I saw you asking for opponents who could do 3 turns a day ... how can you do that?!), wish I had time to try this but not now.


Well frankly I can hardly make more then turn per day now. Opponents are more and more experienced, and playing turn in anything but perfect conditions to concentrate would be too uncautious But I usually manage to make turn-per-day in multiple games in parallel. Actually, experience from playing so many opponents is what led me to make this mod.

quote:

Aren't all small (ocean encircled) islands "rough terrain" in the standard setup? I considered that a small beni to compensate for the lack of places to retreat to and representing the problems with landing huge numbers of troops in a small area.


Most of them are indeed rough. But this hasn't come up as problem, perhaps because Japanese player does not have units to spare, to abuse the lack of overstacking rules. Gibraltar and Malta could (and are) easily overstacked which IMO creates problems.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
- Removed armor from USSR heavy bombers, added armor to USSR tactical bombers. Soviet tactical bombers Il-2 Sturmovik were heavily armored and known as "flying tanks". In fact I wanted to remove armor from all Allied bombers, maybe compensate by adding durability, but decided the game works OK as it is, and left the armor on heavies (except Soviet heavies, as explained).


I suppose it's not the place for the discussion, but what bugs me the most about the air situation is that it is uneven amongst the nationalities. The Axis has an insurmountable disadvantage in heavy bombers. Were the Germans really technically incapable of developing bombers as durable/armored as the WAllies, even if they poured research into it? I'd rather see the differences be things that can be equalized with research, which seems both more realistic and more fun.


Armor attribute, and durability, are not researchable. They are pre-set (and usually set the same for all sides with notable exception of heavy bombers). Evasion is researchable. So, what can we do to give the Allies the advantage, and make Germans capable of catching up? Not much I am afraid.

We could raise the evasion factor for Allies, so that Germans can catch up on them, but frankly it seems silly to me. Allied heavies certainly were not great at "evasion". So, after some thinking I came to regard the original decision to apply armor to Allied heavies to represent inherent changes in design and "philosophy" and decided to leave it be.

Any suggestions and ideas will be appreciated.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
- Added transport link Alaska-Vladivostok.


That seems like an uninterruptable chain (w/o Jap/WA war) that can funnel an awful lot of supplies ...



It's not uninterruptible - Japanese can break it easy, only they will be in war with USSR then And, supplies delivered via this link will have to sit for one turn in Kamchatka as explained in some posts above.

Hey, it is a sad fact of life (sad for Axis that is ) that Russians DID have this, "uninterruptable chain that can funnel an awful lot of supplies" in real war. Prior to Raw Deal Axis had it very easy in USSR. I think Raw Deal models the Russian Bear much more realistically.

O.

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 21
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 10:53:38 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

quote:

- Added fort to East Germany. In most games Berlin fell too easy, while West Germany held out in its fortified area.


I suppose fort in Western Germany represents Siegfrid line. What should fort in the Eastern Germany represent? Historically, Germans had some prepared positions in Pomerania build prior 1939, but nowhere on the scale of Maginot or Sevastopol. Berlin region was woefully unprepared for fighting compared to say, Moscow with its Mozhaysk line..


Fort in East Germany does not represent any hisotric man made defence, it just represents the German will to fight Russians rather than US at the end of the war In real life, at the end of the war Germans were only too eager to surrender to WAllies, while they still resisted the Red onslaught in the East. Adding the fort to EG is attempt to represent this.

I guess this is largely moot, because by the time Allies reach the German borders...

I believe next patch will bring some "official" changes to the way German forts are modelled which will make this part of Raw Deal mod unnecessary.

quote:

Only around the pilot. IIRC, the gunner was outside the armoured box and anyway, on ground strategic level, any formation of stormoviks caught unescorted by messerschmits was masacred. Simply, ground assault aircraft should not mess around with fighters.


So I take it you suggest removing armor from Soviet tac bombers?

quote:

quote:

- Removed one starting militia from Bulgaria.


Why? And when I am on the subject of militias, how about placing one in Portugal? I somehow doubt Portuguese would just give up and serve Porto to whomever cross their border first.


Axis Bulgarians didn't do anything worth noting in the whole WW2. In fact, a point could be made that their only significant contribution came in 44-45 when they switched sides, went to Allied side and as part of Soviet army did some fighting in Yugoslavia up to and including Austrian border.

Bulgaria starts with 3 militia. To garriosn Yugoslavia, Axis needs to allot three militia units. This means whole Yugo (or similarly hostile area) could be garrisoned solely by Bulgarians? Not realistic. In fact I think even 2 militia is too much perhaps...

Potrugal militia is good suggestion.

quote:

Despite the disagreement of our resident Finn, let me be another Croat who supports this modification. Finns were good soldiers, but were not capable of serious offensive warfare. Their army was not equipped up to the German standards and was not trained to undertake large offensive operations against prepared positions. Ambushing individual Soviet divisions in the freezing conditions was one thing, storming Soviet prepared defenses was another.


Yep, we agree....

quote:

quote:

That's it. I personally HATE badly documented mods, and never use them unless everything is clearly explained. So you can be sure this mod is going to be thoroughly documented, argumented, and explained. And of course - open to discussion...


Have you considered replacing Yugoslav infantry with militia? Why Malta doesn't have a port? It was surely a surprise for me to watch Scenario 1941 without British submarine fleet in Malta.


Malta does have a port.... in both original game and Raw Deal.

O.

(in reply to Drax Kramer)
Post #: 22
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 11:13:02 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

This looks very good overall, Oleg. Some comments:

1. I like the idea of removing maybe one resource from the Caucusus, but remember that the resources here -- oil -- were particularly valuable to the Axis. So I'm not sure about removing two. Besides, the Axis often has trouble repairing all six resources, doesn't it? I sure did. That takes 60 supply, only some of which you can strategically-move there in one turn. I don't mind the idea of moving one to the Urals, but I guess my core objection is removing a second AND denying it to the Soviets. I'd just move one to the Urals and be done with it.


Thanks.

Caucasus... well, if you got to Caucasus as German, AND repaired ALL 6 resources I take it you won that game on auto victory? Do not forget you have 2 more res just north in Grozny. That is a LOT. In my experience, these resources are used to:

a) Be repaired and bring immediate auto victory to Axis (usually done when Axis is already at 60-some PPs). I am usually fine with this strategy BTW.
b) Be destroyed just for the sake of denying them to USSR, or making the USSR player go thru trouble of repairing them all (wasting ungodly ammount of supply by USSR standards) and this is kinda screwy IMO. Raiding Caucasus will still be possible, and 4 res are still there...

I've seen 1 Para unit dropping to Caucasus, laying waste and getting out... It's not that easy to actually "destroy" something, even an oilfield Of course if USSR player allows for 1 Para to surprise him, he deserved the catastrophe, perhaps just not on that level.

quote:

2. It may be historic to chop down German armor, but I think it might detract from the "feel" of a Blitzkrieg if the player doesn't get to push a few tanks around on turn 1. Again, I'd suggest a more moderate approach: maybe just take out one tank. As for Spain...


In Raw Deal Germany starts with 5 ARM units instead of 7 in the stock game. 2 "missing" Armored units are converted to INF. I think this gives good feel of the 40 campaigns. Keep in mind France is weakened by converting 50% of their INF to Militia, to reflect their low morale and training...

quote:

3. ... I completely agree that it's far too easy to conquer Spain. It happens in every game I play now; it's a routine move. Why not beef up Spain's defenses instead of stripping Germany of tanks?


That's a tricky question, because Spain issue should involve some politics. I think it would not be really hard for Germany to take Spain if they really wanted to, and decided to push the Med strategy (something Hitler was never interested in).

I think the best solution would be to leave Spanish military as it is, but make Germans pay some heavy price in supply points, similar to what Allies (and USSR) pay for invading neutrals. Say, make Germans pay 15 supply points if they decide to attack Spain?

That would represent some bad PR they will get, and disappointment that Hitler attacked his fascist buddy Franco...

quote:

4. As for Gibraltar, if you're worried about it being overrun too easily -- and again, I see this happen every game -- then the last thing you want to do is remove its rough terrain. I've been to Gibraltar: the Rock is plenty "rough." It's a natural fortress if ever there was one. If the game allowes static base forces, I'd also advocate adding a static infantry unit there.


Yes but I don't want to make Gib harder to take for all the wrong reasons Spain is what needs to be made tougher, not Gib. If Axis controls Spain, it is in my opinion ridicolous to ask for 4:1 advantage to take Gib. With German artillery in Algeciras (just accross the border in Spain) Gib would be rendered useless hideout for couple starving British defenders (who would either surrender or be shelled into insignificance). In stock game, even with half the German army in Spain, Gib continues to function as key to the Med, needing 4:1 to take. Because of fort+rough benefits, I've seen Gib being defended by, say, 1 INF, 3 Militia and 3 ARTY. This combo in fort + rough can easily resist to 18 unit German mega army, attacking from Spain, including teched up tanks.

Don't forget in stock game ONLY Gib and Malta are both fort + rough, whih means attacked needs 4:1 to take them, and makes those miniscule territories harder to conquer than Stalingrad or Leningrad or Moscow.

Oleg

< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 5/4/2005 11:15:07 PM >

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 23
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 11:20:33 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dapamdg
7. How do you keep the Germans from taking Leningrad on the first turn? Only so much can be built there before the DoW and the Germans can hit it very hard.


We could easy make L. unconquerable on the first turn, by making it rough. Tanks can't make 2 areas in single turn if one of them is rough. This would even be reasonable, because forrested Baltic states and Leningrad region are not the best tank country in the world.

But I am OK with German player being able to take L. on the first turn IF he is willing to invest a LOT of tanks for that task.

Trust me, if taking L. would not give you benefit of unlocking super-Finns, and taking Murmansk with them, you will see a LOT less German players willing to use his tanks in the north, instead of Ukraine and the south, where it really matters (resource wise).

O.

(in reply to dapamdg)
Post #: 24
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/4/2005 11:44:17 PM   
sveint


Posts: 1378
Joined: 1/19/2001
Status: offline
quote:

We could easy make L. unconquerable on the first turn, by making it rough


I made Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad rough in my mod. There was NO way these cities would be captured by rapidly advancing tanks. (Much more likely the armor would have surrounded them and the infantry would have assaulted).

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 25
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/5/2005 12:54:43 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

quote:

We could easy make L. unconquerable on the first turn, by making it rough


I made Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad rough in my mod. There was NO way these cities would be captured by rapidly advancing tanks. (Much more likely the armor would have surrounded them and the infantry would have assaulted).


That solution is fine... but we must not lose focus though. Tank icon on the map does not mean it's just 800-some tanks in that unit, and nothing else. It is actually mechanised corps (in datafiles unit name is actually "mechanised", not "tank" or "armor").

Mechanised corps mean there's still more infantry there (but fast, well motorised infantry), than actual tanks. Seen from this point of view I'd allow that Germans can take L. if they earmark LOTS of units for that task. Believe me, with "Finnish lock" removed, players will much rather use those mechanised units to attack in Ukraine.

O.

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 26
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/5/2005 2:36:02 AM   
Drax Kramer

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 9/13/2004
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

4. As for Gibraltar, if you're worried about it being overrun too easily -- and again, I see this happen every game -- then the last thing you want to do is remove its rough terrain. I've been to Gibraltar: the Rock is plenty "rough." It's a natural fortress if ever there was one. If the game allowes static base forces, I'd also advocate adding a static infantry unit there.


If you've been in Gibraltar than you know this place could hardly fit a division, not to mention several corps sized units as wargames often allow British to deploy there. If Germans ever reached the place they would do exactly what Japanese (with far less capable artillery) did at Corregidor. Shelled it into submission. That's what US general Marshall told to his British hosts at Gibraltar when they started to brag about their mighty fort.

In my opinion, the only honest simulation of Gibraltar would be to remove it from the map all together. As long as Spain is neutral, it is assumed Gibraltar is British controlled and hinders Axis naval movements into and out of Mediterranean. When Spain is Axis controlled, Gibraltar falls and it is the Allied turn to have problems with entering the Mediterranean.


Drax


< Message edited by Drax Kramer -- 5/5/2005 2:37:03 AM >

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 27
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/5/2005 2:43:08 AM   
Drax Kramer

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 9/13/2004
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dapamdg

However, Glabro is right that the Finns were superior troops. Throughout the war the Germans had to "corset" the units of their Italian and Rumanian allies -- integrate a small German unit into a larger allied formation to improve their combat performance. However, in Finland, it was the Germans who needed to be "corseted" by Finns to improve their fighting prowress in the frozen north.


True. German 6th SS division ran in disgrace in its first assault up north. However, the first time Soviets attacked Finns in typical late war Soviet style (june 1944) Finnish lines were pulverised, high command paralysed and Soviets got into Vyborg by driving to the most powerful defenses Finnish could erect.

Soviet offensive was checked and stopped only when Finns put their last reserves as well as asked for help from Germans who sent Luftwaffe reinforcements that cleared the skies from Stormoviks and attacked Soviet tanks as well as an abteilung of sturmgeschutz that was very useful in anti tank role.

In Oleg's mod, Finns are still better than Rumanians or Hungarians who have no infantry units at all.


Drax

(in reply to dapamdg)
Post #: 28
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/5/2005 2:50:06 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

In my opinion, the only honest simulation of Gibraltar would be to remove it from the map all together. As long as Spain is neutral, it is assumed Gibraltar is British controlled and hinders Axis naval movements into and out of Mediterranean. When Spain is Axis controlled, Gibraltar falls and it is the Allied turn to have problems with entering the Mediterranean.


I agree with you on too many points to feel comfortable Drax. People will start thinking we are planning some great Croat conspiracy, aimed at reducing Finns and British in WAW And how am I going to play you in PBEM?!

Indeed, Gib has been overpriced (make it waaay overpriced) in every game I've ever seen.

This mighty fortress was never really tested in modern war. All it ever did was to serve as harbor for Force H (any medium sized harbor would suit fine) and house couple ASW patrol aircraft to keep Gib straits under control (and not very effective control at that). That's all! Never downed a plane, never sunk a ship... and was subjected to humiliating attack by Italian frogmen.

In WAW, with no stacking limits, you can put unlimited amount of heavy bombers in Gib and use them to terrorize whole Med with them. But, I could even live with that. And I could live with Gib controlling the mouth of the Med. What I can't live with, is that you can do all that WITH Spain in Axis hands, AND enjoy fort + rough benefits on top of all that.

O.

(in reply to Drax Kramer)
Post #: 29
RE: Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod - 5/5/2005 2:54:01 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer
In Oleg's mod, Finns are still better than Rumanians or Hungarians who have no infantry units at all.


Trivia question for all. Name the second largest Axis army in the European theatre of operations in WW2:

a) Italians
b) Finns
c) Rumanians
d) Hungarians

O.

(in reply to Drax Kramer)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War >> Mods and Scenarios >> Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod Page: [1] 2   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

0.148