Matrix Games Forums

Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager is now available!Space Program Manager gets mini-site and Twitch SessionBuzz Aldrin: Ask Me Anything (AMA) on redditDeal of the week Fantasy Kommander: Eukarion WarsSpace Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta

 
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 >> Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/10/2005 7:50:52 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
Hi Guys, I pulled the link to download because version 2.3 is out.

Here's the readme:
Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta up to patch 1.040 compatible.
By Jesse LeBreton aka "Lebatron"
jesse_lebreton@yahoo.com

Warning read installation procedure below before installing

INTRODUCTION:
I developed Franco's Alliance to allow the game to follow a more historic path. In doing so, some major changes have taken place. Spain has been made a frozen ally of Germany to stop them from marching through Spain to close off the Med. China has been made a little richer in resources to tempt the Japs. Many unfreeze exploits have been stopped. And now in v2.0 the Japanese attack on Russia won't be so optimal anymore due to the new territories in the Soviet Far East. There are also secondary issues which I have addressed too. I will cover those below.

New to V2.0
1. Made some new territories in the Russian far east. Mongolia, Yakutsk, and Irkutsk have each been divided into two parts. The new double borders were placed strategically so that if Japan choose to attack, its advance through Russia will be delayed. For now I'm releasing this as is and will at a later time make the new borders more presentable once I decide on a final version.



2. Moved the tank and infantry in Central Siberia into West Irk. In this way they can still be used to counterattack into East Irk.

3. Gave Germany 1 point in its infantry research to make up for the increased research cost associated with the additional troops in Spain.

4. Fixed a HUGE exploit I discovered when doing the Afghan border. This exploit involves the Allies bombing Tibet instead of Japan, thus unlocking the US. This one is even worse than the one involving a British bomber in Afghan because the range is shorter. If you play this one right, the US will be in the war exactly one turn after Germany attacks Russia! Here's how it plays out. Say Germany attacks Russia in Su41. The Russians now free to move, can fly their bomber over to China's border. Next turn they bomb Tibet making it turn Japanese. The same turn the British take the bomber they had sitting in Afghan and bomb Japanese Tibet, thus unlocking the US fall41. Using this exploit the British could bypass the border changes I did to Afghan since its not about reaching Japanese territory anymore. Heck Japan doesn't even have to be on the mainland at all and they get screwed. What I have done to fix this "Tibetan Gambit" is to have Tibet turn German if they got bombed. Now there would be no point in doing this, unless you just want to blow supply to declare war on a neutral.

5. Some have talked about the futility of fighting Russia if they waited until 43. I totally agree, the Russians have to much production. The problem is the factory production multiplier. Right now its x2 in 1940. I'm OK with that. Then its x3 in 1942. That's were I disagree, I think it should stay at x2 until war is declared. Stalin pressed hard in the late 30's to move from a x1 to x2 in game speak. With that milestone being achieved, I think the country would have stabilized at x2 for several years had it not been for the patriotic zeal to save the country after Hitler betrayed them. Hence the x3 then makes sense, but not before. So I have adjusted the Russian production multiplier. The Russians no longer go to x3 production in 1942 automatically. They have to be at war with Germany or Japan to get it. In most games this would have no effect. Only when Germany waits till well into1942 will this change have any effect.

6. America's x4 production multiplier has been moved from 1943 to 1944. I know this may be vigorously opposed by some. But let me give a few reasons. First, most games see the US go right from x2 to x4 because America is brought right in at 1943. With this change, at least there is a x3 multiple in play for a little while. Second, having it at x4 for 4 years, is just to much to have a balanced game. Third, Germany gets their x4 in 1944, so why should the US beat them to x4 when the Germans had an earlier start on making improvements to their war time economy? But these are minor arguments. The game-play is more important than the historical accuracy. I solo played with this new multiple several times, and I think the mid and end game is much improved.

7. Removed one Russian factory at Kazan. Reason: They just have to much production. With the far east map changes they just became an even tougher nut to crack. It was necessary to weaken Russia somewhere. You A&A players may crack a smile when you see that Russia gets 24 productions points a turn:)

8. Changed the sea borders around Alaska to double borders. Cosmetically in the game they still look like single borders but function as double ones. I did not fix the map to show double borders since that will be done in an upcoming patch.

9. I dropped the scenario Strait Deal. If you miss it let me know. Its an easy thing to put back in.

End of new changes

INSTALLING V2.0
Warning: due to the changes I made in V2.0 do not install this like you would with V1.4
If you did, then the standard campaings would have a messed up map due to the new territoriers. What you need to do is reinstall another copy of the game in a different directory. Then install v2.0 files into that one only. Rename the new desktop shortcut to Franco's Alliance so you know which one is which.

There are 11 files with this mod that need to be placed in the \dat subfolder of WAW. Don't worry about overwriting anything as that don't matter.
Here are the files:
alliance_fa.txt
baseline_fa.txt
coordinates.txt
factory_fa.txt
frozen_fa.txt
mapregionloc.txt
movearrow.txt
regions_fa.txt
research_fa.txt
scendat_fa.txt
scenario.txt

There are 12 new region files for the graphics I have done. Take all 12 region tga files and place them into your \dat\art\map subfolder of WAW. Say yes to overwrite old files. That・s all there is to it. Now when you start the game you will see a selection for Franco's Alliance just below campaign IV.

WHATS CHANGED:
Here is the list of changes I made to the original game. Some ideas are borrowed from others. So I give credit when it's due.

1: Spain gains 1 artillery and is now a frozen ally of Germany, much like Finland. Spain will unfreeze IF Gibraltar, London, or Moscow falls. If the WA・s attack Portugal, or any of Spain・s territories that will make her unfreeze too. Reason: I wanted to give players the option to play a more historical WWII. There is no longer a need to house rule it to protect Gibraltar. Spain will stay neutral until certain conditions are met, and they are hard to meet. Gibraltar will not be given up without a fight, since in addition to the normal drawbacks to losing it, the Spanish join the Axis. As far as Moscow goes, now I think the Germans have a little more incentive to push for it rather than looking elsewhere in Russia. I have also made the Canary Islands true neutral just like the Azores, but for different reasons. These Islands were causing an interdiction point when they were made into a German ally. That had to change. But I could do nothing about the few extra interdiction points the WA・s get from Spain when they pass through Gibraltar. To solve this, just duck into the Port of Gibraltar and back out, and you・ll avoid those extra interdiction points.

2: Portugal gains 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 flak, and population increased to 1. Reason: so the WA's don't get a free pass to the mainland if Gibraltar has fallen. Since Portugal can now defend itself against a small invasion, perhaps the allied player will choose to leave Spain and Portugal alone. Now that Portugal has troops, other issues needed to be addressed. The population was increased to 1 because it just makes sense. I also removed the Portuguese nationality from the Azores. They are now true neutral territory. This was done so Germany does not actually gain Portugal itself if the Azores are taken by the WA's. There's no need for Portugal to turn Axis because of that. If the allies continue their aggression and decide landing at Portugal is their best move, then they will have to pay 10 supply again. Also those territories in lower Africa stay Portuguese if only the Azores are taken. This is better than everything Portuguese turning German just because the allies borrow the Azores for an air base. Historically the allies got to use the islands when some political pressure was used. That's the 10 supply you pay to use the Azores.

3: Gibraltar and Malta no longer have rough terrain, and Gibraltar gains rail. Reason: If Germany goes all out to conquer Gibraltar, then they should be able to strategically redeploy to and from Gibraltar as needed. Since the Spanish Gambit is no longer an option, the sea invasion should be made a little easier. That's why I removed the rough terrain. Same reasoning for Malta. The WA can still hold them if they are determined to. Oleg's idea. Thanks.

4: Norway now has 2 resources. Removed 1 from Sweden. Reason: Done to encourage German invasion of Norway and perhaps deter taking Sweden a little. Sveint's idea. Thanks.

5: Added 1 tactical air in West Germany and removed 1 fighter in Finland. Reason: Germany just needs more Stukas. And Finland just didn't have that much airpower. Trade one for the other. Balance not changed much. Oleg's idea. Thanks.

6: Finland unfreezes when Leningrad OR Kalinin are attacked. Reason: Taking Leningrad was an unreasonable requirement. The Finns now join when the Germans show some muscle up north.

7: Hungary gains a factory, 1 pop, and can now make militia. Reason: Hungary contributed. Germany may need a few extra militia down the road because things are going to be much hotter in the Mediterranean. Also, it・s just kind of neat to see all the flag slots on the production screen filled. Isn't it? Oleg's idea. Thanks.

8: China gains 3 resources. Most regions of China now have 1 resource. The capital now has two to make the victory sweeter. Reason: to find a balance that will make it a split decision for the Japanese, between a China/India campaign, or a Russian one. In this way more options are available to the Japanese Player. I didn・t make this change because I believe Japan shouldn・t attack Russia, because I know it was a historic possibility. What I want to do is make it so that it・s just one way to win, but not THE way to win. Perhaps in real life, attacking Russia would have been their best strategy. But do you want to see the same strategy play out every game because it・s the optimal way to win? No, I don・t think you would. To be fun, WAW needs many different ways to win, even if certain areas need to be made richer. Some realism needs to take a back seat to achieve this. So what I did was give China more resources to encourage Japan to look to China rather than invading Russia. This does not make China any harder to conquer, but will at least make it more worth while for Japan. The new resources also end the silly and gamey Jap avoidance of certain Chinese territories with no value.

9: Fixed a bug. Gulf of Mexico and Greater Antilles now connect.

10: Fixed another bug. I made two new files to show a double border between sea zone 191 and 353.

11: Fixed an exploit that I believe breaks the game IMHO. That being, the WA・s invasion of East Prussia to unfreeze the Soviets early. It・s unrealistic to think that just because the British take the fight a little more east and gain some German soil temporarily, that Stalin would break his pact with Hitler. I think at this early point in the war it would have been more likely to see the Soviets help the Germans. After all, Stalin would not wish to see the British liberate Poland. This attack would have further cemented German-Soviet relations. But in the game this exploit does the opposite. So what I have done is remove the garrison requirement from East Prussia and bumped Poland・s up by one. Also moved and infantry from Czech to Poland to satisfy the requirement. Now the British landing in Prussia will do nothing but get them killed.
The WA's are still free to take out the Denmark garrison, move into the Baltic, fight the German fleet, and land in Prussia. That option is still available, the question is, should it be checkmate? That move shouldn・t be that powerful. It should not be some magic key that unlocks the Soviets.
Once again, let・s revisit this what-if. But let・s call it by a more realistic name. Say :Operation Liberation Poland.; After all, would that not be the British objective if they established a bridgehead in Prussia? Let・s forget about the illogic of liberating Poland before France for a second. The allied liberation of Poland is underway. Do you think that Stalin would side with the allies and just hand back the half of Poland he just acquired. No way in Hell. At this early stage in the war, Stalin and Hitler were pseudo allies. This allied attempt to liberate Poland would have resulted in a partnership between Germany and Russia to throw out the allies, ending any future hope that the Russians would join the allies, unless Hitler betrayed them down the road.
In summary the destruction of the garrison at Prussia creates an event that is the total opposite of what would have happened and should be corrected.

12: Fixed another exploit that breaks the game IMHO. Once again, the British have found another exploit. Them bastards;) This one unfreezes the US early. The designers have put an impassable wall around the Pacific Rim for a reason. To keep Japan in, and Britain out, until the Japs decide to make war. But the British have a way in! If they capture Afghanistan and place a bomber there, they may have the range to bomb the Japs. For instance, let・s say the Japs just took the Chinese capital. If the British have a bomber in Afghanistan with range 5(not hard to get), they can hit the Japs and instantly unfreeze the US. Then the US can go on a rampage around the Pacific totally hitting the Japs off guard. To have any hope of balance, Japan needs to have the surprise attack. Instead with this exploit, it・s the US who gets it. That・s not cool.
So what I did to deter the WA・s player from using this exploit is made the border between Afghanistan and Eastern Kazakhstan 2MP. It reduces the range a British bomber can travel. Thus making it less likely the WA player would even occupy and place a bomber in Afghanistan. To do what I explained above, the British would need to research to range 6. Probably not worth it and by that time it probably won・t matter. I made three files that patch the map to show a 2MP border there. Also modified to include a 2MP border at Western Himalayas and Western Kazakhstan as Joel Billings requested. Install using the instructions above.
Thanks to JanSorensen for pointing out the problem and suggesting the 2MP border.

13. Caucasus now has a 2MP border facing the Black Sea. It will now require a range of 3 to reach it from Romania. Reason: to reduce the amount of airpower Germany can bring to bear. Players have demonstrated that it・s possible to capture Caucasus with a Paradrop. This change now makes that much harder. I made a file that places a double border along the Caucasus coast. Joel Billings requested this one. Thanks big guy

14. I added 1 flak and 1 artillery to the Bonin Islands. Reason: since they are on the front line of defense I thought it odd they should not be garrisoned as well as the others. So I gave them the same setup as the other strategically important Islands.

15. Axis Auto Victory has been increased from 70 to 75. Reason: 70 is to easy to achieve with a neutral land grab by Germany. By increasing it to 75, Germany will not likely be able to win without first going to war with a major power. This forces a traditional game to take place. Note: many are now using the new AV that will be coming soon in a patch. Which is 70PP +Moscow or London. This is about equal to achieve as the 75 is. If you prefer to play with requiring a capital victory then play with AV off. Off coarse when you do, its up to you to keep an eye on the count as the program will not.

16: Removed the tutorials to clean up the start page. You don't really need them tutorials anymore do you?. I also put the code for Raw Deal and the 1939 mod in the scenario.txt file, so that if you installed them too you can use my version of the scernario.txt file to play all of them. Just remove the "//" in front of the code for those mods if you get them.

EXTRAS:
A: If you'd like to have zoom levels that go out, rather than in, put this code into your art.txt file. Place next to original code that is located 70% down the list. Put // in front of all original code to bleep it out.

// zooms for the game
MAP_ZOOM,4800,3000,2000

// chip scaling by zoom
CHIP_SCALE,3000,1700,1500

// Y ofsets by zoom
ICON_Y_OFFSET,25,25,25

You could also use 4000 in place of 4800. That・s the furthest out you can set it and still have all the onscreen info.
At 4800 the icon offset was originally at 35. But I think 25 works better because it places the ships closer together. Also air sits a little closer to land units. I think you'll like the tighter look better. Try both 25 and 35 to see for yourself.

B: If you are tired of hitting escape 3 times to get to the game, go into the video folder and look for the 3 intro videos. Rename these, and they will no longer harass you. Example: XXX2by3intro.wmv

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lebatron -- 2/19/2006 9:02:44 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/10/2005 4:56:32 PM   
JanSorensen

 

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

4. Fixed a HUGE exploit I discovered when doing the Afghan border. This exploit involves the Allies bombing Tibet instead of Japan, thus unlocking the US. This one is even worse than the one involving a British bomber in Afghan because the range is shorter. If you play this one right, the US will be in the war exactly one turn after Germany attacks Russia! Here's how it plays out. Say Germany attacks Russia in Su41. The Russians now free to move, can fly their bomber over to China's border. Next turn they bomb Tibet making it turn Japanese. The same turn the British take the bomber they had sitting in Afghan and bomb Japanese Tibet, thus unlocking the US fall41. Using this exploit the British could bypass the border changes I did to Afghan since its not about reaching Japanese territory anymore. Heck Japan doesn't even have to be on the mainland at all and they get screwed. What I have done to fix this "Tibetan Gambit" is to have Tibet turn German if they got bombed. Now there would be no point in doing this, unless you just want to blow supply to declare war on a neutral.


Very nice catch on this bug. I believe that Joel has made the same change already for the coming data patch possibly after talking to you about it.

Unfortunately the fix isnt perfect. If Japan but not Germany declares war on Russia the Russians can use Tibet to unfreeze their Western territories and then declare war on Germany. Obviously a much less likely scenario but still unfortunate.

In the specific case of Tibet I think the best solution is to have it join noone at all if attacked.
That is: "JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Tibet,AXIS_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE, NONE"

I am somewhat leaning towards this being the best solution for several other minors too (afghanistan comes to mind) - but I need to consider the possible complications. I am definitely open for input.

This still leaves Persia as a possible problem though.

< Message edited by JanSorensen -- 10/10/2005 5:13:29 PM >

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 2
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/10/2005 5:20:45 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
Yes I did tell Joel about it several weeks ago. At the time, he was not aware of the possibility. He then told me they were definitely going to fix it in the next patch so I decided not to go public. At the time I figured why ruin the game for some by telling others how to exploit this. But I see now that most players are agreeing not to exploit these so called Gambits.

I totally agree with you that Tibet should not turn German. My first suggestion to Joel to fix it was to have Tibet turn UN when it was attacked. this would represent a total surrender to the allies after the bombing. But he said they were going to make it turn German. So in my latest update I decided to do the same for uniformity. But I will change it when I finish the border graphics.

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 3
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/10/2005 5:37:40 PM   
JanSorensen

 

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline
I think its just as well making Tibet and Afganistan just revert to neutrality after a bombing run - but having then turn UN works too I suppose.

This still leaves Persia though - I am still trying to figure out a viable solution for that. Having that turn UN would seem far too good as that would mean the resources didnt need repairing. Having it revert to neutral wont really work either - as that would make it take 2 DoWs to conquer.

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 4
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/10/2005 5:41:02 PM   
aletoledo


Posts: 827
Joined: 2/4/2005
Status: offline
nice work lebatron

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 5
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/10/2005 9:22:04 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

This still leaves Persia though - I am still trying to figure out a viable solution for that. Having that turn UN would seem far too good as that would mean the resources didnt need repairing. Having it revert to neutral wont really work either - as that would make it take 2 DoWs to conquer.


I hadn't thought of that before. I think I see what your saying. If Japan attacks Russia then Russia is free to move a troop to Western Kazakhstan. Next turn Russia attacks Northern Persia. Then the next Southern Persia unlocking the rest of their country. Interesting. This is what you mean right?

Well I think the smartest solution would be to make Western Kazakhstan frozen with the rest of the western territories. If Russia can't attack from the Caucasus then why should they do so from Western Kazakhstan?

While I'm on the subject I should mention that I had considered making Eastern Kazakhstan frozen with the far eastern territories long ago. This would also prevent some of the other exploits.

With Western Kazak frozen with the West and Eastern Kazak frozen with the East this would create a ring barrier similar to the one already in place to prevent the British from attacking Japan.

< Message edited by Lebatron -- 10/10/2005 9:25:20 PM >

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 6
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/11/2005 9:05:23 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
I just discovered a bug that involves Spain op-firing on passing ships.

< Message edited by Lebatron -- 10/12/2005 2:12:50 AM >

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 7
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/11/2005 10:23:29 PM   
aletoledo


Posts: 827
Joined: 2/4/2005
Status: offline
spain is supposed to op-fire at passing ships. they have to use gibraltor if they want to avoid that.

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 8
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/12/2005 1:58:34 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
Yes your right about that partly. But when Spain is frozen its basically neutral. In the standard game Spain does not op-fire unless it was attacked. Once Spain is unfroze then its really in the war and at that point should provide op-fire. I made a change in 2.0 that was now making Spain op-fire before it was unfroze. I have fixed that now and a new file is attached to the above link. So those of you who downloaded before, please redownload. Sorry about that.

< Message edited by Lebatron -- 10/12/2005 2:11:12 AM >

(in reply to aletoledo)
Post #: 9
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/12/2005 7:37:11 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
I have adressed the Persia problem that JanSorensen had a concern with. My solution was to make the Caspian sea, Western Kazak, and Eastern Kazak all frozen with western Russia. When Japan attacks Russia and Germany has not yet. These zones will stay frozen so you will no longer be able to use a Russain unit to attack into Persia. I will leave this fix out of the beta version and save it until 2.0 moves out of the beta stage. That means whenever I get the artwork done on them new Russian borders.

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 10
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/17/2005 10:29:18 PM   
silodhlehan

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 10/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

spain is supposed to op-fire at passing ships. they have to use gibraltor if they want to avoid that.


????

If I'm the german player and I do a naval invasion of gibraltar with this mod the spanish are going to op fire on me then if I win they will be my steadfast ally?? something seems untoward. Am I reading this wrong?

I know in switzerland they shot at german airplanes that violated their airspace but going over a country is a lot different than sailing across the mediterranian and the spanish come out and shoot at you?

The british and germans did a lot of small actions near turkey on greek islands late in the war and I'm not aware of the turkish navy intervening. Before their belated DOW.

Plus german subs sailed through the straights of gibralter. Now I've heard of the british hunting them down but the Spanish? Did they fire a shot at german subs off their coast or british ships?



(in reply to aletoledo)
Post #: 11
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/19/2005 1:56:53 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
As I said the Spainish shooting at ships was a bug, so yes you are reading this wrong. In my mod Spain is a frozen ally of Germany like Finland so it will not fire at Germany. Therefore if the British leave Gibraltar weak Germany can invade without Spain shotting. Also if Germany is sucessfull in capturing it Spain will unfreeze. This represents Franco deciding to join the Germans when it looks like Germany is winning the war. Here's a pic to show frozen Spain at beginning of game.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lebatron -- 10/19/2005 1:57:24 AM >

(in reply to silodhlehan)
Post #: 12
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/19/2005 9:45:54 PM   
mdh1204

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 8/1/2005
Status: offline
It looked good and sensible, as a mod, until I read that you started to
change the reality of the war environment to meet your gaming
expectations. Specifically, Gibraltor and Malta are rough terrain,
because thats what they are - fortified rough/mountainous terrain.
Just because you think that they should be easier to capture via
amphibious or whatever means doesn't have anything to do with
good playability. The playability of a game reside in its accuracy, and
Gibraltor and Malta are a serious pain in the butt to take for a reason -
BECAUSE THEY WERE. If you have a problem with it, my suggestion,
for what its worth, is to allow the ability to attack would-be allies prior
to their activation.

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 13
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/20/2005 3:13:46 AM   
Davidovich Trotsky

 

Posts: 51
Joined: 8/29/2005
Status: offline
Just a quick wondering.

If Franco did ally itself to Germany and getting the supplies it wanted, why would it be frozen?

(in reply to mdh1204)
Post #: 14
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/20/2005 3:29:15 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
Think of it this way. Spain is not really a full ally. But they had close enough ties with Germany to not be a target of Germany. Hence I made them a Frozen part of Germany to prevent Germany from attacking them to get to Gibraltar the easy way. My mod stops this so called Spanish Gambit. Which is a rather gamey way to get Gibraltar don't you think? Having Spain be frozen is similar to it staying neutral. It only joins the Axis when Germany shows some great success. Think of that as an undecided Franco finally placing his bet that Germany is going to win the war. So they throw their full support to Germany at that point.

(in reply to Davidovich Trotsky)
Post #: 15
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/22/2005 6:17:16 AM   
mdh1204

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 8/1/2005
Status: offline
Well, I wouldn't say Germany was incapable of attacking Spain. Afterall, who do you think you are talking about? They declared war on everyone else. Although, making it a frozen ally works for me. My only point, as is ever my only point, is that mods are good if they improve the historical accuracy and realistic war-time functionality of a game. You don't make the ROCK of GIBRALTOR and MALTA a pansy-field just because you can't stop yourself MODING, right? Besides, both targets are captured if you plan for it.

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 16
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/22/2005 6:27:58 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
Don't be so damned ignorant.

(in reply to mdh1204)
Post #: 17
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/22/2005 6:39:23 AM   
mdh1204

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 8/1/2005
Status: offline
LOL. Sorry if I sound arrogant or ignorant. I'm just blunt.

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 18
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/22/2005 11:32:17 AM   
JanSorensen

 

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
Don't be so damned ignorant.


I fail to see any ignorance.

Ofcourse Germany could have attacked Spain if Hitler had taken a fancy to it. Seeing all the other decisions he made its definitely not out of the question as a reasonable "what if" coming from Hitler. You view the matter differently with your mod - but either view has merit. Prefering one or the other is more a matter of personal taste than being right or wrong and definitely has nothing to do with being ignorant.

The same applies to Gib/Malta. Depending on the approach you take you could argue either way. Again, this does not make either view correct - only different - and definitely not ignorant.

Infact, the only ignorance possible would be an inability to acknowlege that different views may have equal merit.

< Message edited by JanSorensen -- 10/22/2005 11:44:12 AM >

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 19
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/22/2005 1:31:04 PM   
mcaryf

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 7/11/2003
From: Uk
Status: offline
Hi Lebatron

Have you also considered the possibility of making Siam a frozen ally of the Japanese? My understanding is that this was closer to reality than Japan invading them.

They could be unfrozen on the turn that Japan either takes or perhaps just attacks Malaya.

Mike

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 20
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/22/2005 5:43:57 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
Jan you misunderstood my use of the word ignorant. I was not referring to his knowledge of WW2. Here in America we sometimes use ignorant to mean rude. Like in "Boy that was ignorant of him to say such a thing." Both of mdh1204 posts sounded rude in the way he expressed his opinion. I didn't say anything to his first one but in his second he pushed me. In particular I didn't like his line "...a pansy-field just because you can't stop yourself MODING..." He understood what I meant when I said he was being ignorant, and he apologized by explaining that he's just a blunt guy and comes off that way. I understand and will read his future posts with that in mind. But mdh1204 you could try to be a little less "New York" in you posts.

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 21
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/22/2005 5:49:04 PM   
JanSorensen

 

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline
Lebatron

Gotcha - sometimes we could all make do with a little less "New York" I suppose - you and I both included.

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 22
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/22/2005 6:11:20 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mcaryf

Hi Lebatron

Have you also considered the possibility of making Siam a frozen ally of the Japanese? My understanding is that this was closer to reality than Japan invading them.

They could be unfrozen on the turn that Japan either takes or perhaps just attacks Malaya.

Mike


Interesting idea, I havn't considered it. My primary reason for making Spain a frozen ally was to stop the gamey route to Gibraltar. The secondary reason was that it mimics history closer. Making Siam frozen really doesn't address any game flaws. Doing so would be for historical flavor like my secondary reason for making Spain frozen.

The nice thing for Japan is that it doesn't have to pay a supply fee to declare on Siam. Afterward it only has to repair the resource and optionally the rail. Are you suggesting this change to save Japan some repair costs? At a minimum it would save Japan 11 and if the rail was fixed too, then 21.

I'm not even sure this could be done without messing up the free trade with the US. I could give it a try if others think its a cool idea. I'd like to know more about Siam's role in the war if anyone wishes to comment and/or support what Mike said.

(in reply to mcaryf)
Post #: 23
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/22/2005 7:30:44 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdh1204

Well, I wouldn't say Germany was incapable of attacking Spain. Afterall, who do you think you are talking about? They declared war on everyone else. Although, making it a frozen ally works for me. My only point, as is ever my only point, is that mods are good if they improve the historical accuracy and realistic war-time functionality of a game. You don't make the ROCK of GIBRALTOR and MALTA a pansy-field just because you can't stop yourself MODING, right? Besides, both targets are captured if you plan for it.


Back many months ago when there was a lot of debates concerning Spain someone once said that in order for Hitler to declar war on Spain, Franco would have had to drive to Berlin and slap Hitler in the face to provoke an attack. That was funny, which is why I remember it. Basically most agreed that when you look at the political situation, Germany would not have declared on Spain and didn't for that matter.

You say a mod can only be good if it "improves the historical accuracy and realistic war-time functionality of a game." Making Spain frozen does exactly that. Because I removed Gibraltar's and Malta's rough terrain, that will not cause the game to play ahistorically. You don't seem to realize we are actually in agreement in our belief that Gibraltar should not fall without great German effort. That rough terrain your gripping about does nothing to save Gibraltar in the standard 1940 scenario because Germany goes through Spain. You really aught to be ripping on the 1940 scenario for allowing that, because it isn't historically accurate and screws up the realistic war-time functionality of the game as you put it. In my mod, if Spain remains frozen the only way to take Gibraltar is by sea. Even without the rough terrain its still very hard. Its also still a fortress in case you thought I may have removed that too. Basically the British would have to blunder to allow the Germans a reasonable chance to take it. When your playing my mod its entirely possible that Gibraltar will never fall. Can that be said of the standard campaign?

Let me quote what Oleg said about this topic long ago. "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."

In a game like Third Reich, Gibraltar and Malta take 4:1 IIRC. It is designed that way because there is a stacking limit. Only 2 infantry chits are allowed to stack, so the defence is boosted by the addition of a game machanic to make it really hard to take. In WAW there is no stacking limit, so the British can put 5 inf, 3 art, and 3 fighters for instance making the need for rough terrain unesessary. In fact WAW allows Gibraltar to have a very unrealistic defense capacity. By removing rough terrain my mod makes it more realistic than the 1940 secenario does. If 2by3 patched it so that there was a stacking limit at Gibraltar and Malta I would consider replacing the rough terrain. My final decision would depend on the size of the stack limit.

< Message edited by Lebatron -- 10/22/2005 7:54:40 PM >

(in reply to mdh1204)
Post #: 24
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/22/2005 7:42:26 PM   
JanSorensen

 

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline
As with all "what-ifs" both sides have merit. So, its more a matter of opinion than right or wrong as far as I am concerned. Considering many of the other things Hitler did do I dont think that attacking Spain is too far fetched. As I recall Hitler did ask Spain to join in the war but the Spanish answer was "sure, we just need x, y and z" which was too much. If Hitler had been in a bad mood I could easily see him saying "screw that - if they arent with me they are against me." As such I would not call either more historical accurate - just different views. As such I think you are off base. Not because your view is wrong - but because you fail to acknowledge that its just one possible view.

< Message edited by JanSorensen -- 10/22/2005 7:47:39 PM >

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 25
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/22/2005 10:37:42 PM   
mcaryf

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 7/11/2003
From: Uk
Status: offline
Hi Lebatron

What actually happened in Siam was that the Japanese landed in Singora on Dec 8th 1941. There was a very brief period of token resistance and then Siam allied itself with the Japanese Empire. The Japanese at a later date actually ceded control of part of their conquered territories in Malaya and French Indo-China to the Siamese. Once the war was obviously lost to Japan in 1944 the Siamese regime was overthrown by a pro-Western one in a way that was I guess rather similar to Italy but there is no doubt that the initial alliance with Japan reflected the real intentions of the Siamese government in 1941.

As you say it does not make much of a difference - in my only real foray as the Japanese so far I have left Siam unconquered as it saves the repair costs and potentially gets in the way for the WALLIES when they want to take Malaya back again. My suggestion was more on the basis of historic accuracy rather than game play.

Mike

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 26
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/23/2005 7:17:41 AM   
mdh1204

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 8/1/2005
Status: offline
Whatever - its your mod. Let me know if you fix Gibraltor and Malta and I'd be happy to try it sometime.

(in reply to mcaryf)
Post #: 27
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/23/2005 6:03:12 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
Ya, and let me know when the 1940 scenario fixes the Gibraltar problem and I might play that.

(in reply to mdh1204)
Post #: 28
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/23/2005 8:35:08 PM   
mdh1204

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 8/1/2005
Status: offline
... okay. BTW, Germany never took Gibraltor, so I don't know where you get off thinking there's a problem.
Also, I always take Gibraltor. Its very easy as it is...

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 29
RE: Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta - 10/24/2005 12:54:56 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
I think you are confusing yourself. Germany always takes Gibraltar by going though Spain. Thats the problem. I can't make it any more clear for you than that.

(in reply to mdh1204)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War >> Mods and Scenarios >> Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta 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

0.117