Campaign Barbarossa v0.8.1

[SpicyJuan]

Is this Nigel Askey's project?

No this is Jacks project, Nigel is an author, Jack is this scenarios creator aka the fightin Squirrel

What I meant to say is that I know Nigel has been working with other modders to create a scenario for his research. Is this that scenario?

[Lobster]

It started out as part of Nigel's plan to include a scenrio with his last book. However his life took a different path and he suspended his last volumes for a period of time. Not heard from him for some time. The book on the Axis Allies is still not published so I didn't have the information concerning thier replacements. Since I had already done so much work on the scenario I went ahead and finished with what I could get from other sources. The equipment and OOB are still from his work. I'm going to post an update in a couple of days and it should be very close to being done.

[Lobster]

New version available. Did some cleaning up of the OOB and rules. Made everything in Romania static until the turn they are able to move. Some other little odds and ends.

[Lobster]

New version 0.7.
Edited PVO at Moscow.
Set all Axis units in Romania to static until turn 8. I had them set to move freely even though they were not supposed to. This removes any questions as to whether or not they can move.
Some Soviet units were not set to static so fixed them.

There were some questions about the rail movement limits. Seems most people are used to half week turns and thought the rail points were rather limited. But since these are one day turns then multiply them by 3.5 days and you actually have a great number of rail points compared to scenarios with half or full week turns.

[Zovs]

New version 0.7.
Edited PVO at Moscow.
Set all Axis units in Romania to static until turn 8. I had them set to move freely even though they were not supposed to. This removes any questions as to whether or not they can move.
Some Soviet units were not set to static so fixed them.

There were some questions about the rail movement limits. Seems most people are used to half week turns and thought the rail points were rather limited. But since these are one day turns then multiply them by 3.5 days and you actually have a great number of rail points compared to scenarios with half or full week turns.

Thanks for the update Jack!

[Dodo98]

Jack, thank you so much for this scenario! I've been waiting for years for this masterpiece, and now it's finally here. Though, I have one small remark. For the starting areas of the german army, did you have access to the Border Battle Atlas of David Glantz? I'm asking, because he has some excellent maps in it, which show very clearly the deployment area of each Division on the morning of June 22nd. And if I compare his maps with your deployment areas, I can see some minor inconsistencies. It would be great, if you could change some of the starting positions based on those maps. I think Glantz is a pretty trustworthy source. I'd happily provide you with pictures of those maps if you are interested.

[Lobster]

For the Germans I used the OKH large situation map for the morning of 6 June 1941, some Soviet situation maps that were somewhat narrow in the areas covered among a handful of others. Probably a little over a dozen maps in total. If you have something more go ahead and put it up and I'll take a look at it. But no maps I've seen show the deployment of division assets across the entire front. They show where a division was deployed but not individual regiments or assets belonging to a division except in a handful of cases. As far as corps, army, army group and rear area assets there are only generalizations.

A couple of notes concerning the Soviets.
The engineering forces for Soviet units deployed near the frontier were presumed to be assigned to building the Molotov line. Supposedly they were all pow or kia in short order. I'm still debating with removing them from Soviet units but I don't have complete information regarding how true this was.
The Soviet fortifications along the Stalin line were stripped of equipment and many fortifications were in poor shape. The stripped equipment was reported as in warehouses to be used in the Molotov line. So the Machine Gun/Artillery Battalions that are listed in the Soviet OOB for the Molotov line must not have had their equipment. They were supposed to be stationed in barracks near their future areas of deployment. But there is no clear information as to whether or not they had access to any equipment at all. And in any event how much could they actually use equipment that was taken out of fortifications? It's not like the artillery or machine guns were made for movement in the field. If you've seen these weapons you would know what I mean. I'm still considering taking out at least all of the artillery and AT guns. Maybe all of the Maxims. Just make them light rifle squads except for the few that had completed fortifications to man.

It's still a work in progress.

[Lobster]

Before you post any of Mr. Glantz's maps you need to be sure there is no copyright problem with doing that.

[Dodo98]

I've sent you a PM.

[Lobster]

Campaign Barbarossa v0.8
Thanks to some information provided by Dodo98 and some information in the Charles Sharp Soviet Order of Battles series I've repositioned some Axis and Soviet units. About the only thing left is to make some minor TOE changes provided by Dodo98 and that will make this ready for v1.0 and out of beta. Of course with something this big there will always be room for improvement. Also trimmed down the Graphics Override file so it all fits in this forum and no more Dropbox or Google. The file can be had in the OP.

[Lobster]

v0.8.1 fixed some unfinished replacement issues in v0.8

[Curtis Lemay]

Scenario Complexity value: 1269192.25 = jumping into second place, edging out World at War, but still eating FITE's dust.

[Lobster]

I was hoping for something in the six digit range. Fail.

I think if I make a version minus all the rear area paraphernalia I could get to six digits but that thought of all that math gives me a headache.

[rhinobones]

Scenario Complexity value: 1269192.25 = jumping into second place, edging out World at War, but still eating FITE's dust.

The inputs used for the complexity calculation has always seemed to generate a number which has little meaning. For fun I used my own methodology and came up with the number totals shown below. These are real numbers extracted from the scenario editor and “gam” file. The numbers represent player decision points and total pieces which must be strategically/tactically positioned each turn; to me that equates to complexity. I looked at Barbarossa 8.1, FITE2 and for comparison D. McBride’s Drang Nach Osten.

I agree, overall FITE2 is more complex. However, I found the reason for the complexity a bit surprising. Although the total number of formations is quite close (FITE2 +4.2% greater), the total number of individual units for FITE2 is much greater (+20.5%). Also, FITE2 has 91 Theater Options to Barbarossa’s zero giving the FITE2 player a bounty of decisions points. To me, Theater Options is a big contributor to scenario complexity.

I added Drang Nach Osten to the analysis as a comparison. It illustrates that complexity and quality must be evaluated separately.

Barb 8.1
Formations: 1374
Units: 9806
Theater Ops: 0

FITE2
Formations: 1433
Units: 11818
Theater Ops: 91

Drang
Formations: 504
Units: 3544
Theater Ops: 18

Regards

[Curtis Lemay]

The shot shown details the factors the game uses to determine Scenario Complexity. (I added Daniel's other big one - Gotterdammerung - as another example).

Daniel's two examples have much smaller unit counts, much smaller maps, much smaller event lists, and much shorter turn counts - all of which impact complexity.

[Lobster]

This scenario covers a much more limited amount of time and area. I could have had a TO that allowed the Fins to continue their offensive past the point they did and have them enter on the north edge. But they didn't do that . I could have had a TO to allow the Soviets to not participate in the invasion of Iran and allow them to use those units against the Germans. But they didn't do that. I could have had a TO to allow a non agression pact between Turkey and the USSR so the Soviets could take more units from that border. But they didn't do that. I could have had a TO to allow the Soviets to move more units out of the Far East at the cost of Victory Points. But they didn't do that. I could have allowed the Germans to release all of the armor that was being held back to build up depleted Panzer units. But they didn't do that.

There are many Theater Options that could have been thrown in to allow things to happen that never did happen but this scenario is an attempt to see if people can acheive what the Germans could not and to do that it's necessary to keep the fictional things out as much as possible not only because that's what Nigel wanted but because it was something I wanted also. It's bad enough I'm allowing the Soviets massive control of how they build their army based on what they actually received or had in the way of equipment and man power. It's bad enough I made a minimal effort vis a vis Finland. I still need to find a way there without a TO. Too bad pestilence can't be applied to a formation or area seperately.

So all in all I'm not completely happy with this scenario but I'm never completely happy with any sceanrio I've worked on. However I think it's a good attempt and should be interesting to play for people who want to play the Barbarossa campaign without too much fictional history thrown in while allowing them to make some strategic/operational decisions contrary to what happened based on what is happening in their game at any given time. If the Soviet player wants to keep the mech divisons instead of turning them into foot divisions they can. Or maybe just keep the motorized regiments and disband the armor. Maybe keep the tank regiments in the armor divisions and disband the infantry. Maybe disband the recon units in the Mech Corps so they can be used in other units giving them a recon boost. Not much different than a TO. In any event I saw no reason for any TOs just for the sake of having them.

[Cpl GAC]

It's just so well done. I study the map and OOBs for extended periods. Fascinating.

Has anyone waded into it yet and is willing to give us comments?

[Cpl GAC]

Did anyone else have to go in and re-save the SCE file as v08.1 to get the graphics override to work? I screw around with files so much that it might be a user error, but mine was missing the ".1"

[Cpl GAC]

Apparently, the game doesn't like long rail bridges. If you look at Riga's ports, the Northwestern port units supplied via rail bridge over the wide mouth of the Bullupe River is out of supply on turn 2.

That whole left bank has no supply. I'm canceling my trip to Daugavgriva beach this summer.

[Lobster]

Apparently, the game doesn't like long rail bridges. If you look at Riga's ports, the Northwestern port units supplied via rail bridge over the wide mouth of the Bullupe River is out of supply on turn 2.

That whole left bank has no supply. I'm canceling my trip to Daugavgriva beach this summer.

Yeah long standing bug never been fixed. Supply across all water hexed works for roads but not for rail. I'm going to remove the water hexes at Riga to fix it. Something you didn't notice was the weirdness of cease fire turns. If you look at Kronshtadt you'll notice the supply at the forts is only 4. But as soon as the cease fire ends it jumps up to the low 60s. I'll put supply points in each of those spots so no one leaves.

Thanks for pointing those things out.

Okay Kronshtadt forts supply points increased to 8 from 6 and Riga rail bridges across all water hexes are gone.