Franco's Alliance v2.4 is here

[Lebatron]

I have forgotten to mention that Franco's Alliance is even easier to install than before. It now installs like a patch. Nice and easy.

[veritech]

as an old A&A player i love ur mod but i think the makers of the game need to add many of the mods to the game and make it so they can be turned on and off like options, that was the thing about A&A everyone had ther own house rules and changes to the game.

[Petiloup]

Hi Lebatron,

Seems a nice work as everyone say so but got a problem installing this mod.

Have installed the game in another directory, added the patches till 1.201 then run your "patch" 2.4 but then there is a few changes added like some map changes but nothing on the Spain status or the Scenarios changes. Any idea what could cause this?

Tried to play a PBEM with Veritech and noticed that with his save I got the changes but not when I start a game myself. Then with him on turn 2 things get screwed with no production for China -zip- -zero-

Now the install is pretty simple so shouldn't be much a problem from there.

Kr,

[Lebatron]

Did you read the comments from above concerning install issues? I'm not really sure why some have issues and others find it a snap, but maybe you could get some clues from those posts. If you don't see the screen with the new scenarios replacing the old ones, then the issue may be you need to select the english language. I only made my mod for that language.

[Petiloup]

Now it's working but I had to figure that for you English language is the one under the American flag and not the British one

By the way I was just playing Franco Alliance in Solo and noticed that you changed the status of Spain as Germany Politically Frozen Ally but you forgot to change the status of Spain colonies like Spanish Marocco, Rio de Oro and Canary Island.

After taking Gibraltar Spain is now my active ally and if I go to Spanish Marocco the AI ask me if I want to attack Spain. A bit weird.

Hopefully you can address this in version 2.5 unless there is a reason or another way to change this I'm not aware of.

Sorry, but found out also that even Spain is on Germany side they still suffer from Partisan attacks. Seems Spanish people don't like Franco which might be right for some. Well not a big issue as it's still better to garrison Spain but still not logical.

Also last game I invaded Gibraltar as there was no british units there. Quite a flaw from the AI, never had that with the original game.

Still an awesome work, so not criticising just oberving what could be improved.

[Lebatron]

Hi Polonthi,
 

By the way I was just playing Franco Alliance in Solo and noticed that you changed the status of Spain as Germany Politically Frozen Ally but you forgot to change the status of Spain colonies like Spanish Marocco, Rio de Oro and Canary Island.

 
I had to change the status of the Spanish colonies because if you play the regular PBEM version the WA AI will attack Spanish Morrocco and therefore unfreeze Spain. The AI sees this area as an undefended German territory rather than a neutral and has no idea of the political consequences of doing so. By changing these areas back to stock and only making Spain German color, the AI will play properly. It's the large garrison in Spain that deters the AI from attacking it.
 

After taking Gibraltar Spain is now my active ally and if I go to Spanish Marocco the AI ask me if I want to attack Spain. A bit weird. Hopefully you can address this in version 2.5 unless there is a reason or another way to change this I'm not aware of.

 
I agree it may seem a bit weird, but since I removed the 5 supply DOW fee for Germany this really has no impact on the game at all. You could also just assume that the question is not really, do you wish to declare war on Spain, but rather asking for permission to enter your new allies territory.
 

Sorry, but found out also that even Spain is on Germany side they still suffer from Partisan attacks. Seems Spanish people don't like Franco which might be right for some. Well not a big issue as it's still better to garrison Spain but still not logical.

 
Well I could remedy that by dropping Spain's Pop to zero but then that would not feel right. This is only an issue with the solo scenario BTW. In practice this should never be an issue anyway since Spain should be garrisoned by 3 or more troops. These could be 3 out of the 4 militia it starts with and the remaining 3 infantry and 1 militia could go out and do some expeditionary missions in North Africa for instance. As you point out you can't pull them all out as you could using the PBEM scenario, but that would not be a good idea anyway. But I will see what can be done to address this in the next version. However if I recall correctly changing this did cause the WA AI to attack Spainish Morrocco, but I will retest to refresh my memory on this issue.
 

Also last game I invaded Gibraltar as there was no british units there. Quite a flaw from the AI, never had that with the original game.

 
I just ran the regular game several times with all AI on, and most of the time it did indeed totally abandon Gibraltar on the first turn. This is not a problem specific to my mod. In fact when I just ran my mod several times to check this it did not abandon Gibraltar on turn one. I think it kept them troops there because the AI detects the Germans in Spain and hence keeps a bit of a garrison there. Upon later turns the garrision fluctuates up and down under both versions. As you point out it can be easy to outsmart the AI and get Gibraltar very easy. So if you wish to have a better and more challenging experience try to ignore the AI's mishaps in this reguard and leave Gibraltar alone.
 
 
 

[Petiloup]

Hi Lebatron,

I had to change the status of the Spanish colonies because if you play the regular PBEM version the WA AI will attack Spanish Morrocco and therefore unfreeze Spain. The AI sees this area as an undefended German territory rather than a neutral and has no idea of the political consequences of doing so. By changing these areas back to stock and only making Spain German color, the AI will play properly. It's the large garrison in Spain that deters the AI from attacking it.

Ok got it but in the PBEM game then we could fix this as by definition only the Chinese player would be AI if no one want to play it or to avoid China to be too important. The AI uses his forces less efficiently which is the less to say.

I agree it may seem a bit weird, but since I removed the 5 supply DOW fee for Germany this really has no impact on the game at all. You could also just assume that the question is not really, do you wish to declare war on Spain, but rather asking for permission to enter your new allies territory.

The impact is that you need to do an invasion so use more transport units to do that. Still can be annoying if you need your ships to do something else.

Well I could remedy that by dropping Spain's Pop to zero but then that would not feel right. This is only an issue with the solo scenario BTW. In practice this should never be an issue anyway since Spain should be garrisoned by 3 or more troops. These could be 3 out of the 4 militia it starts with and the remaining 3 infantry and 1 militia could go out and do some expeditionary missions in North Africa for instance. As you point out you can't pull them all out as you could using the PBEM scenario, but that would not be a good idea anyway. But I will see what can be done to address this in the next version. However if I recall correctly changing this did cause the WA AI to attack Spainish Morrocco, but I will retest to refresh my memory on this issue.

You are right that once Spain joins Germany it would be silly to loose it by under garrisoning it (is it English?) so not an issue, just a logical/cosmetic one.

I just ran the regular game several times with all AI on, and most of the time it did indeed totally abandon Gibraltar on the first turn. This is not a problem specific to my mod. In fact when I just ran my mod several times to check this it did not abandon Gibraltar on turn one. I think it kept them troops there because the AI detects the Germans in Spain and hence keeps a bit of a garrison there. Upon later turns the garrision fluctuates up and down under both versions. As you point out it can be easy to outsmart the AI and get Gibraltar very easy. So if you wish to have a better and more challenging experience try to ignore the AI's mishaps in this reguard and leave Gibraltar alone.

Agreed and that's why playing against the AI is not much fun anymore. Always end up with a complete Axis or Allies victory depending which side I play. Last time even got Germany invading Hawai from the US West Coast as in 1941/1942 there is really nothing on the East Coast and the SOV player is not quite good. Not counting that the AI seems at a loss to see German ships cruising on the US coasts.

I know you can increase the difficulty but somehow I feel it's not the same feeling to make it difficult than to have to outwit your opponent.

Kr,

[dobeln]

"I know you can increase the difficulty but somehow I feel it's not the same feeling to make it difficult than to have to outwit your opponent. "

If I play the AI (I rarely do), I pump up the difficulty and then try to prevail while only playing Japan. Quite a challenge!

[Petiloup]

ORIGINAL: dobeln

"I know you can increase the difficulty but somehow I feel it's not the same feeling to make it difficult than to have to outwit your opponent. "

If I play the AI (I rarely do), I pump up the difficulty and then try to prevail while only playing Japan. Quite a challenge!

You are right and I didn't say it was not a challenge just that playing against an AI even stronger is still playing against an AI. This is the beauty of a wargame when someone can pull a nice move with the same odds than anyone else and most of the time a computer is not able of that. Once you see the pattern of actions used by the AI it's easy to win. Pumping up the difficulty makes it harder because the AI is stronger not smarter. He will still do the same stupid moves but had some more muscles to make them work. That's it. Kind of brain over matter issue

[PanzerKampfwagen]

Hello again Lebatron, it's me, PanzerKampfwagen, and I'm getting ready to install your Franco's Alliance mod.
As you say, it converts GG's WaW from risk to WW II, and it looks like it'll be really fun to play. [:D]
However, I had four quick questions that I would like to ask first:

1) In the newer patches, the population point in Bulgaria was eliminated. In your Franco's Alliance version 2.4 readme, you say that you put a factory in Bulgaria. Can this factory never produce anything but supplies and research [&:] ? Or does your mod undo the population point change and set it back to the way it was?

2) In the newer patches, Gibraltar was made into a port that could only be accessed from the Mediterranean. If this is also true in Franco's Alliance, then it would be impossible to avoid the interdiction points coming from Spain. Does your mod undo this change as well?

3) Can you attack the Dutch East Indies, Burma, etc. ( In other words any country in the Pacific owned by a European power except maybe Australia ) without bringing the U.S. into the war? Historically, the U.S. wouldn't have batted an eye if the Japanese took these places other than to cut off their 3 free resource points per turn and maybe make a lot of diplomatic yelling and screaming and other officially angry gestures that the Japanese wouldn't have heeded anyway.

4) What is the status of the Italian surrender rules in your mod? I really don't like the Italian surrender rules that say you can make Italy surrender just by taking over Tripoli and Sicily. That's big-time metagaming if you ask me. The Italians were indeed nothing more than demoralized militia for the most part [8|] ( just read any history of the North African campaign ), but they weren't so craven as to just give up because they lost Tripoli and Sicily.

Thanks in advance for any answers you can provide to these questions. I would really appreciate it. [;)]

-PanzerKampfwagen

[Petiloup]

1) In the newer patches, the population point in Bulgaria was eliminated. In your Franco's Alliance version 2.4 readme, you say that you put a factory in Bulgaria. Can this factory never produce anything but supplies and research [&:] ? Or does your mod undo the population point change and set it back to the way it was?

Not Lebatron but can answer something as the factory is in Hungary not Bulgaria.

3) Can you attack the Dutch East Indies, Burma, etc. ( In other words any country in the Pacific owned by a European power except maybe Australia ) without bringing the U.S. into the war? Historically, the U.S. wouldn't have batted an eye if the Japanese took these places other than to cut off their 3 free resource points per turn and maybe make a lot of diplomatic yelling and screaming and other officially angry gestures that the Japanese wouldn't have heeded anyway.

You can't and you may be right for the Dutch East Indies but Burma was British and the US migth have done more than screaming there.

4) What is the status of the Italian surrender rules in your mod? I really don't like the Italian surrender rules that say you can make Italy surrender just by taking over Tripoli and Sicily. That's big-time metagaming if you ask me. The Italians were indeed nothing more than demoralized militia for the most part [8|] ( just read any history of the North African campaign ), but they weren't so craven as to just give up because they lost Tripoli and Sicily.

Isn't 3 out of 4 of those region Northern Italy, Southern Italy, Tripoly, Sicily to trigger the Italian surrender? This is what happened in WW2 the allies took Tripoly, Sicily then Southern Italy and the Italians did beg for mercy.

Now I don't agree with your statement of Italian troops being a bunch of demoralized militia. I think the Italian soldiers is not considered at his just value most of the time. They were good soldiers but they were under equiped and with obsolete guns, planes and tanks then their officers were, at least on the high command, a joke at last their training was not good enough. Even despite all this they fought well in North Africa especially if you read the Battle of the Cauldron where the Italians did push through the British lines who were fortified as much as they could. Not bad for a bunch of militia. About training you can read about the Folgore Italian paratroops unit that was trained in Germany and where considered an elite unit even by other nations standard.

So when you fight 3 years with bad equipment, bad training and bad officers but you still fight in North Africa, in Russia, in Yugoslavia and so on it tells you what the Italian army could have done with the same standard of the German army. (look at the Italian tanks and you must be incredibly brave to go fight British tanks with those). Just one moment enough is enough as there is so much punishment you can take before you surrender.

As a note I'm not Italian, I'm Belgian and nothing to say about our army as we didn't have a chance to fight long enough to prove anything

[PanzerKampfwagen]

Many thanks, Polonthi, for replying.

However, I made a mistake in asking my first question, because I actually meant to say Hungary, not Bulgaria. [:-]

In the newer patches, the population point in Bulgaria was eliminated. In the Franco's Alliance version 2.4 readme, it says that a new factory was put in Bulgaria. Can this factory never produce anything but supplies and research? Or does the mod undo the population point change and set it back to the way it was?

In this question, I actually meant to say Hungary instead of Bulgaria, because in the newer patches, Hungary's population point was eliminated.

Can you attack the Dutch East Indies, Burma, etc. ( In other words any country in the Pacific owned by a European power except maybe Australia ) without bringing the U.S. into the war?

You can't and you may be right for the Dutch East Indies but Burma was British and the US might have done more than screaming there.

If the U.S. didn't do anything when Britain itself was about to be conquered, what makes you think they would have screamed louder about Burma? I don't think they would have done anything, even if the Japanese had invaded Australia, had it not been for Pearl Harbor. It just wouldn't have been politically possible for Roosevelt to declare war before either the Japanese or the Germans committed an act of aggression directly against the U.S.

Don't you have to conquer 3 out of 4 of those regions, ( Northern Italy, Southern Italy, Tripoli, and Sicily) to trigger the Italian surrender?

No, I looked it up in the patch documentation, and it's only two. Thus you can force the Italians to surrender just by taking Sicily and Tripoli. [:@]

Now I don't agree with your statement of Italian troops being a bunch of demoralized militia. I think the Italian soldiers is not considered at his just value most of the time. They were good soldiers but they were under equipped and with obsolete guns, planes and tanks then their officers were, at least on the high command, a joke.

I'd agree that the officers were a joke and that the training and equipment were terrible, but the mark of a good soldier is one who can fight even if he isn't being told what to do, even if he hasn't been well trained, and even if he hasn't got any weapon more dangerous than an old, obsolete rifle. remember what the Russians did? There commanders were also a joke, they also had terrible training, and although they had good weaponry, they often didn't know how to use it. And yet, despite all this, they put up a good fight anyway and blasted the Germans time and again.

look at the Italian tanks, and you must be incredibly brave to go fight British tanks with those.

Sure, but the Russians commonly charged Tigers and Panthers at long range with T-34's, T-70's, and other tanks that were often almost useless against the German panzers, especially at the long ranges common on the Russian front. The T-34's were just wrecked in heaps more often than not, and yet the Russians just kept on coming anyway.

In this respect, I think that the Italians were indeed demoralized, because otherwise they would have fought on hard anyway despite their lack of weapons, training, and leadership. I know that some people might argue that they were demoralized because they were being forced to fight in a war that most of them hadn't wanted in the first place, and that there was no hope for them. However, the same thing can be said for many Germans, and many of them just kept on fighting anyway ( except right at the end, where some of them did start to surrender ), whereas the Italians just gave up en masse and surrendered as soon as things started to look bad for them. A good soldier is one who just keeps on fighting until there is no hope left, no matter what the odds. When the Germans invaded Belgium in 1914, even though the Belgians were hopelessly outnumbered, did they just throw down their weapons and run away, begging for mercy? No, of course not. Along with the British Expeditionary Force, the fought the Germans all the way through Belgium and seriously delayed them, allowing the French the time they needed to throw together an army to stop the Germans before they just rolled over all of France. I never remember the Italians doing anything like that.

In the end, I think we must conclude that the Italians were born to be the world's greatest artists, not necessarily the world's greatest warriors. The vast majority of Italians just don't have a warlike nature, and they tend to prefer peace a lot more ( which is also good in many ways ). [;)]

[Petiloup]

In this question, I actually meant to say Hungary instead of Bulgaria, because in the newer patches, Hungary's population point was eliminated.

Oups, then good question.

If the U.S. didn't do anything when Britain itself was about to be conquered, what makes you think they would have screamed louder about Burma? I don't think they would have done anything, even if the Japanese had invaded Australia, had it not been for Pearl Harbor. It just wouldn't have been politically possible for Roosevelt to declare war before either the Japanese or the Germans committed an act of aggression directly against the U.S.

Well you are right that in 1939 Roosevelt declared his neutrality towards the conflict in Europe but I think nobody expected France to get smashed so fast. That changes the deal in the game a bit and since that moment you see Roosevelt trying whatever he can get away with to help Great Britain. In 1941 he was already politically a lot more active than in 1939 because he saw the Germany had to be stopped. Might not have been easy but I'm sure he was looking for someone to do the first mistake so he can do a speech to push his people to war to help democracy and bla bla bla. In WWI it needed the Lusitania event and the sub war in general to push US into the war but they did came finaly. And in 1917 the US were a lot more isolationist than during WW2 so might have taken more time but they would have go in one moment or the other. Now as you said this is about gut feelings and we can speak about it for ages and never agree. The only think I'm sure of is that if you find a way to make the people of the US angry or make them think they fight for a good reason they will do it.

Don't you have to conquer 3 out of 4 of those regions, ( Northern Italy, Southern Italy, Tripoli, and Sicily) to trigger the Italian surrender? No, I looked it up in the patch documentation, and it's only two. Thus you can force the Italians to surrender just by taking Sicily and Tripoli. [:@]

Didn't look but if so it's a bit easy.

remember what the Russians did? There commanders were also a joke, they also had terrible training, and although they had good weaponry, they often didn't know how to use it. And yet, despite all this, they put up a good fight anyway and blasted the Germans time and again.

True enough and it cost them 10+ millions dead to do it. Take out the manpower of Russia and they would have been speaking German by now. What saved Russia is their numbers, the space and the winter. Then if they didn't attack some Political Commissar would have killed them anyway. Watch the movie Stalingrad and you'll get the idea. Give 10 millions soldiers lives to Mussolini to throw against the British and it would have been over also. Well maybe not, their officers were really bad anyway

In this respect, I think that the Italians were indeed demoralized, because otherwise they would have fought on hard anyway despite their lack of weapons, training, and leadership. I know that some people might argue that they were demoralized because they were being forced to fight in a war that most of them hadn't wanted in the first place, and that there was no hope for them. However, the same thing can be said for many Germans, and many of them just kept on fighting anyway ( except right at the end, where some of them did start to surrender ), whereas the Italians just gave up en masse and surrendered as soon as things started to look bad for them. A good soldier is one who just keeps on fighting until there is no hope left, no matter what the odds. When the Germans invaded Belgium in 1914, even though the Belgians were hopelessly outnumbered, did they just throw down their weapons and run away, begging for mercy? No, of course not. Along with the British Expeditionary Force, the fought the Germans all the way through Belgium and seriously delayed them, allowing the French the time they needed to throw together an army to stop the Germans before they just rolled over all of France. I never remember the Italians doing anything like that.

I agree with you for your statement and by the way thanks for defending the Belgian army. It's true the Italian did surrendered countless times in mass and they were even pushed away by the Greek army so it's true they were not the greatest soldier in the world during WW2. Now I still believe it's mostly due to the fact that the Italian leaders didn't take the war business as seriously as the germans, the russians, the british and the US or in their very odd way the Japanese (sorry if I forget someone). True enough the Italian had the Roman Empire and after that nothing to prove anymore it seems. But with the right leaders I still wonder if it might not have been totally different.

At least I agree with your last words, we need more people prefering peace than war.

[PanzerKampfwagen]

Don't you have to conquer 3 out of 4 of those regions, ( Northern Italy, Southern Italy, Tripoli, and Sicily) to trigger the Italian surrender?

Yes, actually you are right. I misunderstood the game manual.

At least I agree with your last words, we need more people preferring peace than war.

Yes, but we should make sure that we have plenty of weapons around in case we have to slug it out with somebody who is causing trouble. We certainly don't want to get caught off guard if somebody like Adolf Hitler appears again. As Teddy Roosevelt said: "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." What he meant was that it is always best to speak softly and diplomatically if possible, but if someone comes along who isn't willing to listen and insists on creating trouble, then it is always a good idea to have a big stick around ( a large military ) to crack down on the head of anyone who is trying to disturb the peace. If you don't have a military capable of enforcing the peace, you won't have peace for very long.

[Lebatron]

Hi Panzer,
As you probably found out by now Hungary does indeed has a pop point to go along with its factory. Now, if you wish, you may build a militia every other turn.
 
I left the port of Gibraltar in its original configuration, because as you point out, it's necessary to duck in and out of that port to clear points you get from Spain.
 
Changing the US unfreeze condition so that Japan can attack the Dutch without bringing the US in would greatly disrupt play balance. That would be 6 additional resources that Japan could capture without going to war with a major power. Which would place them at around 20 production before the end of 1940! If you do the math this extra production mutiplied over the turns that it came to early and you would get something like 30 more additional production over the war years. Imagine what you could do with that to slow any US advance. I'm afraid such a change would end up causing a decisive Axis victory every game. 

[PanzerKampfwagen]

The only reason I asked about the Dutch East Indies was that I typically play WaW with "no end date" and "no auto-victory". Because of this, I end up fighting the war out to the finish ( I once played a PBEM game that went on until about 1955, when the Axis were finally wiped out ). I have found that it's almost impossible for the Axis to win in a PBEM game if there are no auto victories and no end date, so in this case more Japanese production wouldn't cause any balance problems. In fact, it would help restore balance to long games. [;)]

[a511]

i agree with panzer on US reaction if Dutch East Indies or Burma were invaded by JP. imo, its more historically accurate.
but given the existing system, there is little we can do.
 
however, i wish that panzer's pt is seriously considered in WAW II!!
 
 

[Petiloup]

ORIGINAL: a511
i agree with panzer on US reaction if Dutch East Indies or Burma were invaded by JP. imo, its more historically accurate.
but given the existing system, there is little we can do.

however, i wish that panzer's pt is seriously considered in WAW II!!

In fact unless playing against the AI you can do anything you want in WAW and modif the politics as you see fit.

Let's say you wish to use a similar rules for the Dutch East Indies than for Indochina saying that if the Netherland surrender then the German would force access to the Dutch East Indies for the Japanese. As the Netherland might surrender if the UK is invaded thinking the war was lost then you could unfreeze this region when London and Scotland falls for example. Then even if the mechanics of the game would allow the US to go on war with Japan you would just define a house rule to say that he can't move any US units before official War with Japan or Germany as per normal rules of WAW.

That way you could even devise a flexible entry for the US like in World in Flame. Just say that the entry is Winter 1943 and if the Japanese occupies the Dutch East Indies then it's one turn early in Fall 1942. As the US will be unfreezed as well they could provoke war when the date is reached.

Then you could say that if the UK declares war to Portugal or another Neutral or Frozen German ally it goes 1 turn later to represent being unpopular with the US people.

As I say this is impossible for the AI to cope with but between humans and with some house rules we could make politics a viable process in GGWAW.

[mikwarleo]

Link in your first post in this thread to file is dead. Please advise where I can get mod. Thanks!

[Edit] -- googled it but you may want to fix link? [:)]

[Heinz Guderian]

Since Germany does not have much to do after the fall of France while waiting for the build-up to Barbarossa, many players will use this time to conquere Spain and Gibraltar. While that may make sense if your playing RISK it does not if your playing WW2. You would be ignoring political reality and be guilty of metagaming

This is utterly hirlarious, calling someone 'quilty' of employing there forces in a manner they see fit in order to pursue valid strategic objectives. By guilt do you mean guitly of prefroming an act that violates your conscience in some manner(IE i feel quilty about takeing candy from that baby, oya and invadeing spain as well)?, or guilty in the legal sense of the word. IE 'By Invadeing Spain to get at Gibralter, contrary to Lebatrons wishes, he is guilty of a criminal offence and will be punished to the full extent of the law??. You may not be aware but Franco was prepared early on to join Germany fully, when it appeared axis victory was assured, IOW as far as Franco was concerend, it would have been a win win for him. Hitler however, didnt really press the issue not wanting to cut Spain in for a 'piece of the action' so to speak. And why should he? He was on a roll and didnt really see Spains help was needed. Once Germany began to suffer set-backs however, Franco changed his mind on the full-alliance issue and the window-of-opportunity was closed.

Tho your mod looks interesting in some ways, its this arrogant, presumptuos attitude that means I have no interest in trying your mod, though, otherwise, I would have. I understand AWD will have a full open-ended setup in which artifical constraints will not be present. Allowing for a full-range of stategies to be pursued.


Guilt is for the weak