"Beta" Massive WW2 scenario

[MamboJoel]

The game 'Combat Mission' (a simultaneous turn base tactical game generating videos for combat sequences) could give you a good idea of very specific units abilities (if you need more infos about SP Guns for examples) for a lot of contries involved in WW2 (from italians to fins).
http://www.battlefront.com
All inf and vehicules are very precisely decribed and you can find lods of mods in the community sites for inspiration in art work.
Great game by the way.
I'm webmaster of the french sites http://www.appuifeu.com that can be interesting for french speacking players that want to know more about units in ww2.
Tx again for the work.
Nicolas
PS: a SS of a panther

 

[Meateater]

Thanks for the help on units everyone. I put in some base stats so all the planes and tanks have stats. I am testing and had to change some stats for some units after the first try. Like Rocoteh said the air units should have at least 4 range points. After changing some stats and re testing I was pleased to see the the AI was building more of the units that I wanted them to. There is still some more work to do with the units stats but I feel that it will work and I should have an update in a day or so.

Rocoteh I read some of that thread and need to read the rest, it is a helpful one. During my early tests with this scenario I was surprised at what units the AI was building. An example would be Germany had the choise to build 7 different tanks at some point, sometimes more than one kind at the same time. After they reached the Tiger 2 they built that tank but would mix it up and build Panzer 2,3,4, Panthers, and Tigers, and not just the Tiger 2. So after I get all the units stats adjusted it may make for an interesting/help full post on that thread.

 

[Rocoteh]

Meateater,

I have spend some time working with the ACW-revision,
but I hope find time tomorrow to continue to playtest
this scenario.

Its very interesting to follow AI-buiding strategys.
It seems there should be no idea to have more
than 3 "build often".

AI can be unpredictable: In my personal mod (I have not
worked with it for some time now) one CIV builds
only F-16 and B-52, and use them to attack railroads!

I have heard that AI in Conquests will be better.
I hope that is correct.
Let us hope that the new AI will be able to build
a broad range of units.

Keep up the good work

Rocoteh

 

[MamboJoel]

Anyway, it's quite a good thing Germans keep mixing KTs with Pz IV. Again, my memory: King Tigers were quite marginal. By the time they were on the field the gremans mostly had Pz IV, Stug III, Hetzers, a few (comparitivly of course) Pz V and Tiger I.

 

[Meateater]

Yeah I got less time to work on the scenario than I thought so I was not able to get in all the unit stats.

Rocoteh I agree with you and have seen the AI build in a different order than I would have expected. One thing I have noticed is that the AI will build the best unit it can first (after the first cheapest defensive unit) and then look at the secondary units and build them later (if the units are of value, but if the unit has little value the AI shuns it.). If the units are about the same value then the AI seems to build them both. I read all of that thread you pointed me too and it was well worth the read and is helping me with the units.
I have been able to get a civ to produce some heavy bombers, dive bombers and some medium bombers and fighters. I will post some results soon on that thread on how this was achieved. Along with some other things I have noticed with testing. Its hard to get a good test with only 10 or 20 turns so when I was testing it was for 50 turns at the least.

Edit: all testing was done with debug mode on.

Also if you look in the default setting and see how many flags are checked for build ofton you will see that a few civs have more than 3 flagged checked. So I think having 3 flags or less checked is going to help limit what priorities the AI has when building, but unless you check never build the AI will build what is of priority first, offence,defence,air power. Once the AI has built thier military to its liking then it will build improvments. I have the U.S. flagged 5 times, offense, defense, air power, production, and science. After building thier military they focus on production and science, since these were checked.

Two things real quick, I know you are having trouble with artillery, and getting it to go offensive. I found the AI loves captured artillery and used it to bomb enemy roads and then marched it to the city and hammed away at the city.

Also when I was testing, I know when a civ goes to war the production will change. So I declared war on the U.S. from eroupe to see how production would change and having the same flags checked as mentioned above, the U.S. stats producing ships in all of its harbor cities, with a few exceptions( these cities were only a few turns away from completing buildings ) But I was surprized at this because they still had the hudge navy they started with. So going to war with another civ over sea's may produce a navy.

MamboJoel this is what I was hoping for also. The reason I think the AI will still build the Panzers is because of the cost and the fact that the unit still has some offensive value when compared with some of the defensive units in the game still.

 

[Rocoteh]

Meateater,

I think your testings of AI-building strategy are very
interesting and I am looking forward to read more
about the results.

Yes, its a real problem that AI can not handle artillery
in offensives in a correct way. Let us hope that Conquests
will change that. As AI function now, you can not for
example recreate the Soviet use of artillery during WW2.

I also hope that AI air units will attack ground units
more often in Conquests than it does now.
Its true that airpower have had an important role
in attacks on infrastucture since WW2.

...but its also true that most offensives launched (since WW2)
without Air-superiority have failed.
One can note that during the wars between Arabs and Israel
the most critical period for Israel was during the October-war
initial phase when a combination of SAM:s and not to forget
the deadly AA-gun Shilka contested Israel:s Air-superiority.

Right now most of my CIV-time goes to the revision of ACW
where after more research I have very accurate Order of
Battle for Manassas/Bull Run. The rest of the time (and that is a
large share) goes to playtest this scenario.
I hope to come with a playtest-report some days from now.


Best Regards


Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

Meateater,

I think Soviet should have elite spies instead of
regular. When Germany launched the Barbarossa-campaign
in June 1941, several Soviet spies in Germany had send
reports that the attack was coming, although Stalin
choosed to ignore the reports.

When Germany had the so called "last chance" at Kursk
1943, Soviet spies had provided Stalin and the Soviet
High Command with Germanys operative plans before
the attack started.
Considering that one can wonder if Kursk really was a
last chance.

Edit: After that Kirov had been murdered December 1934,
countless of old communists were shot as "nazi-spies".
Probably not a single one of them was guilty.
Their "confessions" were the result of the "work"
done by the torture-masters in Ljubjanka.


Best Regards

Rocoteh

 

[Meateater]

Rocoteh I agree
I am also looking forward to the release of Conquest to add some flavor to scenarios. Not to mention it will give me an excuse to put this scenario down for a few seconds and play a new game. Thats whats hard about making your own scenario, no time for new civ games that would take two months to finish.

I have been doing more testing and see that the ship and overseas war combo may have been a fluke.

I have most of the early units stats set and I like what is being built, from here it should get easier adjusting stats because there are less units each year for each civ.

I am working on version 3.8 but none of these versions are playable past 1939. I think 3.4 was the last playable version, but something playable with the new units, tech tree, and some other changes mentioned above should be uploaded over the weekend hopefully.

 

[Meateater]

Well I uploaded 4.0 for download with the tech tree and units. I was trying to slow things down in production so I reduced shields for terrain and resources to vanilla level ( I may adjust the corruption levels too). Some of the things mentioned in the passed posts have been added or changed also.

With all the changes it plays a lot different from the previous versions. I had some doubt when adding the units and tech tree but it has worked out. I still have more to do, I plan on adding more units and the stats will need some readjusting.

 

[Rocoteh]

Meateater,

I have just downloaded 4.0.
I will be really interesting to playtest it.

Its late night where I am living and will go to sleep
soon, but I will be back with reflections on the new
version tomorrow.


Best Regards

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

Meateater,

I have looked at version 4.0 and I must say that
I am impressed!
You must have invested countless of hours in
research and work with this scenario.

I predict it will be one of the most popular next year.
Conquests will no doubt produce many new scenarios
x weeks from now, but as I said this one will be in the top soon.

I will be back later with a short playtest-report.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

Meateater,

A comment after a short playtest

I start with Poland:

German forces in the Polish Campaign:
6xPanzer divisions
4xLight divisons
4xMot. Infantry divisons
45xInfantry divisions

More than 2 000 tanks.

Poland Order of Battle:

39 Infantry divisions
11 Cavalry brigades
2 Mechanized Cavalry brigades

200 Tanks and 470 tankettes armed with machine-guns

Overall Geman OOB September 1 1939

6xPanzer divisions
4xLight divisions
4xMot. nfantry divisions
37xInfantry divisions
3xMountain divisions
50xInfantry divisions with only 2 regiments,Fortress divisions
Static divisions and Luftwaffe Field divisions.

I think reduction made from version: 3.4 58 Infantry units
down to 36 in version 4.0 is to drastic.

Poland now have (If I have counted right)
3 tank units
28 Infantry units
11 Cavalry unts

Maybe there is no reason to change that, but I think
the German Infantry force is to weak.
Also, I do not think it was a good idea to give all
infantry the same stats.
For example a Geman Infantry division had 50% more
firepower than a Polish.
I am surprised with the stats for Panzer II and Panzer III.
You have Attack 12 and Defense 14 for Panzer II
and Attack 17, Defense 10 for Panzer III.

If you look at these stats I think you understand why I think
the above should be changed:

Panzer IIc (Main Battle Tank during the Polish Campaign)

Armour Turret Front 25 Side 15 Rear 15
Armour Hull Front 17 Side 17 Rear 15
Gun: Max Penetration 38

Panzer IIIe (the version that saw action in Poland)

Armour Turret Front 38 Side 30 Rear 30
Armour Hull Front 33 Side 33 Rear 21
Gun. Max Penetration 64

OK, that was some comments on the Polish campaign.

I still think your scenario is one of the best.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

 

[Meateater]

Thanks again Rocoteh
As for the infantry I just but in some base stats, untill I add in the rest of the foot units. After I add in all the units I can readjust all the stats. I agree some infantry units should be better than others, I think the U.S. infantry were the only one's with standard issue semi-automatic rifles M1 Grands, possibly the best standard infantry rifles of the war.

 

[Rocoteh]

Meateater,

Yes, and the U.S. Army had some sort of record of
of having combat formations outside divisions.

In 1945 the U.S. Army had:

16xArmoured divisions
67xInfantry divisions
5xAirborne divisions
1xLight Division

If all the independent battalions had been organized
into divisions 74 more divisions could have been created.
Thus the official -44 U.S. Infantry divison was not the same
as the de facto -44 U.S. Infantry division, since the de facto
division nearly always had one tank or tank-destroyer
battalion attached.

The -44 U.S Armoured division had 100% more tanks than
the German -44 Panzer division. De facto the difference
was greater since a German -44 Panzer Division seldom
was up to full strenght. In early -45 the average Panzer
division was down to 50 tanks.
You can compare that with the U.S. Armoured division:
307 tanks and tank-destroyers + at most times a tank
or tank-destroyer battalion attached.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

 

[Adler17]

Rocoteh, this might be true and indeed there were too much tanks for the Germans. But the Panzer were still better than the US and British tanks. In battle you needed 5 Shermans to have a fair combat against only 1 Tiger or Panther. Although most tanks in a division were still Pzkw IV H in these times, they should have been able to cope with a US division.
Obersturmführer (Waffen- SS, in Wehrmacht Lt.) Michael Wittmann fought in France and in the battle of Caen he could destroy 25 tanks of the Desert rats. AFAIK he died after killing 138 enemy tanks when his division was enclosed by US forces. But he saw a possibility to break through the enemy lines. He gave the order when he attacked alone a whole US tank division which was enroute to fight the Germans and were not prepared of a counterstrike. He drove next to the line of the enemy tanks and destroyed one after one. Several other Tiger helped him. Although he lost his life his division was saved and the US forces badly hit.
So I think If you want to change the strength of the Panzer you should give the Panzer a very high value in attack and defense, but one HP less than the aliied tanks.

P.S. Meateater, in this forum there are several units made for WW2 mods like Me 109, BB Bismarck, BBRodney and so on. Why don´t you add these units to your scenario?

 

[Rocoteh]

Adler17,

I agree with you. Let me clarify: I think a Panther unit
representing a -44 Panzer division should have higher
attack and defence value than a Sherman unit
representing a U.S. -44 Armoured division.

Almost all historians that have tried to simulate
WW2 in wargames and strategy games does this
evaluation. Although the -44 Panzer division was inferior
with regard to numbers compared to the U.S. Armoured
division, It was superior with regards to tank-quality,
tactical skill, leadership and overall performance.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

 

[Meateater]

Yup yup I would like to at some point in time get some user art in the scenario. There is a lot of stuff out there, leader heads, and units. I have mentioned this a page or two ago and could be really cool.

I have been working on foot units and am trying to get them added and then readjust the stats for all the units. Then I will look back through out this thread to get the starting forces correct.

I have been keeping an eye on Conquest. I have read some interesting stuff the past few days and am just waiting for a Tuesday phone call to pick it up.

 

[Rocoteh]

Meateater,

I suggest a "naval reform" and a revision of the
British Order of Battle:

Conquests will include a Cruiser unit.

Royal Navy September 1 1939

15xBattleships and Battlecruisers (12xBB+3xBC)
7xCarriers
66xCruisers
184xDestroyers
60xSubmarines

Battleships, Battlecruisers and Carriers are all accurate
represented in the scenario.

The Cruisers, Destroyers and Submarines are
represented by 34 Destroyer units and 19 Submarine units.

Thus: 1 Destroyer unit = 2 Cruisers and 5.4 Destroyers
1 Submarine unit = 3 Submarines

I propose then: Break out the Cruisers from the Destroyer unit
and create 33 new Cruiser units (1 Cruiser unit = 2 Cruisers)

Decrease Destroyer units from 34 to 23.
Decrease Submarine units from 19 to 12.

New Destroyer unit = 8 Destroyers
New Submarine unit = 5 Submarines

This will result in net increase in units
with 15. I think all navies could be changed
in this way without increase in loading time because:

The British Army in September 1939 OOB:
2xArmoured divisions
10xInfantry divisions
4xInfanty divisions in India (The majority of soldiers were from India)

This is represented in the sceanario with:
3xArmour
206xInfantry
44x Artillery

On this scale I think as a rule an Infantry or Tank unit
should represent at least 1 division (There are always
exceptions of course).
Thus the British Infantry can be cut with 190 units
and the scenario will be more realistic and load faster!
I also think the artillery units can be reduced from 44 to 12.

The Army of Japan is also oversized. As late as November -42
it reached the strenght of 55 Infantry divisions.

Should you think the above is a good idea, I can help
you with stats for the major navies September 1939.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

 

[Meateater]

That will work for me Rocoteh. I just added about 12 more foot units, and am in the prossess of readjusting the stats for all the units now. After that I will begin adjusting the starting forces.

When you are counting the infantry units, is there consideration for the units that will be guards in the city? How should this be addressed. One units each city? If I am reading you correct, then the starting infantry units for the British would be 16. (206 cut by 190)

 

[Rocoteh]

Meateater,

In the British colonys in West Africa there are now about 30 infantry
units. If 1 Infantry unit = 1 Infantry division this should
be reduced to 1 Infantry unit. I do not think 1 city should
be = 1 garrison unit.

(Off topic comment: With regard to ACW, Procifica and I
could never agree on this subject, since Procifica thought
every city in the Union and CSA should have a Home-guard
unit. Since I have never seen any documentation that
supports this idea I do not agree. This also created "the
first boring turn" when people had to click fortify more
than 100 times the first turn. I my next revision I will
probably remove 90% of those units)

Back to your scenario: You are also running the risk with
a "first boring turn" if all cities should have 1 garrison unit.
Also important: You decrease realism with the garrison-system.

Once again the British colonys in West Africa as an example:
There were only some non-divisional units that could have
formed 1 infantry division September 1939.

I have spend some hours today researching the
Navy of Japan. Since the Capital ships and Carriers are OK,
i concentrated on Cruisers, Destroyers and Submarines
available September -39.

This is the result:

Cruisers 35
Destroyers 98 (I checked 8 different sources to get that number).
Submarines 36

A comment on the Japanese Army:
For some reason many people believe Japan had an gigantic
army at the time of Pearl Harbour.
This is not true: In December 1941 the Japanese army
had 48 infantry divisions. It only increased with 7 divisions
during 1942.

Edit: Correction of Royal Navy stats in my previous post:
Decrease 6 Cruisers and 5 Destroyers that were part
of Australia:s navy.
Decrease 2 Cruisers that were part of New Zealand:s navy.
Decrease 6 Destroyers that were part of Canada:s navy.

Best Regards

Rocoteh