Ultimate WWII Scenario: Preliminary thread

[Procifica]

Work on this scenario will begin once Conquests is released, but I'm starting this thread NOW, to get some ideas and insight as to what this scenario might include.

This will be a joint project between myself and Rocoteh, though others may join in if they wish.

For those of you unfamiliar with my personal work, you may check out my American Civil War Scenario at the link in my signature. Rocoteh is a co-creator of ACW, so we have already worked together on one scenario.

Rocoteh and I have access to completely accurate stats on every weapon used in World War II, exact Division/Corps/Army/Army Group/Front placement and name of every division or larger sized unit used in World War II at various time periods of the war, and much more. Let's just say the potential reference information at our disposal is completely staggering, and there is always the local library for more.


I can already state a few more features of this project now:

1) This scenario will be highly optimized, in the same manner as ACW, to provide a fast-paced game, with as little wait between turns as possible. There will be no several hour waits to load this scenario.

2) This scenario will be as accurate as possible within the design limits of the Conquests Scenario editor when it is released with Conquests. An example of this (and this is JUST an example), would be that for every .1 mm of armor a tank has, it would receive 1 defense point.

3) The map will be large enough to allow strategy and tactics to be used, but not so big as to hinder the speed at which the scenario is playable. I'm thinking somewhere between 180 X 180 and 256 X 256 will be used. The map will be a world map, as World War II is a global war.

4) Every major Allied and Axis infantry, tank, artillery, etc. unit will be included in this scenario. To give some examples, the Mark II, IIIG, IIIJ, IVD, IVF2, Tiger I, Panther D, Panther G, and Tiger II tanks probably will be in the scenario, while the Mark IVE and the Panther A probably will not be. These are German tanks.

5) The following countries will probably be included: United Kingdom, United States, Germany, France, USSR, Poland, Italy, Canada, Australia, Japan, China (KMT), China (Communists), Netherlands (this may include Belgium, depending on editor limitations and size of the map), Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece, Finland, Bulgaria, Norway, and Thailand. These are all of the major belligerents or countries which were later attacked by or joined one or more belligerents. Major neutral countries probably also will be added (such as Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Brazil).

6) Cities will be as accurate with regard to population as ACW is, with one exception: cities also will be scaled according to actual country population as it was around 1940.


Much more information will be released once Conquests comes out and we can see the additions to the Scenario Editor, but this is just a start.

Feel free to post features and other stuff you would like to see in this scenario.

 

[Pascal]

Nice project Procifica! I just hope the Conquest editor will allow us to build great scenarios.
What would the wonders be?
And will Russia be allied with Germany?

 

[Procifica]

Wonders I'm not sure about yet, though this is open to suggestions and debate.

Russia being allied to Germany depends entirely on the diplomatic options available in the Conquests Scenario Editor. I'm hoping there is an option for a very very loose alliance, which would be appropriate for Germany and Russia in August, 1939. A Formal Alliance would not work. A Non-Aggression Pact though would of course be appropriate.

 

[Yoda Power]

You forgot Denmark on the country list. I suggest you put them(or us) with Norway. We were conquerd in same campaign(more or less) anyway

 

[Procifica]

Denmark had no real standing army at this time worth mentioning...so I don't consider them a major country. I believe Denmark was overan in about 3-4 hours on April 9th before surrendering. Total casualties were like less than 100 total for both sides.

Yes, it probably would be combined with Norway in such a scenario.

 

[bombshoo]

I know you mean Nationalist China, by China (KTM) but whats that stand for?

And should'nt Britain, Canada, and Australia be all the same country?

 

[Pascal]

I think they were already independant by 1940 but they still had strong links because of the Commonwealth so it could be a good idea to put them together

 

[Procifica]

Canada and Australia pretty much commanded their own units during WWII. They excercised nominal independent control, and an example of this is when the Australian government ordered Churchill to give them back 2 Australian Divisions from Africa, so they could be used in defense of Australia. While Churchill was totally against this, he was forced to give in.

Canada also excercised direct control over its armed forces, and the fight against conscription is an example of this.

The Statue of Westminister granted formal independence to Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand in 1931.

The KMT is the Chinese Nationalist government, I forget what it stands for off the top of my head but I can look it up if you like.


And it looks like this could turn into a solo project, if Rocoteh decides to back out of it as he has apparently decided to do with ACW.

 

[LouLong]

Originally posted by Procifica
The KMT is the Chinese Nationalist government, I forget what it stands for off the top of my head but I can look it up if you like.

Stands for Kuo Ming Tang or nationalist party.
Actually since pinyin is now the official transcription it should be Guo (so GMT) but KMT has remained in use. Guo means "country" BTW.

 

[Pawel]

I don't doubt the seriousness and quality of your work, but can there be an Ultimate WWII Scenario? Even if some of the problems inherent to civ are disregarded, the you either have to choose a tree with very few options (which will be boring), or you have to accept that you lose all realism after just a couple of turns, even when it comes to details. For instance, after the German attack, the Soviet Union disbanded its mechanized corps and later replaced them by tank armies. How can you simulate this, no matter how accurate your roster? Also, hardware did not really have that large an influence on the combat strength of units. On the Eastern front the greatest triumphs of German armor came at times of technical inferiority (e.g. in the summer of 1942), while its largest defeats at times of superiority (e.g. at Prochorovka during the battle of Kursk). In the West there are numerous stories of how single Tigers destroyed dozens of Shermans. Still, if you look at the actual combat casualties, there were no such discrepancies. Wouldn't thus the detailed work I am sure you will put into there scenario not be better spent on covering only some aspect of the war at a time? Then, instead of one ultimate scenario, we would get many top quality ones!

 

[Procifica]

Well, let's see:

1) Some fun with the tech tree can easily simulate the USSR's conversion from mechanized corps to armor.

2) With regard to the Germans winning and losing with having or not having technical superiority, all battles in history to an extent have the "luck" factor thrown in. Civ3 as we all know, DEFINITELY has this built in. Its all a matter of how one uses what he has.

3) Tigers certainly will be greatly superior to Shermans. Think of it as like a Knight trying to attack a Tank in regular Civ3. What are the odds of the Knight doing much if any damage? The Shermans eventually won though, because of sheer numbers and MUCH higher air support. This scenario will highly emphasize combined arms.

4) The Tech Tree will be rich and detailed, and will definitely try hard to reflect actual unit changes and upgrades.


An example of how some of this already has been done, can be found in my ACW scenario.

 

[Rocoteh]

And it looks like this could turn into a solo project, if Rocoteh decides to back out of it as he has apparently decided to do with ACW. [/B][/QUOTE] Procifica

Clarification:

I am no longer a part of this project.
"if Rocoteh decides to back out" Procifica

I am not from a English-speaking country but if
understand it right "back out" is not a positive way
of describing someone who leaves a project after
working hard with it 6 months.

If you want to see why I decided to leave ACW you can
go to Completed Scenarios ACW-thread Post 868
GOOD BYE ACW.

My intention was to keep silent in the forums for a longer
time and instead work with my personal mod.

Then Procifica started this thread without my knowledge.
A strange way starting a joint project!!!
Conflicts like this are boring for outsiders and I shall not
bore you. I just want to mention: I do not think that
Australia and Canada should be independent nations.
They should be part of The British Empire.

Procifica have also made a number of design decisions
I do not agree on. But then again its obvious I have been
"informed" this way.

I must admit that I am stunned!!!

OK, I have no intention to make any more comments
in this thread, since as I said this was a clarification.

I hope I now can return to personal mod without
being provoked, since I lost incitement to write in
the forums.


Rocoteh

 

[Procifica]

Well you know if you hadn't of been so pissed at me for other reasons, I would have gotten the chance to tell you that I started this thread to collect some ideas for us.

I wouldn't call ANYTHING stated in this thread design decisions, I was just tossing out random ideas for discussion.

Anyways, it looks like this will be a solo project now, since Rocoteh has decided to continue to be angry for no good reason at me.

I guess I just don't understand why a member of a "team" can't do certain things independently, to try to help the "team. And I certainly don't understand why the leader of a different "team" must have the complete approval of the team member or members in order to do something, or the leader shouldn't do it at all.

I digress though. If anyone has accurate historical references and/or resources and would like to assist in the future with this project, please let me know.

 

[Pawel]

First of all, I would want to say that I hope you guys work out your differences. Not only would it be a pity if you didn't, but I also think that any future scenarios would benefit from it. And I am sure everyone wants to see more scenarios with the same quality as ACW. Still, this is not really my business.

Let me thus comment on your previous statements. If you say that you can manage to play some nice tricks so that unit designations etc work out as they should, I think that is great.

I also think, however, that you dismiss my remarks regarding the hardware a little too easily. Let's start with the simple question though. Was a Tiger really superior to a Sherman? In a tactical sense - yes. But strategically - no (and this is what matters on a civ scale)! Let me explain. The quantitative advantage of the Shermans was not only due to the larger industrial base of the western allies (and much better management), but also due to the fact that all tanks after the IV (which incidentally was not superior to either the Sherman or T-34-76) were very expensive. Even more important, however, was the availability of those actually made. The Tigers were powerful mobile pillboxes, but had problems getting where they were needed, for instance collapsing bridges on their way. Even rail transport was difficult. So, quite often, they simply failed to show. The German army also considered the Tiger (and to some extent even the Panther)rather weak in attack. The battle at Prochorovka (the largest tank battle in history) shows this clearly. They were much more suitable for the role of tank destroyer (in the West usually Sherman conversions with bigger guns in open turrets, in the USSR SP artillery - the German SP guns were used for infantry support) than as actual tanks. If you try to get there 'firstest with the mostest', the German heavies were not what you really wanted. Incidentally, the IV remained in production throughout the war, and late war German divisions had a 50-50 mix of IV:s and Panthers.

Even when used defensively from prepared positions, the tanks are but one link the the chain. In France air superiority was important, but the allied forced were not slaughtered on cloudy days! Leadership, tactics, logistics, morale, etc, are all equally important pieces of the puzzle, even if one side has better hardware. The situation was never so clear cut, however, as some strengths usually compensated for other weaknesses.

To summarize, expecting that the fighting strength of a division will change dramatically when a new model of some vechile is introduced, is imho, very optimistic. And if it the historic record shows otherwise, I think that it is equally optimistic to attribute this to luck...

EDIT: SP artillery refers to assault guns such as the SU-152, not indirect fire weapons.

 

[Kentonio]

In the West there are numerous stories of how single Tigers destroyed dozens of Shermans. Still, if you look at the actual combat casualties, there were no such discrepancies.

Thats not actually true, there are a number of properly recorded incidents of this occuring. In Wittmans first real day of action in a Tiger he destroyed 13 T-34s and 2 AT guns for instance.

 

[Pawel]

I don't mean that the stories are false. I just meant that if you look at the overall results of all the combat on the ground, the impact of such incidents is negligible. The losses of the Red Army were, on the other hand, much higher than those of Western armies (despite superior armor). This can be attributed to many things, but it usually boils down to the fact that human life was cheap in the days of Stalin.

 

[Straczynski]

Originally posted by Procifica
Major neutral countries probably also will be added (such as Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Brazil).

Just one thing... Brazil wasn't neutral on the war... We declared war on the Axis after some U-Boats sunk several Brazilian merchant vessels in August 1942. Some months after that, we sent an Expeditionary Force of 30.000 soldiers to help the allied on Italy, and our first fighter group joined the US air force... Hey, we were in Monte Cassino!

There's a nice page about the Brazilian participation on the war at http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/3351/campaigns/brzedit.html.

 

[Procifica]

Yeah, I forgot about Brazil later declaring war. I was referring to the 1939-1941 period mostly when I stated that.

Yes, I've read about the Brazilian Expeditionary Force in Italy, it was a prominent part of the operations there.

I'm aware that Tigers were slow, and speed will be accurate as well. Tigers mainly won against Shermans because Shermans couldn't penetrate their armor very well, not because of superior firepower. This will of course be taken into account.


I'd like to clearly state that everything I've posted in this thread is just ideas, and may not necessarily be in this scenario. All ideas for this scenario will be discussed at length and then will be agreed upon by the team members for this scenario, when and if such a team is formed.

 

[Procifica]

I'm glad to see that several people have been contributing ideas to this scenario, I hope this pace can keep up.

 

[Rocoteh]

I have rejoined this project.

The conflict between me and Procifica were a product
of many misunderstandments from both sides.

These have now been sorted out.


Rocoteh