A lot of you have expressed interest in making a WW1 West Front scenario. I'm not sure if you have checked out this old scenario by Markus Eklund. This would seem to be a good template to use, as the map and city placement are very accurate. The events are finely developed as well. Some of you might be interested in converting this to TOT.
I gave this scenario a whirl, and jotted down my impression. Read my playtesting notes below.
*Playtester notes and modifications to the WW1 scenario by Markus Eklund: THE WESTERN FRONT
*Note: the original scenario file (Wfront.scn) is unchanged. My modifications are reflected in the 1914sept.scn file (see below)
After playing this superb scenario, I noticed that the conflict is too fluid for WW1 trench warfare. The presence of railroad really upsets the nature of the game. When playing as the Entente, it was too easy to conquer all of the German cities prior to the grand offensives of 1918. As a result, I modified the original scn file (Wfront.scn) to remove non-vital sections of railroad. The main railroad hubs (e.g., Paris to Amiens) have been left intact, but it is now impossible to travel from Paris to Aachen in one turn. I also disabled the building of new railroad by removing the Railroad technology from both civs. (To make it unresearchable, you will still need to change its prerequisites to "no, no" in the Rules file). The modified scenario file is 1914sept.scn. If you don't like these changes, you can use the original Wfront.scn file.
Other notes:
The following are some observations I made when playtesting as the Entente. (Playing as the Centrals seemed far too easy.) These are suggestions for improvement, none of which I have implemented.
1) The cost and combat stats of various units are unbalanced. The cost of most units should be raised by at least 10 shields. There are not enough units with decent defensive stats. All of the good defensive units (machine guns) are events-driven. Similarly, the offensive power of tank and artillery units is too strong. (Why do howitzers, mortars, and field artillery have the alpine ability?) Flamethrowers are a worthless unit to build, especially given their cost.
2) Bombers are made available at the outset. It is unrealistic that they should fly with impunity (prior to discovering the fighter tech.) Instead, they should be given the "helicopter" disadvantage to account for the fact that ground fire was often able to take down primitive bombers.
3) This is rarely a concern in most scenarios, but I think ground units have too much movement. The warfare in WW1 should have been more static. A possible solution is to make the road multiplier x3 instead of x4. Perhaps cavalry and armor units should have a lower movement rate.
4) I'm not sure barracks should be buildable. Given the high number of conscripts, veteran status should only be gained through battle.
5) The events-driven reinforcement schedule is too generous for the Entente. The continuous flood of British reinforcements should stop in 1916. American reinforcements should not arrive until 1918. Once I got the upper hand against the Centrals, it was annoying to receive so many reinforcements.
*Things that worked fine:
1) The event-driven offensives (e.g., Verdun and Spring attacks of 1918) seemed well-executed. The flags system in TOT would work even better.
2) The technology progression was sensible and well-timed. (Note: the Special Training tech is useless to research, given that the Entente cannot build storm troops.)
3) The city placement and map layout is terrific. In general, a lot of care was put into this scenario.
I gave this scenario a whirl, and jotted down my impression. Read my playtesting notes below.
*Playtester notes and modifications to the WW1 scenario by Markus Eklund: THE WESTERN FRONT
*Note: the original scenario file (Wfront.scn) is unchanged. My modifications are reflected in the 1914sept.scn file (see below)
After playing this superb scenario, I noticed that the conflict is too fluid for WW1 trench warfare. The presence of railroad really upsets the nature of the game. When playing as the Entente, it was too easy to conquer all of the German cities prior to the grand offensives of 1918. As a result, I modified the original scn file (Wfront.scn) to remove non-vital sections of railroad. The main railroad hubs (e.g., Paris to Amiens) have been left intact, but it is now impossible to travel from Paris to Aachen in one turn. I also disabled the building of new railroad by removing the Railroad technology from both civs. (To make it unresearchable, you will still need to change its prerequisites to "no, no" in the Rules file). The modified scenario file is 1914sept.scn. If you don't like these changes, you can use the original Wfront.scn file.
Other notes:
The following are some observations I made when playtesting as the Entente. (Playing as the Centrals seemed far too easy.) These are suggestions for improvement, none of which I have implemented.
1) The cost and combat stats of various units are unbalanced. The cost of most units should be raised by at least 10 shields. There are not enough units with decent defensive stats. All of the good defensive units (machine guns) are events-driven. Similarly, the offensive power of tank and artillery units is too strong. (Why do howitzers, mortars, and field artillery have the alpine ability?) Flamethrowers are a worthless unit to build, especially given their cost.
2) Bombers are made available at the outset. It is unrealistic that they should fly with impunity (prior to discovering the fighter tech.) Instead, they should be given the "helicopter" disadvantage to account for the fact that ground fire was often able to take down primitive bombers.
3) This is rarely a concern in most scenarios, but I think ground units have too much movement. The warfare in WW1 should have been more static. A possible solution is to make the road multiplier x3 instead of x4. Perhaps cavalry and armor units should have a lower movement rate.
4) I'm not sure barracks should be buildable. Given the high number of conscripts, veteran status should only be gained through battle.
5) The events-driven reinforcement schedule is too generous for the Entente. The continuous flood of British reinforcements should stop in 1916. American reinforcements should not arrive until 1918. Once I got the upper hand against the Centrals, it was annoying to receive so many reinforcements.
*Things that worked fine:
1) The event-driven offensives (e.g., Verdun and Spring attacks of 1918) seemed well-executed. The flags system in TOT would work even better.
2) The technology progression was sensible and well-timed. (Note: the Special Training tech is useless to research, given that the Entente cannot build storm troops.)
3) The city placement and map layout is terrific. In general, a lot of care was put into this scenario.
