ZWK 2.2 Patch Released

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

No, I was near the end of the tech tree, and i had sevral wonders like the Computer, so i was still getting a tech every other turn or so.

It did indeed take 9 Bf-109s in kamikaze mode to stop BBs, but it was cheaper then other BBs!

 

[kobayashi]

Not that I am contemplating any more revisions but if I were to do similar game on a platform with more unit slots I would love to add the following.

Beaufighter - Allied equivalent to ME110

HE 219 Owl - Axis equivalent to P-38

Ju88 - Maritime version

American GMCs like M18 Hellcat - something with Sherman attack and M3 Stuart defense or perhaps M36/M10 tank destroyer

Char B or some other french tank

early & mid game french fighters (MS406 = I16, D520=Spitfire)

ditto for Italian fighters (Fiat G.50=I16, Machi202=Me109)

PE-2 medium bomber

seperate capital ships into old and modern

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Kob, maybe you could go with multi-events files, that change the availible builds, ala Red Front?

That would give you EVERY slot to use again, and some could be the same for both (AT gun, AA, ships, ect).

Germany, Russia, and the Allies withdrew obsolete units as the war progressed, so this wouldn't be unrealistic, and you could add things like Improved shermans (the 76L version, or the easy 8), more tank destroyers like the M-10/M-36, maybe mobile artillery like M-7 Preists and German Wespe or Hummel, or perhaps the Elephant and Hunting tiger TDs, maybe motor infantry for allies and Russians, P-40s, later versions of BF-109s, and so forth.

Also, I would like the P-38 to never go obsolete, the allies used it till the war's end, and the P-51 is still to short ranged (a p-38 can fly 40 squares, a P-51 only 16! This is inacurate, the P-51 had nearly the same range, inferior, yes, but not by a wide margin)

Would love to see French equipment, and an end to commandoes.
Having the Neutrals and independants having first line Aircraft and Tanks is extremly unrealistic.

 

[kobayashi]

The P-38s were progressively withdrawn from Europe once the D-model Mustangs were introduced in 44. They did a good job in the interim in spite of compressibility problems above 20,000 feet but eventually the late german fighters (Me 109-K and FW 190D) would have been more than a match for them. Also, the design had reached its limitations and the introduction of a P-38J led to many problems because the design could not take such powerful engines. They were more suited to hunting bombers (of which there were none) instead of escouting them. See

http://www.p-38online.com/eto.html

However, the main reason to make them obsolete is to stop the AI from indefinitely suiciding them by attacking cities. This destroys the entire bombing campaign routine as the AI constantly replenishes destroyed P-38s instead of building an overwhealming force of bombers. If you play as Axis and let the Allies survive long enough you will see what I mean. Also, there is a tendency for the AI P-38s to end up in Scandanavia and Russia.

Just stockpile some for recon missions before they go obsolete. The four turns is meant for the P-38 to 'loiter around' and not for it to fly to Moscow. Think of the 40 square range as too much and the Mustang range will not seem too little. The P-51 range is already more than any other fighter.

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

IF, in a week of sundays, you'd want to update any further on this scenario, I'd like to see a revised map. Right now from London to Port Said, there's about twice the distance from the US to London, which makes mediterrenean fleet maneuvres a very slow affair. Its very difficult for the allies to send reinforcements. AND I'd like to see scandinavia more appropriately (proportionately and production-wise) depicted.

The units are perfect, IMO. My favourite is without doubt the lancaster. I still can't believe the terror it created in my friend in my last mp game.

But revisions are really not necessary, IMO. Its a damn fine scenario as is, and I'm still playing it. (This is not many scenarios that I can say that about).


PS. Couldn't you really think of something more to say about the democratic ideals wonder? It started with Plato and the ancient greeks, and with the french and american revolutions used in modern times as the foundation for republican constitutions, often associated with the "free pursuit of liberty, property and happiness" etc. Btw, I really like the massive research put into those wonder entries. It gives you something to read in between turns (playing mp).

 

[kobayashi]

IF, in a week of sundays, you'd want to update any further on this scenario, I'd like to see a revised map. Right now from London to Port Said, there's about twice the distance from the US to London, which makes mediterrenean fleet maneuvres a very slow affair. Its very difficult for the allies to send reinforcements. AND I'd like to see scandinavia more appropriately (proportionately and production-wise) depicted.


Yes, the scandanavia problem is one of my regrets. I was happily using the Third Reich map until I tried to fit in Finland and then realised that it wasn't even on the map. I have never changed it in all the revisions as that would mean placing everything again on a new map. (Another glaring ommission was Baku)

As for the small size of the Atlantic, I accepted the smaller scale for playability reasons. i.e. bombers had to be able to fly across the atlantic while convoys from the US had to become viable by mid game. So your observation about the wrong scale is correct. The water on the right side is 'real water' while the ocean part is just a crude simulation of an obstacle.

What do you mean by reinforcements through the Med. Wouldn't reinforcements arrive from the US via Malta? Within the Med it is only a short hop from Africa to Sicily and then another hop to Italy. If anything, having only one end of the Suez canal is another unsolvable problem. Then again, you will always get reality problems at the section where you decide to cut off the map.


Couldn't you really think of something more to say about the democratic ideals wonder? It started with Plato and the ancient greeks, and with the french and american revolutions used in modern times as the foundation for republican constitutions, often associated with the "free pursuit of liberty, property and happiness" etc.

Yes, my bad again. In a moment of weakness late at night I let that slip by my quality control angel. Glad to see that you are going through the scenario with a fine toothed comb.

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

BTW, is there a special reason subs have a defense of 20 or so? Isn't that a bit too much? When playing as the allies (against a human opponent) I find them difficult enough to spot in the first place.

They're lethal, not so much because of their numbers and occasional attacks, but because you have to recon all naval areas before you move your ships, and even then cannot be sure if they're still there. Its a tremendous terror impact they have. Anyway, it seems reasonable enough that an average fighter will have a chance of sinking a spotted sub.

-About the mediterrenean. I was thinking, that the suez canal ever since the 1880'es has been a steady route for the british to India, so... The british "empire" seem cut off from the motherland in some way. Anyway, its not that big a deal. Perhaps one could "shorten" Africa off a bit, but it might not make much of a difference. But with shorter distances, Gibraltar would actually become an important stepping stone for the allies to Africa, which I suppose it was historically (I know, it has been in most Axis & Allies games I have played -the board game).

 

[kobayashi]

A defense of 20 is about right to give some damage to the units which are supposed to kill subs.

In line with my concept of defining clear roles for each type of unit, I decided you would need a bomber or ground attack aircraft to attack a sub. Fighters in this scenario don't carry bombs so there is very little chance of killing a sub with machineguns. The fighter is meant only for recon so other elements can come in to make the kill (by which time the U-boat will try to slip away).

This also helps to create a zone of death in the middle of the atlantic.

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

OK, sounds reasonable enough. The distinct unit "roles" is clearly an asset. This is in many ways what creates all the drama. "Damn, why didn't I produce a bomber instead!"

 

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Kob, maybe you could go with multi-events files, that change the availible builds, ala Red Front? That would give you EVERY slot to use again, and some could be the same for both (AT gun, AA, ships, ect).

I think ZWK's strength is the multi-player aspect as Morten has pointed out. To stay in that niche, there can only be one of everything with no swapping. That's one of the parameters I set myself. I had hopped to attract some people who don't usually play WW2 scenarios like myself but I don't think I've suceeded in that area.

I think Marko's TSFE is doing a pretty good job of bringing to us a solid multi-stage WW2 scenario covering the entire European theatre. (Wouldn't want to compete directly with the likes of him for an audience :crazyeyes )