Red Front for ToT

[McMonkey]

Originally posted by MacGalleo
The BT-7 was only produced ~1200 (T26 more than 10000).
Could you develop your 120mm mortar unit idea?

The BT-7 was a major tank model for the Soviets in the early war period. Although they were not as numerous as the T-26 I think 1000+ vehicles is a significant number and should be represented.

Not sure how to differentiate a heavy mortar from artillery but if machineguns are included I think a heavy mortar could slot in too!

Also, I have a thing for mortars and would like to see Fairlines take on the 120mm which was (and still is) an awsome bit of kit.

I suppose the problem with including mortars and machineguns is that they were organic weapons rather than independent like tank or infantry regiments.

[curtsibling]

Excellent work with the changes, but one little concern...
Isn't moving all these units around going to play merry mayhem with the GFX upgrades?

Perhaps we should hang fire on major changes till the new visuals are ready?

(no harm in ideas being suggested though!)

[MacGalleo]

@curt
you're right, we should expect the 1.4 GFX upgrade before going any further in a new version...

[fairline]

I intend to release just Nemo's 1.4 with 'no more units' bug removed plus Curt and my gfx redux only.

Phase 2 is MacGalleo's edits after extensive playtesting by someone like Agricola (hint!). I don't envision this being ready for some time, whereas the gfx redux is ready pending Curt's mods.

Edit: My 2-p's worth on MacG's mods: All sounds good, but I would retain the auto-upgrade of Russian units into sensible replacements; the anchronistic upgrade of the La-5 and KV-1 into US units is an exception. These should have new slots, the La-5 should be retained and the KV-1 should be replaced by either a KV-85, IS-1 or IS-2.

I really don't think many more units are needed just for the sake of filling slots. Why would the player build 120mm mortars when s/he has Katyusha's? The only extra units which might be worthy of inclusion are the 2 most numerous and highly-regarded (by the Russians) Lend-Lease units, The P-39 and Valentine.

[Boco]

If you end up with extra slots, why not use them as unique triggers for events? I'm sure he-who-has-a-game-named-after-him could make a few suggestions in this regard.

[curtsibling]

Pressing ahead with the GFX!

Will have new terrain/icons/people/cities (with winter versions) this week -

Keep watching this thread for more updates....

Here is a sneak preview at some early version summer cities!

[civ2units]

Great to see that you will continue the work on the Red Front scenario for TOT. I liked playing this one on MGE.

There is also a scenario called Second Front, maybe from the same designer? This one was also a great scenario, maybe it is possible to make a TOT version from this scenario...

[curtsibling]

Second front was also by Nemo and Alex, a similar epic covering Normandy and the Overlord invasions.

Pretty awesome, but I preferred Red Front...Pity he never completed his last scenario 'The Blitz'...

[McMonkey]

I did not understand how to play Second Front. I think the READ ME is missing from the dl. Does anyone have a copy of the READ ME?

It seems you play as a Hotseat game and control the Army and Airforce seperately!

[Arthedain]

If you use FW (fantastic worlds) you dont even have to play it as a hot seat game. That was only with MGE and vanilla Civ.

[AGRICOLA]

IMHO, Second Front is technically a superbly designed scen but suffers badly from all-controlling and overly restrictive events files. Here are a couple of posts from

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105479

that explain why a couple of play testers found serious flaws in it.

Originally posted by AGRICOLA

. . . . . . I ran into a similar situation with Captain Nemo's SECOND FRONT scenario, a scenario is so heavily event driven that the author actually warns that " The Allied High Command will not accept a high degree of deviation from the Operational plan they have laid out and you might soon find yourself fighting alone in Normandy...". Unlike you, I could not see a way around this, so I quit in utter frustration after 20 turns (D-day + 9). I was in a straitjacket because the scenario wanted me to play like Mongomery when my instincts were to play like Patton .!!!!

On D+9:
Allied forces had St Lo surrounded but events did not want it taken earlier than D+37.
Cherbourg and Cherbourg AFB were surrounded but not to be taken before D+18 and D+26, respectively.
The Allies had taken Vire, ~100 km south of St Lo, as well as Barenton, thereby cutting off enemy forces in Brittany and western Normandy. The Allied forces were spreading out but were not supposed to attack nearby Mortain until D+58.
A task force was within 2 days of capturing a Seine crossing at Quillebeau.
The huge backlog of Allied units in Britain had been more or less cleared

At this point I quit. Obviously the scenario and I were having a serious personality clash.

On the one hand, I believed Nemo's warning about not getting out of synch with events and figured that I was going to need all the unit and other help I could get from events. Already, the German Panthers and Tigers around Caen were being held at bay mainly by the Air Force, not by the ground forces which simply could not handle the German tanks.

On the other hand, the idea of having to follow history's timetable and play "stupid" had little appeal. I had no wish to leave significant forces behind to contain and eventually capture more and more surrounded cities when the forces were needed for further advances. Also, the longer it took to capture the cities, the more difficult it would be because reinforcements would keep on arriving. It was Catch 22 and it just didn't make sense so I went on to another scenario.

This is not meant in any way to reflect on the concept and technical quality of SECOND FRONT. Both are superb. The historical accuracy is as good as can be modelled in CIV II, the map is incredibly detailed and the units excellently rendered. The failing was mine in not having the patience to play it at the historically correct pace.

Originally posted by La Fayette

Second Front

I have been more patient than AGRICOLA, but I completely agree with him: this scenario is beautiful, with a very detailed map and well designed units, but...the author has been so eager to make it follow History that the events file is much more powerful than the few degrees of freedom left to the player.

I felt like a schoolboy waiting for the teacher to allow this and that (somewhat alike when playing Spartacus a few weeks ago) and it became really boring after a while.

I was compelled to play 'Hotseat', which makes for a very difficult game since you don't see enemy moves and lose your units without knowing where the blow came from.

I tried a supposedly clever strategical move, namely taking the Luftwaffe's AFB of Carpiquet very early, but the AFB disappeared and became a village

I finally stopped after having taken Caen (that I wished to take, because I lived there when I was a schoolboy) on turn 35.

To make it short, I think that playing D-day is great, but after that one needs to be either very patient or able to find strategical moves that are strong enough to beat the powerful events file.

@MacM
Yes, you play them separately and, being different civs, neither one can see what the other one is doing. Blindman's Bluff in the Bocage.

[techumseh]

This is a problem typical of multiple events in large scenarios for MGE. The structure is very linear, since each new events file must pre-suppose a set of actions from the previous events file.

There is a similar limitation in the otherwise excellent "Herbstnebel". You have to attack in a pre-determined direction, since the next events file will deliver reinforcements to a fixed location, regardless of whether or not that's where the fighting is.

[curtsibling]

Indeed - I have found also that researching in a multi-file scenario is a bit redundant,
as older units can be evolved to newer types without the need for tech research...

Makes me wonder what manner of tech tree to use for D7...

[McMonkey]

@Agricola
I see what you mean about the constraints. I like historical accuracy but forcing the player to wait before taking Cherbourg, Carpiquet Airfield, Caen or St.Lo is just not realistic.

At the moment I am reading 'A Soldier's Story' by Omar Bradley. It is clear in this book that taking Cherbourg as soon as possible was the key to allied success. Before this was achieved the allies could not land sufficient supplies to back up a breakout. The Allies would have wanted to take Cherbourg at the first possible opportunity!

St. Lo was only left because the troops and supplies were needed to take Cherbourg. If there had been an opportunity to capture St. Lo without a major drain on Troops and ammunition the Americans would have done so. This would have given them a good jumping off point for the breakout.

Carpiquet airfield and Caen were both targets for D-Day itself. If the British had taken them on D-Day they would have been in a better position and could have still drawn the bulk of the German strength as British armour would have threatened a breakout onto the pains leading to the Seine. Forcing the player to wait makes no sense!

I would still like to play the game though. I guess I need to install the Fantastic Worlds patch to play properly?

Also, if the scenario is so complex then there must be a Read Me file or Players Notes. If anyone has a copy could they post them please.

[AGRICOLA]

Here's the Readme.