Non-graphics mods for TOT Red Front Redux

[Colwyn]

Yes I'm happy to get involved with this, I'm sorry but Ive been away a little bit and still have to post the very final RF1.5 based on some final tweaks and reporting from Agricola.

I will do so in the next week.

[AGRICOLA]

Good to hear from you again.
I hope that you now have the time to stick around.

[AGRICOLA]

Proposed Changes for Red Front Redux

What follows is in two parts. Part A briefly summarizes the most significant changes that Colwyn has made so that RF 1.5 is considerably more difficult than RF 1.4. Part B covers the improvements to RF 1.5 that have been suggested by contributors to this thread.

The attachment contains zipped saves from RF 1.4 (May ’42) and RF 1.5 (Dec ’43) which illustrate how the use of various existing loopholes can distort both scenarios.


A. Major changes from RF 1.4 to RF 1.5

I. Eliminated the “Too many units” problem.
Changed the .scn file by thinning out the rear echelons of the German forces by ~200 of the weakest units (Romanian Inf, Wehrmacht, Stu III G etc.).


II. Replaced the Supply Convoys from UK with shipments of military units.
This has greatly reduced the money available for rush buying and made it mandatory that a player develop the productivity of Soviet cities. IMO, despite my initial misgivings, this change has significantly improved the game.


III. Eliminated the event (Winter ‘41-’42) that spawns two Partisans for every Red Army that is killed.
A player can easily build 150+ inexpensive, weak Red Army during the winter of ‘41-’42, stack them up in front of Soviet cities to get them killed off and end up with 300+ much stronger Partisans far behind the German lines. With airlifted and locally RB reinforcements this Partisan army is strong enough and large enough to rapidly conquer all of Europe in ‘42.


IV. Reduced the 2-turn movement capability of all Soviet aircraft to 1 turn, shortened their ranges, made them extremely expensive and eliminated their attack capabilities in winter.
This prevents the use of aircraft to form a defensive line that blocks German movement. It also means that aircraft play a minor role in RF 1.5 and that Soviet units have to operate without air cover.


V. ABSOLUTELY prohibited the selling of AT Defenses.

The RF 1.4 save shows why this was necessary.

1. Because selling AT Defenses is not forbidden in RF 1.4, it is possible to employ a scorched earth strategy of razing all possible cities from Riga to Odessa rather than letting them fall into German hands.
2. As there are no German-held cities within Luftwaffe range of the Soviet front line, Luftwaffe aircraft no longer pose a threat to the Soviets.
3. With the Luftwaffe threat removed, the only defensive forces that the Soviets need are ~60 La-5 fighters to form a picket line whose ZOC stops German ground units from advancing. The only unit that the La-5’s need to worry about is the occasional Sdkfz 4x20mm Flak.
4. Meanwhile Il-2 Shturmoviks can have a field day shooting up German ground units. They are in no hurry and can afford to wait for German units to move onto ground with no defensive bonus.
5. In the Rostov area, most German units are spawned in squares where there used to be cities. With the cities gone, they become sitting ducks, without even a fortress to protect them. Il-2’s can regularly kill stacks of 20-50+ freshly spawned units.

It is a very cosy situation for the Soviets who can chop up German units at their leisure with minimal risk of losing any of their own units, a far cry from the dangers the Soviets actually faced in the summer of ’42.


VI. Added new house rules, both to close loopholes and make the scen more dificult.




B. Recommended changes to Colwyn’s Red Front 1.5

I. Minimize Soviet amphibious capabilities by making them unable to build any ships except those spawned by events in UK.

At present, players can use three major rivers to safely freight units into the heart of Germany in winter when the Luftwaffe cannot attack. This possibility was suggested by Xin Yu in his excellent essay on Red Front strategy. Although I have taken advantage of this in my games (see the RF 1.5 save), there is no way that it could actually have happened. AFAIK, the Soviets carried out only minor amphibious operations in WWII.

Proposed remedy:
Remove the Steel tech from Soviet tech list to make it impossible to build any ships. I would appreciate opinions on whether the Soviets should keep the freighters that they have at the beginning of the scen in the Baltic (2) and Black (3) Seas. Enterprising players could make considerable use these few ships for small but not unimportant amphibious operations. Also, should the Soviets start with a number of freighters in the Caspian Sea and on the Volga for transporting units to the front?


II. Make both the battle for Stalingrad and the Caucasus invasion events that the Soviets cannot avoid.

Stalingrad was one of the pivotal battles of the war, yet in the RF 1.5 saved game the Soviets managed to avoid it. This should not be possible, the battle was too critical to be circumvented by players.

In the RF 1.5 save, the pontoon bridge was taken out by 152mm Howies (IIRC, 10 were lost). German units that subsequently spawned on the site of the bridge had to cross minefields to get to Stalingrad. Howies in Kotelnikovo had a field day using the immobilized German units for target practice. There was no battle for Stalingrad or any threat to the Caucasus.

Proposed remedy:
Change events so that at least some German units are spawned on the east bank of the Don, change the types of units spawned to include more units that can ignore city walls, randomize spawning locations and, maybe, use CHANGETERRAIN events to remove possible minefields. In other words, do everything possible to ensure that Soviets will have to fight for Stalingrad and defend the Caucasus.


III. Try to make Kursk ’43 (Zitadelle) a significant factor in the game.

There seems to be general agreement that this phase of the war could be be improved.

The Kursk problem may be insoluble because there is no guarantee that the Soviets will have advanced to the area where the units for Zitadelle are created. We may have to accept the fact that units created for Zitadelle may start out a considerable distance from the nearest Soviet units. The RF 1.5 Dec ’43 save shows that the last of the Zitadelle units are still west and southwest of Voronezh. In ’43, my Soviet units never left the protection of their cities and minefields and had no difficulty in destroying the units spawned for Zitadelle.

Proposed remedy:
Increase the number of spawned units . . . . . and hope for the best.


IV. Make the defence of Germany in ’44 and ’45 stronger, more active and more of a challenge for players.

Dr Kellogg and others feel that this warrants tweaks such as:

1. Invisible Volkssturm which appear after German cities are taken; no serious danger but really annoying.

2. Extraordinary strong Waffen-SS -high movement or invisble flag- which appear very late in the game and which try to defend their country till the bitter end.

3. The chance of counter-attacks by the Germans if Soviets stop their advance or are not able to take major cities within a certain timeframe (in this case the Germans would have had enough time to organize and re-group their defense...)

Proposed remedy:
The German defences can be improved by starting the scen with all or selected German homeland cities already with a Hedgehog or a similar static, strong defensive unit so that events need not be wasted creating them. In anticipation of the end game, cities that will be designated as “fortresses” in ’44 or ’45 can start with 2 or more such strong defensive units. In addition, any of the above suggestions or variants of them can be implemented.

Possible drawbacks include that #1 may require the equivalent of a German partisan unit which could not use the existing partisan slot because there already are both Soviet and Yugoslav partisans. # 3 may use up an excessive amount of events space if used extensively.


V. Create a race for Berlin between the Allies and the Soviets.

At present, RF 1.4 and RF 1.5 use change terrain from industry to ruins or plains to simulate the effect of the Allied strategic bombing of German cities (summer ’43 to end of scen). Although historically correct, this has a minimal effect on German production. For most of this period, German cities convert production to gold. Also, starting in late summer ’43 and continuing to the end of the scen, G.I.’s and Sherman tanks are spawned, first in Italy and then in central Europe. These are too few and too weak to capture German cities.

Proposed remedy:
Create Allied heavy bombers (B-17’s, B-24’s or Lancasters) powerful enough to destroy city defenders, first in Italy and then in Germany. These could show up in Italy during the summer of ’43 and in Germany at some time in late ’44. If the bombers can be made to attack nearby cities (this should work in TOT because in Market Garden freshly spawned German aircraft make a beeline for the nearest Allied unit or city) then, together with additional G.I.’s and Shermans, they should be able to start capturing Italian cities in ’44 and German cities in early ’45.


VI. Eliminate the T-34/76 to JS-2 and La-5 to P-47 loopholes.

These loopholes appear if players do not follow the sequence of actions expected by the scenario. The loopholes exist in both RF 1.4 and 1.5.

1. The sequence of Soviet tank improvements is supposed to start with T-34/76 which is upgraded to T-34/85 when the Soviet Armament Industry (Leonardo’s) wonder is built.
2. If a player does NOT build the Soviet Armament Industry wonder and continues to build and play with T-34/76’s, in May ’44 his inexpensive T-34/76’s are replaced by JS-2’s, a considerably better and more expensive tank because the T-34/76 slot is occupied by the JS-2 in RULES 7, 8 and 9.
3. The La-5 to P-47 loophole has a similar origin. A player who does not build the wonder or research the tech for the Yak-9 will end up with an unintended upgrade of his La-5’s to P-47 Thunderbolts in RULES 9 (Summer ’45).

Proposed remedy:
Put the JS-2 and P-47 in new slots rather than use existing T-34/76 and La-5 slots.


VII. Relocate Labor Brigades to where Nemo has them at the start of RF 1.4 and restore the number to 16. Ensure that all LB’s go “active” during the “ghost” turn.

In RF 1.5 the author advocates that the Russians found new cities in Siberia, has positioned Labor Brigades to do so and suggests that this is necessary to win the scenario. I tested this idea and, unfortunately, the results do not agree with his ideas. Expanding existing cities is a much more efficient way to increase production than building additional cities in the Siberian forest.


VIII. Change square (50,28) from ocean to land.

This is a very subtle change made by Colwyn in RF 1.5 that allows players to create an ocean passage from UK to the Baltic (see RF 1.5 save). If the Soviets are to be unable to carry out amphibious operations in the Redux, freighters from the UK must be kept out of the Baltic.


IX. Give units a choice in what they pillage.

The choice exists in RF 1.4 but I’m not certain whether there is or is not a choice in RF 1.5. When I had all the relevant RF 1.5 files in one folder, there was no choice. Farmland and irrigation were automatically pillaged before a road could be destroyed. When I moved the files to a new folder, there was choice. I never did bother to figure out why and played the scen with selective pillaging. My rationale was that even the dumbest Soviet lieutenant would know that blowing up bridges and culverts would delay the Germans more than torching or trampling down cornfields.


X. Include the following house rules from both RF 1.4 and RF 1.5.

A. No disbanding of units (except freighters).
B. No chaining of freighters. This increases the chance that freighters may be sunk. However, as freighters carry military units rather than Supply Convoys, the loss of a ship is no longer a catastrophy.
C. No incremental rush buying.
D. No airlifting units from UK to the USSR,
E. No selling of antitank defences in order to carry out a scorched earth strategy of razing cities rather than have them fall into German hands.
F. No unit movement, sales or build queue changes allowed in the phantom June 1941 turn.
G. No moving or rehoming of fortified positions.
H. No building of airfields as substitutes for RR.
I. No selling of NKVD Headquarters


I sincerely apologize to several contributors who have proposed changes based on the events capabilities of TOT. I definitely do not have the expertise to judge the merits of these proposals. I will leave that to the scenario designer who will actually implement the changes and create the Redux scen.

Please voice your opinions, suggestions or screams of outrage.

[Leonidas]

Colwyn:

Gald to see you are back.

I'll be looking forward to seeing the finished product


AGRICOLA:

Very nice summary of all the changes.

Loopholes and gamey actions should be eliminated.

I like the fact that Stalingrad and Kursk events should be made more difficult.

Battle for Berlin: If I remember correctly, there were even King Tiger tanks in Berlin in '45 that fought right up until almost the last days of the war. So the fighting for Berlin should be ferocious. . .

And I agree that there should be a race for Berlin - maybe create a special "Patton" unit to lead the charge

[fairline]

Excellent summary of the potential loopholes and bugs in RF Agricola

I am currently replaying RF1.4 and can attest to most of them. Feedback from other players, particularly those who have played 1.5 would be appreciated.

Stay tuned for an announcement about resolving the issues Agricola has highlighted.

[Harry Tuttle]

III. Try to make Kursk ’43 (Zitadelle) a significant factor in the game.

There seems to be general agreement that this phase of the war could be be improved.

The Kursk problem may be insoluble because there is no guarantee that the Soviets will have advanced to the area where the units for Zitadelle are created. We may have to accept the fact that units created for Zitadelle may start out a considerable distance from the nearest Soviet units. The RF 1.5 Dec ’43 save shows that the last of the Zitadelle units are still west and southwest of Voronezh. In ’43, my Soviet units never left the protection of their cities and minefields and had no difficulty in destroying the units spawned for Zitadelle.

Proposed remedy:
Increase the number of spawned units . . . . . and hope for the best.

Hmmm, I propose a workaround. Perhaps a a multi-tiered event trigger would be in order.

The original keystone trigger included in Events 5.txt:

@IF
TURN
turn=26
@THEN
TEXT
July 5, 1943: Operation "Citadel" is launched....
ENDTEXT
GIVETECHNOLOGY
receiver=Germans
technology=23
JUSTONCE
@ENDIF

The event above gives tech 23 to the Germans, which then, upon receiving tech 23, German units are created in Kursk, Gomel, Bryansk, and other assorted outlying terrain in the region.

I propose...

The keystone event trigger would be contained in the events for the summer of 1943 and thereafter.

In the spring, summer, fall time period that Events 5.txt is swapped in have the trigger be contingent on the Soviets taking back Kursk. The real attack did not actually take place in Kursk itself, but rather to the salients edges, north, west, and south of the city. Once Kursk is taken back, have the German units appear at the salients edges and not in Kursk itself.

This event, which can be surmised as "If and when Kursk is taken back Operation Citadel is launched" can be forever contingent on Soviet units actually being in the city, therefore close to the events created German units.

Now, the problem with this plan is the simple fact that the events space required to keep the "If Kursk captured" event continuous would be too large to fit in any future events (6,7,8,9) as they stand now in their present forms.

However, and this is a bit drastic, but workable with Civswap (I presume), the events files could be paired down, broken into as many turn interval blocks that would be required to not affect the creation of the units that would be created dependent on a turn, and then have the continuous "If Kursk captured" trigger and unit creation events be passed on in the available space created by pairing down the event files.

This would be possible if the "redux" used Civswap, but that's all contingent on how big you want to go.

My two cents.

[CapTVK]

B. Recommended changes to Colwyn’s Red Front 1.5

I. Minimize Soviet amphibious capabilities by making them unable to build any ships except those spawned by events in UK.

At present, players can use three major rivers to safely freight units into the heart of Germany in winter when the Luftwaffe cannot attack. This possibility was suggested by Xin Yu in his excellent essay on Red Front strategy. Although I have taken advantage of this in my games (see the RF 1.5 save), there is no way that it could actually have happened. AFAIK, the Soviets carried out only minor amphibious operations in WWII.

Proposed remedy:
Remove the Steel tech from Soviet tech list to make it impossible to build any ships. I would appreciate opinions on whether the Soviets should keep the freighters that they have at the beginning of the scen in the Baltic (2) and Black (3) Seas. Enterprising players could make considerable use these few ships for small but not unimportant amphibious operations. Also, should the Soviets start with a number of freighters in the Caspian Sea and on the Volga for transporting units to the front?

Do we really have to get rid of Soviet freighter ability?
I'm asking because my strategy is usually based on using freighters as a north-south express line for quickly moving around re-inforcements. Plus I love to make amphibious assaults with my carefully hoarded sailors. Two or three freighters loaded with sailors can do excellent against German occupied cities.

Couldn't we just block off rivers into Germany with a special non-moving unit?

[AGRICOLA]

Jeez, I really don’t want to get into self-serving explanations from me and, most definitely, not into any kind of arguments so please consider what follows merely as clarifications of my thinking as I compiled the list of recommendations. My point of view while doing the compilation was that of a player who is looking for a loophole to get around something that the nasty designer has done. If I could see a loophole, then the recommendation was not made.


@Harry Tuttle

I offered no solution for the Kursk problem because I could see no way to prevent the way that I would play the scen in ‘43. My thinking was as follows:

1. There is no hope of duplicating the broad-front advance that the Soviets actually carried out in Ukraine during the summer of ’43. German forces are still very strong in this area and the inability to provide air cover for Soviet units is a major concern. Soviet production is only now starting to turn out significant numbers of Katyushas and T-34’s. Consequently, there would be no Soviet offensive of any kind on the eastern front during the summer of ’43.

2. Realistically, I would expect to attack in Dec ’43, when the Luftwaffe is no longer a threat. I think that during the summer I could have amassed approximately 50 Katyushas, 70 T-34’s and 15 Labor Brigades in the Moscow area. This area is selected for very practical reasons: rivers (river=road) lead to Kaluga, Smolensk and Vitebsk and it offers the shortest route to Berlin.

3. By using overwhelming force, the offensive would hopefully capture Kaluga in Dec ’43, Smolensk and Vitebsk in Jan ’44, Minsk in Feb, Bialystok in March and Warsaw in April before having to adopt a defensive posture to build Air and Tank Defences and Barracks, bring up reinforcements and await the inevitable German reaction. I suspect that Poznan and Berlin would be in Soviet hands by the fall of ’44 as Soviet production levels reach 30+ major units each month.

The Kursk area would remain a backwater as far as Soviet offensive actions are concerned so that Zitadelle would not be triggered until the winter of ’44-‘45 or the following summer. At this time, with their homeland in danger, would the Germans launch a major attack in Russia rather than closer to home? Could your idea perhaps be implemented as an eastern front last-ditch “Ardennes” offensive that is triggered by the capture of a German city?


@CapTVK

It’s great to find a comrade in arms who loves amphib operations as much as I do.

Blockading the rivers is a great idea and we already have the perfect unit. . . . the mine. A couple mines at the mouth of each navigable river would stop Soviet ships from heading upstream. I’m suggesting a couple of mines because low-life type players have been known to build cities that allow them to get around single mines.

That said, my main reason for suggesting eliminating amphib ops was a desire to force the Soviets to use massive ground offensives to conquer Germany. That seemed more realistic than letting them circumvent the bulk of German forces and strike at the comparatively lightly defended homeland. I see no problem with giving the Soviets any number of freighters in the Caspian or on the Volga and the Lena.

If you have the time, perhaps take a look at the RF 1.5 Dec ’43 save where Soviet amphib ops have just captured Denmark, German coastal cities from Wilhelmshaven to Danzig, as well as several inland cities. Allowing for the fact that mines would definitely have delayed subsequent progress, the use of amphib ops has speeded up Soviet progress by 4-5 months compared to the ground offensive from the Moscow area that I have already described.

Similarly, there is a significant amphib force holed up in the ancient Romanian city of Temp1, just E of Bucharest. If mines prevented this force from reaching its objective, the Nürnberg-Belgrade area, it would make short work of the German forces in the southern Balkans. Mining of the Danube would have no effect. Again, this would significantly speed up the Soviet timetable as compared to a ground offensive from the Rostov area.


In essence, amphib ops offer a means for Soviet forces to bypass the bulk of German forces and descend on the thinly held German rear.

Opinions please.

[CapTVK]

Originally posted by AGRICOLA
@CapTVK

It’s great to find a comrade in arms who loves amphib operations as much as I do.

...

In essence, amphib ops offer a means for Soviet forces to bypass the bulk of German forces and descend on the thinly held German rear.

Opinions please.

Agricola,

Finally someone who also appreciates the Russian naval forces

Well, bypassing enemy lines to attack the rear is usually standard military doctrine. Although I'm not as effective at amphib assault as you are. You've basically conquered whole of Scandinavia in 1943!

I didn't even think of attacking Sweden and Norway. I usually use my freighters to reinforce Sevastopol and at Leningrad to attack Finland in 1941. Score a quick victory to get the Fins of my back and use my remaining freighters to harass forces around Leningrad or even try for Talinn or Riga. I was mostly concentrating on building troops not freighters. But I can see now that if you keep on building freighters taking Scandinavia becomes a piece of cake.

Removing the freighter ability might indeed be a good choice. I would like some freighters pop up here and there though. You still would be able to launch limited amphibs but not enough to steamroll into cities across the entire coastal line. Plus we could still mine the rivers.



I'm glad the Partizan loophole was fixed in 1.5. The red hordes are closing in on Berlin and it's only 1942. Yikes!!!

[Cyrion]

Why not keep the freighter building ability, but make them extremely expensive?? That might stop the players from using hordes of them, while allowing to build some where really necessary?

That, with the use of mines on some rivers, might do the trick, what do you think?

[CapTVK]

In the older RF's money wasn't really a problem once the freighters arrived. So I basically rushbuild as much as i could in a turn.

In 1.5 money is a bit tighter but you could still rushbuild if you want. It would really depend on how expensive it is. It seems a bit odd if a freighter costs more than a KV-1, a cruiser or even a destroyer.

[Leonidas]

My thought is to not allow the frieghter to be built, but to give the Soviet player just a few in selected areas.

This would have the effect of freeing up another unit slot; force the player into a LAND war vs amphibious actions; and thus keep things historical.

My thought is to curtail anything that is ahistorical and/or which the player could use for gamey purposes.

As for Kursk: it should occur in summer of '43 whether the Soviet player is ready or not - this would give the German AI even more punch.

Cheers!

[N35t0r]

Originally posted by Leonidas
This would have the effect of freeing up another unit slot;

No it won't. You'd still need to use up the slot in order to have the units, even if they're not availiable to build.

[curtsibling]

There are plenty of surplus slots anyway - This is ToT, after all!

[AGRICOLA]

Originally posted by CapTVK Finally someone who also appreciates the Russian naval forces

I believe that makes us the founding members of the Association to Promote Amphibious Ops.

Originally posted by CapTVK
I usually use my freighters to reinforce Sevastopol and at Leningrad to attack Finland in 1941. Score a quick victory to get the Fins of my back and use my remaining freighters to harass forces around Leningrad or even try for Talinn or Riga.

In 1941, RF 1.5 plays quite differently from 1.4. The German attack is significantly more powerful. I could not stop the Germans from reaching Leningrad and only some hurried work by Labor Brigades kept the city from being captured. The best that I could do in Finland was to attack it in May '43, simultaneously from the north and the south.

Originally posted by CapTVK
I'm glad the Partizan loophole was fixed in 1.5. The red hordes are closing in on Berlin and it's only 1942. Yikes!!!

Yes, a player who both razes cities (scorched earth) and builds Partisans can absolutely destroy the scen.

Originally posted by Cyrion
Why not keep the freighter building ability, but make them extremely expensive?? That might stop the players from using hordes of them, while allowing to build some where really necessary?

As a player, I'd love to keep the amphib option but I have nightmares when I think that, given two rowboats and a raft, members of the APAO would probably have a couple dozen Katyushas and T-34's spending Christmas '43 in Copenhagen.

Perhaps we have taken this one as far as we can. Let's leave it to the scen designer to figure out what would be best.

Originally posted by Leonidas
As for Kursk: it should occur in summer of '43 whether the Soviet player is ready or not - this would give the German AI even more punch.

I think that we may have some missed communications here. I would certainly want Kursk in the summer of '43 and my only concern is that it won't accomplish anything. If developed correctly, Soviet front line cities should be almost impregnable by this time and be able to deal with anything that the Germans can throw at them. In the RF 1.5 save you can see that no German ground unit can reach any of the cities along the Don without getting stuck and becoming a sitting duck for Howies in the cities.

Originally posted by curtsibling
There are plenty of surplus slots anyway - This is ToT, after all!

How many extras are there? I can at present see the need for 4.