NEW - WWII Europa Scenario released!

[McMonkey]

Originally posted by Boco


Sorry for the too-basic advice re Tobruk. AFAIK, Tobruk was held to keep the Axis out of Egypt. It was feared that if the Axis penetrated too far and too long into Egypt, a rebellion could erupt in cities along the Nile. That threat didn't seem to materialize during the brief German drive to El Alamein, but I don't know enough about what measures the Brits took to keep Egyptians friendly.

You've probably already done this, but if you want sell-offs to be a valid tactic, make sure you alpha test this in your scenario to make sure that gameplay remains balanced. Agricola is well beyond the rest of us in playing skill, but this particular tactic is common among mortals as well.

Nothing wrong with the adivce on Tobruk old chap. Question. What does AFAIK mean? Understood the rest of sentance without it mind.
I'm not sure what Brits did to prevent rebellion either, maybe the amount of allied armour and airpower in and around Egypt put off even the most hardened rebel!
There is an excellent Ospery Campaign book out on the revolt in Iraq in 1941, unfortunately it happened too early to be in my scenario, would have been very interesting to try to represent this threat in the rear, could have had the Axis land paratroopers on Cyprus and into the Lavant and everything!

Re: Selling off improvements. When I said valid tactic I really ment OK on a small scale (thats the way I use it), say to keep your head above water when your down to your last few pennys. I never sell off all the unnecassary improvements at the start of the game to make a quick buck as it would make my citizens feel bad!
I suppose the key would be to only have nessasary essential improvements in the first place. Selling off captured enemy improvements seems ok (in my twisted way of thinking), as is turning their population into slaves and transplanting them to your cities, reducing their ugly cities to piles of rubble and sewing their fields with salt so nothing will ever grow there again
Okay! No, I'm a peaceful sole really!

[Patine]

You could create a genuine Battle of the Atlantic by giving subs the 'can attack aircraft' flag. That would simulate their ability to attack ships despite air cover. After all, there is no air cover at night.

Actually, AGRICOLA, my current version of EotRS on my HD uses this advice, after your air-supported convoy system made the Japanese richer than they even were in the '80's. I plan to release that around Feb-Mar, with all good luck.

@Wierd100: Welcome to the community! I like your idea. It definitely has potential. DLing now.

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by Boco
AFAIK, Tobruk was held to keep the Axis out of Egypt. It was feared that if the Axis penetrated too far and too long into Egypt, a rebellion could erupt in cities along the Nile. That threat didn't seem to materialize during the brief German drive to El Alamein, but I don't know enough about what measures the Brits took to keep Egyptians friendly.

For Werd: AFAIK is for As Far As I Know!

And in ToT it would be possible to give the same incentive to keep Tobruk: for instance, you could make an event that gives a random chance of rebel appearance in Egypt as long as Tobruk isn't in British hands!

OK, you might need a spare unit, should you be willing to implement this...

[AGRICOLA]

@Patine

Hey, it's great to hear that you intend to finish EOTR in the near future. I had no idea that you had adopted the 'can attack aircraft' flag for subs.

As I'm using it in WWII Europa, I've had a few more thoughts about the side effects of this approach. In effect, what I posted on your "Empire of the Rising Sun v1.1 Ready for Playtest " thread

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146083

needs a bit of revision.

Submarines didn't work a damn until I changed their role from 2 to 0 (attack) and gave them the "can attack a/c flag" in mid '43. With the new role, they no longer immediately run for the beach at Waikiki but mill around near where they are spawned. The "can attack a/c flag" negates players' tactic of stacking a/c with freighters or other ships so that subs are unable to attack them.

This forced me to do several things:
• end every turn with all freighters and aircraft in cities.
• found additional port cities in Burma, Malaya and Borneo.
• start anti-sub patrols using DD's to locate subs and Shindens to attack them.

Anti-submarine warfare became an interesting though time consuming part of the game.

I now think that the flag works well in TOT with stackable terrain but not in MGE or non-stackable TOT.

In the latter cases, giving subs the 'can attack a/c' flag makes long distance invasions, such as Torch in WWII, exceedingly risky because there is no way to guarantee the safe arrival of at least a part of a multi-ship invasion convoy. One sub can sink an entire convoy, IMHO a highly undesireable situation. With stackable terrain, only some of the ships are likely to be sunk and there is always the chance of rescuing ground units.

[McMonkey]

Originally posted by Cyrion


For Werd: AFAIK is for As Far As I Know!

And in ToT it would be possible to give the same incentive to keep Tobruk: for instance, you could make an event that gives a random chance of rebel appearance in Egypt as long as Tobruk isn't in British hands!

OK, you might need a spare unit, should you be willing to implement this...

Thanks Cyrion
Think in need an abreviation dictionary! I am getting the destinct feeling (look away Eivind ) that making ToT scenarions may be the way forward. I am searching E-Bay for a copy. Although saying that I have resisted the flashy 3-D lure of CivIII/IV!
Would be cool to get a copy of ToT and catch up on the many scenarios already out.

[McMonkey]

Originally posted by AGRICOLA

As I'm using it in WWII Europa, I've had a few more thoughts about the side effects of this approach.

I now think that the flag works well in TOT with stackable terrain but not in MGE or non-stackable TOT.

In the latter cases, giving subs the 'can attack a/c' flag makes long distance invasions, such as Torch in WWII, exceedingly risky because there is no way to guarantee the safe arrival of at least a part of a multi-ship invasion convoy. One sub can sink an entire convoy, IMHO a highly undesireable situation. With stackable terrain, only some of the ships are likely to be sunk and there is always the chance of rescuing ground units.

This is a very interesting debate. Here are a few thoughts.
-ASW in this scenario should be interesting, tactically and strategically. One objective of the allies can be interdicting the U-Boats at their point of origin (Ie. Atlantic coast of France) where they tend to mill around for a bit before setting out to sea. I do this with my own sub patrols, destroyer screens, maritime aircraft patrols and bomber raids on Nantes (etc...) harbours.
-Convoy protection is possible without air stacking. On my first playtest I successfully pulled of Torch (was running through WWII as it was historically ish). I sent one large convoy from USA to Casablanca and Two convoys from GB to the Med. All convoys had a carrier whose planes patrolled the perimeter on the route, beyond the enemy subs maximum movement rate the following turn. There was an extensive (though by no means total) Cruiser and Destroyer screen. The Freighters were stacked with Battleships at the heart of the convoy (a bit risky as there was 30+ units).
-The convoys lost escort vessels to U-Boats and a few battleships were damaged but survives (returned to USA for repair). The rest of the transports had to bunch up making them even more vulnerable, but they made it.
-Air cover from Gibraltar made the last leg of the journey a bit easier.
-The worst problem (covered in the read me) was being attacked by a paranoid Neutral/Spanish AI Navy who I had sailed my invasion fleets too close to. They took out a lot of Escorts and if I remember a battleship (already damaged) that luckily had only one transport and three land units stacked under its protection.
-The whole invasion was achievable (especially if the Neutrals are considered) and is the longest amphibious invasion the player would need to undertake. The battle for Vichy North Africa was a bit of an anti-climax after the hassle of getting there, but Tunis was a harder nut to crack!

I am going to play test the new subs rules as soon as I get the chance.
Thanks for the advice.

[Eivind IV]

Originally posted by Werd100
I am getting the destinct feeling (look away Eivind ) that making ToT scenarions may be the way forward.

I knew I shouldn't have invited you to Apolyton

[AGRICOLA]

Wow, that must have been a most impressive operation with 3 convoys in play at the same time and only progressing at 6 squares per turn. That's a long time to be steaming in dangerous waters.

As for my game:

1. At the end of Turn 3, aside from the loss of 7 units near the city, the Great Tobruk Bug-out is succeeding. More than 20 units, including all of the most valuable, will reach Alexandria. That is more than enough to protect Egypt against any conceivable German attack, especially as it will take their spearheads at least 12 turns to reach Alexandria.

The U-boat war is going surprisingly well, mainly because subs are attracted to concentrations of enemy units. 21 U-boats have been sunk so far.

2. I'm still leery of long convoys and the number of shipping and escort units that need to be built. I'm going to try a direct assault from Britain across the Channel where there is no risk of losing the invasion convoy and both freighters and transports can make more than one crossing per turn with no danger from either U-boats or aircraft. The other advantage of this is that it puts the invasion forces within range of reasonably closely spaced industrial cities. Of course, nothing will happen until sufficient mobile arty can be built.

North Africa seems destined to become an unimportant backwater of the war, particularly as it is a long fight in order to gain 4 objectives.

3. Could something like Imperial Trading Company or Empire Trading be a better name for the Adam Smith's Trading Company money-making wonder than 'Scheldt Estuary'? It is much easier on players if the name of a wonder gives at least some clue to its function. Also, might it better be located in New York or London rather than Malta?

4. It is still very early in the scen, but I am starting to wonder about the relationship between terrain movement costs, unit Mv's and the huge size of the map.

The fastest ground units are Mv=3.
All terrains have Movement Cost = 2, 3 or 4
This means that, in the absence of roads, all of Africa will be fought at 1 square/turn, hardly the speed at which O'Connor and Rommel operated. The same holds true for Western Europe, the plains of Ukraine and the Asian steppes. By comparison, partisans can move 3 squares through mountains.

I hope that I am not missing something important, but the whole thing does not seem very logical. Surely, tanks can move faster across grassland, plains and desert than partisans through mountains. Also, it takes engineers 2 turns to build a road on a plains or grassland square. That's as no better than settlers.

5. Is there a reason why Axis AA Flak has Mv=1 and Allied AA has Mv=0? Allied AA was definitely mobile in WWII. There are 4 immobile AA guns in farmyards in southern England, sitting ducks for the Luftwaffe. I can see having them on airfields or in cities but not where they are.

6. Patine in his EOTRS and other designers have replaced the atomic bomb icon with a specially marked B-29 and called it 'Atomic Bomber'. That looks a bit more realistic than a bomb levitating its way to the target.

7. Unfortunately, U-boats with Role=2 (naval superiority) are not behaving the way that you would like them to. They are doing the same thing that happened in EOTRS except that, in this case, the beaches of southern Italy rather than Waikiki seem to be the destination for most of them. I'll play a couple of more turns, post a save to illustrate the problem, and then change the sub role to 0 (attack) to see if that helps.

[McMonkey]

Hmmm

Agri

When I did Torch landings I crossed from US/GB with freighters that move 10 but were sticking with Battleships that move 8!. Torch requires a bit of forward planning if you are to organize troops, travel and land on time! Did you see the Dates file, this is handy for working out Operational plans/timetables and helps you stay focused.
Thinking about it it seems a bit odd to have used freighters, I suppose I intended the Transport/Landing Craft for D-Day etc... They can carry more troops but are not designed for high seas. I suppose I put them both in for their appearences but I could realy combine them in version 2 (Ie. Freighter movement and capacity and Transport Graphics).

2. I wanted to try and make D-Day 1941/2 as unpaletable as possible, I suppose it is quite possible to ignore the Med and build all your forces in Britain for an earlier cross chanel invasion, something that both the Russians and the Americans would have favoured in real life! This is part of the alternative history aspect of the game. Can the war end in 1942/3?
I would like to make the war in the Med more vital in game terms. Any ideas would be welcome. Churchill was keen on this strategy, the US was less enthusiastic once Egypt (Suez) looked safe.

3. OOPS! Not sure how the Scheldt estury (in Holland!) relocated to Malta. I must have been trying to make defending Malta more important and fallen asleep and forgotten I had done it! The idea was to make the capture of Antwerp a vital allied objective as its docks became the main Allied supply depot in continental Europe. In RL the British captured Antwerp but neglected to capture the Scheldt estury that leads to it. The allies (including the Canadian 1st Army) had to fight a vicious amphibious campaign to clear the island of Walcheren so Antwerp could be opened up for shipping. Will resolve this in version 2.

4. Movement. My view is that road/rail networks are key (especially in Winter) and holding the roads is essential. You can bypass them but it is not a quick and easy process. You are quite right, tanks can often travel cross country but they still require support (supply, fuel, ammo) and most of this is via rail, truck convoy and even horses (German army!). If this were a purely tactical game it would not matter so much, but the scale makes it more strategic and therefore the roads (I think) make sense.
Re: Partizans. The idea of these units was to make them pesky and unpredictable. They can pop up behind your lines, block mountain passes, cut roads etc... They are not too good in a fight, more nuissance value!

I did not notice that about engineers, I will take a look, I suppose I did not built many roads when I played.

5. Re: AA. This is another point I deliberated over. The mighty 88 was always ment to be mobile, I wanted to make the Bofors mobile but did not for the following reason: I wanted the Atlantic wall and other such fortifications to be tough to crack. I therefore built fortresses (on hills) and fortified bunkers (immobile) in them. To stop the bunkers being carpet bombed to rubble I added an AA gun in the fortress. I knew that as soon as I hit enter for the AI's first turn it would take them all for a wander across the countryside!
What I may do is use the space freed by the Freighter to create a mobile AA unit. May make it for Axis though so allies will still have no mobile air cover!
The ones in Kent/Sussex are just for show!

6. Atomic bomber sounds like a plan! I could use Superfortress graphic! I had a lot of problems with this particular unit. Originally I had it in the 'Barbarian Leader' slot, however you cannot build this unit and I don't think you can create it through events. I then sacrificed the German Mountain Jager and shoehorned the A-Bomb in its place. When I tested it (ie. Allies develop manhattan project and have all other relevent techs) you could not build the bomb! I checked I had not messed up the rules file but could not work it out. Eventually I gave up and created an event to build a few bombs. If anyone knows what I did wrong please let me know! If I can sort it for version 2 that would be cool!

7. Subs. Damn! What goes on in the AI's 'mind'? Please do let me know what works best. A house rule may be the best solution!

Thanks for the input, this will keep me busy for a while!

[McMonkey]

Turncoat

Originally posted by Eivind IV


I knew I shouldn't have invited you to Apolyton

Don't worry Eivind, I will always love MGE the most. ToT will just be my bit on the side!
My next few projects are all planned for MGE anyway. BTW I started playing La Belle as the Ottomans this morning, failed miserably to capture Cairo, got ambushed by nomadic horseman! May start again as Japan as I think the Sultans days are numbered!

[AGRICOLA]

Originally posted by Werd100
I checked I had not messed up the rules file but could not work it out. Eventually I gave up and created an event to build a few bombs. If anyone knows what I did wrong please let me know! If I can sort it for version 2 that would be cool!

Actually, there is a problem in rules.

The tech for the Manhattan Project HAS to be in the Nuclear Fission (NF) slot in the tech table. You have it in the Nuclear Power (NP) slot.

Also, don't forget to change the prerequisites for both the Manhattan Project and the A-bomb to NF.

I've got it working in my game because I have learned the hard way not to have any faith whatsoever in getting event-generated units, techs or money when and where I need or want them. The four crummy bombs you have granted ain't hardly enough to take out one of them there neutrals.

[McMonkey]

AAAAH!

Good to finally know why it wasn't working.
I wasted ages trying to sort that out! Should be quite simple to fix in version 2, then you will be able to build enough Atomic bombers to nuke Berlin AND Moscow!

[MacGalleo]

Re: Group reply to yaal

Originally posted by Werd100
MacGalleo
1940, cool. Are you running a development thread? Could share a few ideas!

Sorry for the late answer, you can find the thread about my scenario here :

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=159927

[MacGalleo]

I will be happy to share some ideas. But for the moment, I think that your scenario is much more advanced than mine. Tomorrow I will try to spend more time to create mine.

[AGRICOLA]

Originally posted by Werd100
What I may do is use the space freed by the Freighter to create a mobile AA unit. May make it for Axis though so allies will still have no mobile air cover!
The ones in Kent/Sussex are just for show!

Actually I was concerned only about the 4 wasted units in Kent and the need to build additional AA to protect newly captured cities. Mobile AA would permit the ones in Kent to be moved into cities and AA units to move forward as protection for newly captured cities.

To provide air cover for assault units as they move forward does not require AA. All one needs is 2 engineers to move forward 2 road spaces and build an instant fortress, attack units which move into the fortress (including some vet heavy armor with D=10), and an a/c to top off the stack of units in the fortress. The stack can be attacked only by enemy fighters and, until the Me-262, the heavy armor should be able to handle any attack. The main point is that the whole stack of attack units is not destroyed if one the units is killed.

TOT with stackable terrain eliminates the need to build fortresses.