Pablostuka's Spanish Civil War

[McMonkey]

Got it! I did not realise that the Checkflag line was actually a trigger itself. Thanks for your patience Catfish.

I have been busy writing events and now I can fix them knowing the correct formula

I have also found the ; very useful for noting and organizing my events. Before I was keeping paper notes which was very cumbersome!

[Jerec]

@Everybody

Just for common knowledge, the PBEM between McMonkey and I is finished.

@McMonkey

Scorched earth is only an option for the player who does NOT hold Bilbao and its "Great Wall" wonder. Compulsory city walls are a feature of John Ellis' excellent scenarios (as are the absence of barracks!) and they prevent the unrealistic (if tactically expedient) destruction of cities. He makes them 0 gold so they cost nothing to rebuild if they are destroyed when a city is captured and there is no economic incentive for the player to flog them!

I forgot about that wonder.

You can still follow a scorched earth policy with industrial squares and other city improvements. By banning the deliberate destruction of cities you remedy the Talavera NAL problem and I believe it will lead to a better, more attack oriented game. I would hope to discourage the tactic of abandoning/destroying unneeded/undefendable cities and relying on super garrisons with a belt of devastated roads, no fly zones around them (again I'm not knocking your fine strategy ). If you don't want the enemy to have a town which they can use as a forward airbase you will either have to defend it or wait for them to put some aircraft there and then destroy them in a counterattack.

Yeah, right. Scorched earth means everything gone, period. If only Industry was pillaged, it would be just that: minor pillaging, guerrilla warfare. Nothing like a true scorched earth policy with all cities, roads,and industry razed. Take out the destruction of cities, and scorched earth is out the window, pure and simple. That is not to say I would protest making the rule, I'm just pointing out that scorched earth is then ineffective. To get a more attack oriented game, I still think that limited garrisons would greatly help, probably in conjunction with a SC ban (in the form of mandatory city Defences).

Limited garrisons would--

1) make all cities vulnerable (no more super fortresses like Madrid or Valladolid)

2) give greater potential (and therefore incentive) to offensives, which you want.

3) necessitate the spreading out of units among many cities, allowing the fortifying of multiple cities beyond a few fortresses and discouraging the SC abandonment tactic of all the small towns.

During the (RL) war both sides often thought tenaciously for symbolic towns which held limited strategic importance. A good example was the Republican offensive against Teruel and the subsequent Nationalist counterattack. I have not read the whole of Antony Beevor's 'The Battle for Spain' yet but I have been informed that he believes that both sides could have spent their troops more productively elsewhere. The Germans and Italians certainly thought Franco made a mistake in cancelling his offensive against Guadalajara-Madrid to retake this isolated backwater town!

Neither of us are daft enough to fight for symbols, and we don't have a pea-brained civilian population breathing down our necks for signs of victory.

Pablostuka posted some ideas a while back which included a reduction in the number of pre-placed airbases and the removal of the improvement from the tech tree. This would prevent both sides from airlifting units across Spain in an unrealistic way. I have an idea for an airlift unit that will allow for limited range airlifts!

Sounds good. Care to share your idea?

It would be good to make artillery a bit more mobile, though I am not sure how to do this just now.

You could keep it simple: add 1 movement point to the AT gun, and 1 movement to both the 75mm and the 155mm artillery. Problem solved!

I would definitely tweak the fighters defensive stats a little. It seems mad that it normally takes two fighters to shoot down one enemy fighter and that a fighter/armoured car combo in a city make it practically invulnerable to bombers while artillery stand little chance of closing with the city to launch an attack.

Tweak them how much? So it is a 1:1 kill ratio in a dogfight? And, if you limit the garrisons, the fighter/armored car combo is stripped of its invincibility.

Regarding the game. In hindsight I should have conserved all my starting fighter strength to defend my cities until the Army of Africa/CTV/Condor Legion could get north to relieve the defenders. I overestimated the Nationalists initial strength and underestimated the Republicans offensive capabilities. By the time I realised my mistake it was too late to fix it. I should have been more cautious until my southern force arrived! It has been a good lesson!

Which means that I refuse to be the Republicans in the next game! With your experience from the first one, I would be dead meat!

My biggest mistake was leaving Burgos so lightly guarded. In a turn or two more I would have garrisoned it better but I was gambling against you attacking so soon. Your one mistake was leaving Bilbao so lightly held and relying on the bunkers to keep me at bay. If you had not isolated my forces by taking Burgos I may have dawdled longer and given you time to fortify it properly. When I realised my troops in the North East were sitting ducks waiting for the bombers I decided to go for a death or glory attack. When San Sebastian fell I saw my chance and was more than a little excited to see my smallish infantry force smash their way into Bilbao. That came at a time when my confidence was at its lowest and reinvigorated me.

Sometimes I carry my blitzes too much- my offensives always go at an extremely fast rate, sometimes outrunning my troops. You, on the other hand, appear to be very methodical when carrying out a thrust.

And then I'm glad that I left Bilbao vulnerable. I certainly wouldn't have wanted Franco giving up prematurely!

Your advice would be most valuable to me while I try and make a ToT single and multiplayer mod. This is not my main project right now but it would be good to finish at some point this year. I would be very interested in playing a ToT PBEM game, I believe you own a copy!? Maybe we could reverse roles next time!

Yes, I have ToT. And I would probably refuse to play the next game without switching roles. If you played the Nationalists again, coupled with your enlightening hindsight, I would be mincemeat in a year or two!

[McMonkey]

It would be very interesting to play a ToT PBEM game. I have never seen one done, though I am sure it has been done before. I would be happy to play as the Republicans in the next game. I was not fully aware that the Republicans advantageous government compensated for the deficit in events generated units. I plan to add several unit types to both sides. If I add the same amount of additional events generated units to both sides we should still have a balanced game!

I am more of a Montgomery to your Rommel when it comes to playing styles. Stackable terrain would certainly encourage me to be more agressive but that would obviously work both ways!

I am not convinced about adding too many house rules. The city defences would be easy enough to follow. Limiting garrisons by house rules would be a lot more tricky. Thats not to say I am unwilling to discuss the concept!

I would prefer a situation where the stats solve the problem. If you are willing to risk enough bombers they will kill a fighter eventually, maybe an average 3:1 ratio. Same thing for Elite Infantry/Tanks vs Armoured Cars. That way city defences can be made difficult to overcome but possible if you are willing to invest the attacking units. I would not want to eliminate strongholds like Madrid from the game altogether. Its just a bit too stacked in favour of defence right now. For example. Penarroya and Salamanca were both cut off but could have held out almost indefinitely no matter how many bombers and tanks were thrown against them. If we can tweak the stats a bit more in favour of offensive units then complex house rules would not be necessary.

The idea for airlift units is not mine. Eivind used it in his Norwegian Campaign scenario and it has been used in other games too. Basically you have a sea transport unit with the paradrop capability. This can then parachute between cities carrying ground units with it. It is possible to set its range and carrying capacity. Unless you want it to carry tanks there needs to be a house rule stating that only ground units can be airlifted.

In the single player version I would probably give a limited number of these units to the Nationalists via events. I guess it would be good to give both sides a few in the multiplayer version.

At the moment I am putting most of my effort into Fortress Europe, but I do like to dabble in a few projects at once. No harm in gathering ideas for SCW ToT for the time being. The main changes needed are some extra units (Ju87 Stuka etc...), a slight tweaking of the unit stats, stackable terrain and additional events. I have already converted the game to ToT, sorted the graphics and icons and added city walls to every town. Should not take a huge amount of work to get this ready as the hard work has already been done by Pablostuka!

[Jerec]

Originally posted by McMonkey
It would be very interesting to play a ToT PBEM game. I have never seen one done, though I am sure it has been done before. I would be happy to play as the Republicans in the next game. I was not fully aware that the Republicans advantageous government compensated for the deficit in events generated units. I plan to add several unit types to both sides. If I add the same amount of additional events generated units to both sides we should still have a balanced game!

Great. What units are being added in, for both sides? And I noticed that some generic units have been added- machine gunners and mortars. Have the stats been figured out for those two?

I am more of a Montgomery to your Rommel when it comes to playing styles. Stackable terrain would certainly encourage me to be more agressive but that would obviously work both ways!

How about Rommel and O'Connor?

I am not convinced about adding too many house rules. The city defences would be easy enough to follow. Limiting garrisons by house rules would be a lot more tricky. Thats not to say I am unwilling to discuss the concept!

I would prefer a situation where the stats solve the problem. If you are willing to risk enough bombers they will kill a fighter eventually, maybe an average 3:1 ratio. Same thing for Elite Infantry/Tanks vs Armoured Cars. That way city defences can be made difficult to overcome but possible if you are willing to invest the attacking units. I would not want to eliminate strongholds like Madrid from the game altogether. Its just a bit too stacked in favour of defence right now. For example. Penarroya and Salamanca were both cut off but could have held out almost indefinitely no matter how many bombers and tanks were thrown against them. If we can tweak the stats a bit more in favour of offensive units then complex house rules would not be necessary.

After looking at it long enough, I can see that you're right. No need for a complex house rule if 1) the artillery movement is upped, and 2) fighter D is lowered.

The idea for airlift units is not mine. Eivind used it in his Norwegian Campaign scenario and it has been used in other games too. Basically you have a sea transport unit with the paradrop capability. This can then parachute between cities carrying ground units with it. It is possible to set its range and carrying capacity. Unless you want it to carry tanks there needs to be a house rule stating that only ground units can be airlifted.

In the single player version I would probably give a limited number of these units to the Nationalists via events. I guess it would be good to give both sides a few in the multiplayer version.

A good alternative to more airports.

At the moment I am putting most of my effort into Fortress Europe, but I do like to dabble in a few projects at once. No harm in gathering ideas for SCW ToT for the time being. The main changes needed are some extra units (Ju87 Stuka etc...), a slight tweaking of the unit stats, stackable terrain and additional events. I have already converted the game to ToT, sorted the graphics and icons and added city walls to every town. Should not take a huge amount of work to get this ready as the hard work has already been done by Pablostuka!

We will be doing another PBEM from this when it's done, so we want it done thoroughly. Not to rush you or anything. Take all the time needed.

[Jerec]

Oh, and I noticed something when we were playing, forgot to mention it before. In the game, the city of Sagunto had a production of 85. It could build a Mot. Infantry in 2 turns, and an Armored Car in 3. Madrid had a production of 125. That city could build a Mot. Infantry in 2 turns and an Armored Car in 3. Barcelona had a production of 220. And it could only build a Mot. Infantry in 2 turns and an Armored Car in 3!!

What is going on?

And pertaining to using bombers against fighters in cities. I tested, and found that a vet Savoia SM-9 could damage a Mosca to half strength! Very interesting, seeing that you can do away with air cover for a city by sacrificing a bomber or two... That was why I had 4 Moscas in Murcia!

[AGRICOLA]

This is a bug which appears if a city produces more than 100 shields.

When you click on "CHANGE" you get the "What shall we build in XXXX" pulldown that shows the number of turns needed to build units. The algorithm that does the calculations is apparently incapable of handling city production of more than 100 shields. Therefore, you get the inconsistent results.

However, regardless of what the pulldown says, units will be completed in the correct number of turns. Try it.

[Jerec]

I most definitely will.

[McMonkey]

@Jerec
OK, I was bigging myself up a bit too much when I said Mongomery. How about Civil War Union General McClellan, the 'Virginia creeper'

I have not got round to working out the unit stats yet. Some of them will require careful consideration. I do not want to unbalance the game. Most of them will be genorated by events. My initial ideas for extra units were:

Junkers Ju52 Airlift (N)
Sea Mine?
Junkers Ju87 Stuka Divebomber (N)
Heinkel He113 Fighter (N)
Dewoitine D.510 Fighter (R)
Curtiss Hawk III Fighter (R)
Fokker D.XXI Fighter (R)
Heinkel He71 Bomber (N)
Boeing P26 Fighter (R)
Irregular?
Mortar (N/R)
Cavalry (N/R)
Franco (N)
AA Gun (N/R)
Machinegun (N/R)

Of course I may drop some of these units and add others depending on how much impact they would have on the game!

The Fokker D.XXI is interesting. The Republicans had brought a licence to produce this excellent little fighter and were setting up a plant but these were overrun by the Nationalists before any could be completed. In the game, with flags, this could be recreated so that they begin to appear if the Republicans still hold Barcelona (?) later on in the game.

All ideas welcome for other unit types.

[Jerec]

Total (tech-discovered) reinforcements for both sides per turn, without any proposed additions-

Nationalists
2 tanks- Fiat CM (9A 11D) and Panzer I (10A 10D)

2 Infantry- C. Legion (8A 6D), I. CTV (8A 6D)

4 (?) bombers- Heinkel 111 (25A 5D), Savoia SM 9 (20A 6D), Junkers Ju52 (20A D5), Henschel 123 (18A 4D)

3 fighters- BF 109 (12A 6D), Fiat CR 32 (10A 5D), Heinkel He 51 (8A 5D)

1 unique artillery- Flak 88 (10A 5D)


Republicans
1 tank- T26 (12A 10D)

1 Infantry- Int. Brigade (8A 8D)

3 bombers- Katiuska (20A 5D) 2x, Poliparkov (15A 5D)

3 fighters- Mosca (12A 6D) 2x, Chato (10A 5D)


Now, if you tally the numbers you will find a 8:12 ratio in favor of the Nationalists. In other words, the Nationalist must have a 50% reinforcement advantage.


Now, tally the numbers from your proposed reinforcement extras-

Nationalists
2 tanks

2 Infantry

6 bombers

4 fighters

1 Flak 88


Republicans
1 tank

1 Infantry

3 bombers

6 fighters (7 fighters counting the Fokker)


Tally time- 15:11 in favor of the Nationalists.

@McClellan
And aside from the above, what do you mean by irregulars? Milicianos fit in nicely IMHO, and the other all-terrain-as-road infantry do an adequate job.

Sea mines for both sides? Where? I'm not sure that it would be a good idea...

About impact on the game. Personally, I figure that air power is emphasized enough. Maybe 1-2 units more on each side, and more land units of some kind to balance the areas of combat?

Pulled from an article on Wikipedia. The article had voluminous amounts of references, and no notices of discrepancies so I assume the info is correct.

"The Portuguese furnished about 20,000 troops for the Nationalist Side in the Viriato Legion (Legião Viriato)."

"While not supported officially, many American volunteers such as the Abraham Lincoln Battalion fought for the Republicans..."
Maybe a little help to find more ground reinforcements.

Also, my apologies about my previous comment about the unrealism of an airbase/airlift in North Africa. Been researching a bit, and found that the Army of Africa was partly airlifted into Seville!

And that bit about Montgomy vs O'Connor was a joke. I just got a little spooked with my future opponent taking the name of Rommel's nemesis!

[McMonkey]

I will keep the same events based reinforcement ratios for both sides to keep the game balanced as it is now. IE If I add the Ju87 to the Nationalists I will add a bomber to the Republicans too.

The units I listed were only ideas for new types. I can't see much use for mines or Irregulars so I will probably drop them!

You missed out the second International Brigade event from your figures!

I agree that there are already plenty of aircraft types available. One think Pablostuka wanted to do was obsolete the events creating outdated air units. For example, when the Me109 becomes available the He51 should become obsolete. It should be easy to do this with the ToT events!

More Infantry would be beneficial to both sides so that they can form front lines to hold back the tides of rampaging Milicianos and Falangists!

I could include some special units such as the Abraham Lincoln Battalion, though they served in the International Brigades.

[Jerec]

In the game I only recieved 1 Int. Brigade per turn, spawned in Albacete.

Obsolete...yes, that would solve the swamping of aircraft units. Did Pablo mention other units beside fighters and bombers going obsolete? Although, the Nationalists would still get at least two fighters/bombers/infantry/tanks per turn: 1 Italian unit and 1 German. Compared to the Reps who only get Commie units. But even so, I think these are at least partly balanced in quality vs quantity. For instance-- the Condor Legion and I. CTV are 8A and 6D, while the Int. Brigade is 8A and 8D.

I wasn't aware that the A. Lincoln Battalion was part of the Int. Brigade...don't bother with unique, just add another Int. Brigade if need be.

[techumseh]

I'm just finishing up a SP game as the Republicans, and am about half way through Antony Beevor's book, so I'm finding this discussion interesting.

I'm glad that you're working on a ToT version, since most of the weaknesses of this otherwise excellent scenario are due to the limitations of the MGE events.

The inability to turn off specific events when they no longer make sense, or to change or randomize the locations of reinforcements are problems that do not ruin the game, but impact on the playbility of the scenario. Having to move 4 air units per turn from Barcelona to the front near Seville or east of Madrid each turn is a major nuisance.

IMHO, fixing and developing the events should be the priority. I think some adjustments in air unit strengths is needed, but adding new units and features can wait until other priorities are dealt with.

Strategic considerations are important in adding events; eg. if the Republicans control the Balearic Islands, Soviet reinforcements might prove more reliable, and Italian ones less so - and vice versa. Or, if towns in the Pyrenees fall to the Nationalists, increased difficulty infiltrating volunteers from France might affect the ability to form International Brigades.

If you want some help on the events, I'd be happy to contribute.

[McMonkey]

Help with the events would be appreciated!

I would like to stick with Pablostuka's three versions (SP Republican, SP Nationalist and Multiplayer). The extra and improved events should be able to fix most of the flaws which, as you said, are due to the limited MGE engine rather than any failing by Pablostuka who has made a very absorbing and historically accurate (withing CivII's confines) scenario!

I have not played the game in single player mode yet, just the very interesting multiplayer game against Jerec. How much of a challenge did you find it playing as the Republicans?

Do you think stackable terrain would benefit the game?

[techumseh]

I played a PBEM game as the Republicans against Mike Jeszenka a few years ago and was pretty much routed. He played in AGGIE's style, with lots of pillaging, selling improvements, rush building - that sort of thing. Bad form really.

After a couple of false starts, I found the right strategy for the Republicans in a single player game - set your science rate as high as possible and and run a deficit against the huge initial gold hoard. That way you get your reinforcement techs as quickly as possible and a steady stream of reinforcements for the duration of the game.

This could be countered by a lower bank account at the start. Given the historical credit freeze imposed on the Republic by the international banks, the huge initial gold supply may be too large.

I'm iffy on making stackable terrain using fortresses. Airbases are another matter, but they can only be used in pre-flight scenarios. I don't think we've studied the effect of fortresses enough to be sure of it's effect on AI movement. For a multi-player game, I don't see a problem.

I found some problems with the scenario, including the spawning of land based barbarians in the ocean. Perhaps this is due to the change to ToT? Also, the game didn't end when it was supposed to.

The high defenses of air and ground units, esp. in large cities makes for a real challenge in SP, but I'm sure would totally frustrate two human players. Perhaps lower df for the 2-player version?

I would go farther with increasing movement. Make infantry 3 mps, as well as anti-tank and field artillery. Make 155s 2 mp. Raise motorized movement rates accordingly. A motorized unit could cross Spain in a couple of days. In the game it takes nearly a year.

[McMonkey]

I agree with you about movement rates. In the multiplayer game the Army of Africa would have taken an eternity to cross Spain. Historically they were fighting battles in the northeast much earlier than they could in the game. Using airfields is not an accurate solution to this problem so increased movement would make sense.

Early on in the game PBEM non-stackable terrain made for interesting use of terrain. Later on when large armies were available it was a huge disadvantage for the attacker.

The solution may be to leave the single player versions as non stackable and make the multiplayer version stackable with the stats tweaked accordingly.

Jerec and I have discussed limiting the role of scorched earth. By altering the game file it would be possible to prevent roads being pillages and if city defences were set to 0 gold and a house rule forbade selling them off you could avoid vast areas of Spain from being depopulated.

I have noticed in many multiplayer games how effective this scorched earth policy can be but I feel that it is unrealistic. It is true that bridges can be blown, rail roads can be ripped, roads can be blocked but road networks cannot be totally destroyed as they are in CivII. Similarly, industry can be moved and civilians can be evacuated but it is very rare for a city to be completely wiped off the face of the map. The Roman destruction of Carthage is the last example I can think of! Moscow survived the fire during Napoleon's invasion and even bombed out cities like Stalingrad and Berlin during WWII survived.

It is interesting that the multiplayer game is not a foregone conclusion as some people suggested to me when I first proposed a PBEM game. I would consider you (Tech) and me as good players but we have both lost our games to more agressive opponents, you as the Republicans and me as the Nationalists. Although I did not like losing I did enjoy the game and it goes to show that either side can win if it is led by an agressive leader!

I will type up the notes I have made for the ToT version so they can be debated. I know a ToT version has been discussed before so I am sure there are lots of ideas floating around.

Regarding the extra units. These could be added via a technology event or created via a one off event IE: If on turn 18 the Nationalists hold Sevilla then eight Ju87s will be created, or something along those lines. Obviously this would not have been possible with the MGE events.