Introducing Gary Grigsby's World at War - Global Glory (GGWAWGG, or "gog"), version 2.00.
This mod exploits new mod-ability features that did not exist prior to the v1.011 patch (and compatibility requires update to that patch).
Note that Global Glory has a patch 2.00a in post 20 of this thread. After following the installation instructions below, install that patch to overwrite one file.
About Installation
The files have been posted at the WarGamer site.
As of this moment, it is not yet available on Wargamer, and I don't know how long it will take.
Unfortunately, with some of the map images I put in the description, the zip file is too large to post on the Matrix forum!
When you do install, download the file extract it into your AWD directory. This will overwrite your "dat\wawgoldscenario.txt" file (which contains the list of scenarios) in order to add GGWAWGG. The rest of the installation is new files (nothing else overwritten). If you wish, you can copy that file to back it up, or even copy the entire AWD directory and install the mod into the new copy.
In the mean time, if interested, PM or email me and I will email it to you directly.
EDIT - Temporary Installation
** EDIT ** This has now posted at wargamer, better to get it from there. For the moment I will still leave this here.
In order to post this on the forum, I've recreated the description file with super-duper compression of the images. They look awful, but at least I can post this and the document is still readable.
Matrix also doesn't allow posting zip files, so I changed the suffix to ".txt".
For installation, download the file, change the suffix from ".txt" to ".zip", then install as described above.
And let me know if you'd like the prettier document emailed to you.
Summary of the Mod
This is Total War (1939-1946) with an increased emphasis on oil, enhanced strategic value for ports (some transport capacity rule tweaks), reconfiguring of the Med for realism and playability, and new political events including surrenders for Russia, Australia and India.
There is a detailed description in the zip. A summary of features:
* Non-Military Resource consumption for Germany, so that every resource is valuable, even in the early game.
* more resources in the Middle East.
* factories in key zero-population regions to model historical oil refining capabilities (Trans-Jordan, Sumatra, Borneo).
* modified transportation rules that provide greater value to ports, and a simple transportation interdiction model (enhancing the strategic values of Malta, Norway, and Hawaii).
* added several random political events, including surrender events for Russia, Australia and India. These surrender events can be quite appropriate for non-AV play.
* tweaks to the Mediterranean, including the transport rules but also the placement of a (neutral) Italian transport in the Central Mediterranean, which prevents the typical British naval stack prior to Italian entry.
* other rules to provide more interesting dynamics to the USA and USSR war preparedness, such as possible strat-moves for the USA while politically frozen.
Play
This has not been play tested extensively. To the best of my estimation the changes are fairly well balanced, but subtle effects are hard to see until many games have been played.
I'd love to start a game with anyone interested, and it would be helpful if I received reports of any other games that may take place. Send me a PM and we'll set something up! I can email the detailed description and files.
I hope that others will find this mod fun and interesting.
Global Glory v2.00
Moderator: MOD_GGWaW_2
-
WanderingHead
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
- Location: GMT-8
Global Glory v2.00
- Attachments
-
- GGWAWGG_de..WRES.zip.txt
- (191.61 KiB) Downloaded 41 times
RE: Global Glory v2.00
Sweetness! 
Looking forward to the game!
Looking forward to the game!
RE: Global Glory v2.00
Brian, I read over the PDF and was impressed with the presentation. Nice work! Have not played the mod yet, but I do have some initial suggestions for you. Will post for game soon[:D]
1. Remove the tutorials to reduce clutter.
2. Add a port to Port Moresby in New Guinea. Increases the importance of New Guinea and Papau in particular. Port in Queensland could be removed.
3. Malaya has decent value on its own without the SP. I suggest moving it to Papau to go along with the port.
4. Move 1 SP from Chungking to Lanchow.
5. Increase Jap tac bomber to torp 3. Why not since they never get built anyway.
6. Back in development I wanted the Central Med froze and some Italian shipping placed there because I believed it was the only way to stop the UN from hording HF's in the Central or Eastern Med. Your 2.0 change places an Italian Transport in the Central Med which I always wanted, but I see you choose to allow the UN to move thru it to the Eastern Med. It would probably be best to freeze it too unless an incentive could be made to encourage the British HF's to stay near England. Which leads me to my next suggestion.
7. Your email got me thinking about what could be done here to make the UN fleet useful in protecting England. First of all it needs to be harder to hit when untrained aircrews are used. Meaning pretty much all air accept CAG. This is historical. I remember reading and seeing film clips of land based air trying unsuccessfully to use level bombing and dive bombs to sink a fast moving warship. HB's apparently were not much threat to warships. Sure they worried anyway since capital ships are very valuable, but in the cases where attack did happen the fleet did not end up at the bottom of the sea. So it does not seem unreasonable to me to increase ship defense vs non-CAG air. If it works out then the UN fleet could be placed in the English Channel either as a way to protect England from invasion or as a carrot to draw German air from the Med making the defense of the Middle East a little easier. Here is what I played with.
For HF's I changed the durability to 3 and increased the EV to 5. New base defense of 15. An increase from 12. Added benefit of only dropping to 12 instead of 8 when attacked a second time. WS of 4EV with several points added to research to reduce cost of going to EV 6.
For LF's I increased the EV to 5 making the new base defense 15 too. WS of 5EV.
For CV's I increased the EV to 5 also. Left WS at 4EV with no added research.
Increase the SA attack of HF's and LF's by 1 to compensate for the increased defense value so ship to ship stays nearly the same. Additionally if non-CAG air SA is still to strong increase the armor of CV's and LF's to 2. To compensate CAG and Kamikaze SA gets a 1 or 2 point boost. Another compensation for subs may need to be made since when they do get to attack they're less likely to hit because of the increased defense. Increase the 33% to 50% as a good starting place.
Torpedo attacks at level 3 would only occasionally hit making it necessary to research level 4 torp to really have much impact.
Additional tweaking from here can easily be made with free research points.
8. Could you add more levels of damage to infrastructure? It could be useful to have a factory take 15 or even 20 supply to fully repair. Like the factory in New South Wales could be changed to require 15 supply to get it fully operational. Resources in the US could be made more expensive to exploit, etc. For the damage indicator a few new colors would need to be added of coarse. Say purple at level 3 and black at level 4.
9.At first glance it looks like the Russian surrender odds are to high. Your example on page 23 detailing a sequence of events assumes that Russia passed its surrender check each time. Odds are that during one of those multiple ~20% chances it would have triggered. In the extreme I would be kind of miffed if I was playing Russia and I was forced to surrender when Germany only has Moscow and Leningrad. Seems to me that 10% is to high for 2 main cities. However if the triplicate of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad were all taken then perhaps 10% would be right. Anything less should be zero. Just an early observation not based on play experience so I may change my opinion.
10. Rearrange some events. It would be best I think to move the surrender events to page two at the end. Try to keep them separate from the others for appearance sake. Also does an event trigger prevent the check for surrender further down the list?
11. I like the leasing of the Azores event, and it was one that I wanted added. Portugal joining the WA event could just be discarded now. Or maybe placed after the new event since that sequence would make more sense. In other words, a prerequisite for Portugal joining the WA would be the lending of the Azores event.
12. If changing the ship stats gives the UN fleet staying power to protect England, then some English land forces can be removed.
13. A minor thing I would like to see tried. Crete should be changed to an op-fire island covering both adjacent sea zones. Try 5 in place of 4 in the regions data file and see if that works.
14. A Map Change to the English Channel. I had an idea that improves on what I did in Franco's Alliance. When I draw it up I will post it for comments.
Noticed small bug I figure I'll mention here. Upper case N does not advance turn. Noticed when I had caps lock on. Maybe you could easily fix this?
1. Remove the tutorials to reduce clutter.
2. Add a port to Port Moresby in New Guinea. Increases the importance of New Guinea and Papau in particular. Port in Queensland could be removed.
3. Malaya has decent value on its own without the SP. I suggest moving it to Papau to go along with the port.
4. Move 1 SP from Chungking to Lanchow.
5. Increase Jap tac bomber to torp 3. Why not since they never get built anyway.
6. Back in development I wanted the Central Med froze and some Italian shipping placed there because I believed it was the only way to stop the UN from hording HF's in the Central or Eastern Med. Your 2.0 change places an Italian Transport in the Central Med which I always wanted, but I see you choose to allow the UN to move thru it to the Eastern Med. It would probably be best to freeze it too unless an incentive could be made to encourage the British HF's to stay near England. Which leads me to my next suggestion.
7. Your email got me thinking about what could be done here to make the UN fleet useful in protecting England. First of all it needs to be harder to hit when untrained aircrews are used. Meaning pretty much all air accept CAG. This is historical. I remember reading and seeing film clips of land based air trying unsuccessfully to use level bombing and dive bombs to sink a fast moving warship. HB's apparently were not much threat to warships. Sure they worried anyway since capital ships are very valuable, but in the cases where attack did happen the fleet did not end up at the bottom of the sea. So it does not seem unreasonable to me to increase ship defense vs non-CAG air. If it works out then the UN fleet could be placed in the English Channel either as a way to protect England from invasion or as a carrot to draw German air from the Med making the defense of the Middle East a little easier. Here is what I played with.
For HF's I changed the durability to 3 and increased the EV to 5. New base defense of 15. An increase from 12. Added benefit of only dropping to 12 instead of 8 when attacked a second time. WS of 4EV with several points added to research to reduce cost of going to EV 6.
For LF's I increased the EV to 5 making the new base defense 15 too. WS of 5EV.
For CV's I increased the EV to 5 also. Left WS at 4EV with no added research.
Increase the SA attack of HF's and LF's by 1 to compensate for the increased defense value so ship to ship stays nearly the same. Additionally if non-CAG air SA is still to strong increase the armor of CV's and LF's to 2. To compensate CAG and Kamikaze SA gets a 1 or 2 point boost. Another compensation for subs may need to be made since when they do get to attack they're less likely to hit because of the increased defense. Increase the 33% to 50% as a good starting place.
Torpedo attacks at level 3 would only occasionally hit making it necessary to research level 4 torp to really have much impact.
Additional tweaking from here can easily be made with free research points.
8. Could you add more levels of damage to infrastructure? It could be useful to have a factory take 15 or even 20 supply to fully repair. Like the factory in New South Wales could be changed to require 15 supply to get it fully operational. Resources in the US could be made more expensive to exploit, etc. For the damage indicator a few new colors would need to be added of coarse. Say purple at level 3 and black at level 4.
9.At first glance it looks like the Russian surrender odds are to high. Your example on page 23 detailing a sequence of events assumes that Russia passed its surrender check each time. Odds are that during one of those multiple ~20% chances it would have triggered. In the extreme I would be kind of miffed if I was playing Russia and I was forced to surrender when Germany only has Moscow and Leningrad. Seems to me that 10% is to high for 2 main cities. However if the triplicate of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad were all taken then perhaps 10% would be right. Anything less should be zero. Just an early observation not based on play experience so I may change my opinion.
10. Rearrange some events. It would be best I think to move the surrender events to page two at the end. Try to keep them separate from the others for appearance sake. Also does an event trigger prevent the check for surrender further down the list?
11. I like the leasing of the Azores event, and it was one that I wanted added. Portugal joining the WA event could just be discarded now. Or maybe placed after the new event since that sequence would make more sense. In other words, a prerequisite for Portugal joining the WA would be the lending of the Azores event.
12. If changing the ship stats gives the UN fleet staying power to protect England, then some English land forces can be removed.
13. A minor thing I would like to see tried. Crete should be changed to an op-fire island covering both adjacent sea zones. Try 5 in place of 4 in the regions data file and see if that works.
14. A Map Change to the English Channel. I had an idea that improves on what I did in Franco's Alliance. When I draw it up I will post it for comments.
Noticed small bug I figure I'll mention here. Upper case N does not advance turn. Noticed when I had caps lock on. Maybe you could easily fix this?
Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided
-
WanderingHead
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
- Location: GMT-8
RE: Global Glory v2.00
Thanks for the detailed comments!
I'm at my limit for games right now. Other experienced hands who are playing it are Dobeln, Forwarn45, tica.
Thanks for the many suggestions, I'll come back to this list when I make adjustments. Right now I think I'll wait for my 3 games to complete before adjusting.
Good idea, this is sort of "Advanced AWD" at this point anyway.
Hmm. I liked the extra value for Australia. Obviously, the port in New Guinea impacts the same sea zones. Could have both ports, the only impact is if they are owned by different players, and the effect in that case would still be fine.
That is kind of nice, it gives Port Moresby some good value if the Japanese want to bypass Queensland. What you think of adding instead of replacing?
I played with putting SPs on every port in the region that didn't start Japanese, but then it got out of hand.
I agree that Malaya has its own direct strategic value. This is part of the aim of the mod, by the way, to allow direct strategic value for places or specific political consequences instead of just SPs and AV. But I think Singapore also had special psychological significance as well. Anyway, on this question I think I'll wait for more comments or more water under the bridge.
Good idea.
Here I'm reluctant because I tried to keep things the same unless I really saw a reason to change. Really, I tried, despite the fact that I changed so much!
Freezing is easy. But I like that you can move through it. Especially to reinforce Malta, and have some choice as to how you do it.
I think that just putting the TF there is a big change, and I'd like to get some games under the hood before doing more.
Note that one thing I changed is to reduce CV anti-air, increase the HF AA world standard, and give a little seeding of research to HF AA. I would like to enable HFs to provide CVs the flak cover they gave in real life, and give back a little value to the HFs.
Despite all the discussions about how useless it is to research suppression attacks, it will actually be a very big deal to boost HF AA from 3 to 4. Taking it to 4 makes a roll of 15 much more likely, which means the dreaded 1-evasion roll is more likely to actually result in damage.
You have some good ideas here, I was reluctant to go that far. I wonder what others may think.
I would very much like this myself, combined with a limit of 2 repairs per turn (force a delay). But I'm reluctant to dig that far into the code. I thought that the port benefit was important enough to invent some rules, but this is just going beyond what the game is.
Honestly, I'd be willing to do it if there were enough interest (one thing I don't want to do is something only 2 people want to actually play the game with), and if 2by3 were on board. I think this might depend on the interest GG receives. If this kind of detail is of interest to more than you and me, I'll try.
If this were implemented, I would think of adding 2 super-damage levels, each would cost 10 supply to super-repair, and after one super-repair level you couldn't repair that resource again that turn. And then I might want to let you super-destroy these resources yourself, like the concrete the British poured down the Iraqi wells. Something like 1 supply gives you 25% chance of doing 1 level of super-damage (after 100% chance of doing normal full damage).
You may be right. The odds could be tweaked, or it could be changed so that all three of Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad are prerequisites.
I don't think it is unrealistic, though. and it would add tension. At least that was my reasoning when I settled on it.
I've played 3 games with recent versions so far, if I recall then 2 were Allied victories and one was an Axis squeeker victory on time. Never got close to the surrender.
There has never been a game where the Russian surrender event fired. I'd really like to experience or hear about such an event. I imagine that once it actually happens there will be some issues people bring up and things they don't like. This one is definitely worth some discussion.
The easiest way to see the event in action and see what really happens when it fires is to load up the 1942 scenario and play all sides to give the Germans the key regions.
The order is a little different in the game from the documentation.
One thing I noticed as I experimented with surrenders is that the impact of events upon each other, in that when an event fires it blocks out all events below it for that turn. If the Russian surrender is low down and on the turn that it has a high probability it gets blocked it could be very frustrating. So I kept Russian surrender as the first of the new events (except Syria, which is next to Iraq).
I actually avoided any direct coupling of events. There is no syntax for specifying "this event can happen only if this other event has already occurred".
You're right, the Portugal event should be removed. Again, I was following the "don't change it if there isn't a strong reason to" mindset.
I'll check out the map change. I avoided all map changes, except the severing of links in Africa which is easy to remember.
There are map changes I would like, but I don't think that the map is really broken like it was before Franco's Alliance. I want to keep it simple to install and run the mod.
I imagine that as a frustrating few minutes ... the thing is that this applies to all of the hot keys. I'm not sure whether it should be considered a bug or just something to be aware of. I'd prefer to leave it.
I'm at my limit for games right now. Other experienced hands who are playing it are Dobeln, Forwarn45, tica.
Thanks for the many suggestions, I'll come back to this list when I make adjustments. Right now I think I'll wait for my 3 games to complete before adjusting.
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
1. Remove the tutorials to reduce clutter.
Good idea, this is sort of "Advanced AWD" at this point anyway.
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
2. Add a port to Port Moresby in New Guinea. Increases the importance of New Guinea and Papau in particular. Port in Queensland could be removed.
Hmm. I liked the extra value for Australia. Obviously, the port in New Guinea impacts the same sea zones. Could have both ports, the only impact is if they are owned by different players, and the effect in that case would still be fine.
That is kind of nice, it gives Port Moresby some good value if the Japanese want to bypass Queensland. What you think of adding instead of replacing?
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
3. Malaya has decent value on its own without the SP. I suggest moving it to Papau to go along with the port.
I played with putting SPs on every port in the region that didn't start Japanese, but then it got out of hand.
I agree that Malaya has its own direct strategic value. This is part of the aim of the mod, by the way, to allow direct strategic value for places or specific political consequences instead of just SPs and AV. But I think Singapore also had special psychological significance as well. Anyway, on this question I think I'll wait for more comments or more water under the bridge.
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
4. Move 1 SP from Chungking to Lanchow.
Good idea.
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
5. Increase Jap tac bomber to torp 3. Why not since they never get built anyway.
Here I'm reluctant because I tried to keep things the same unless I really saw a reason to change. Really, I tried, despite the fact that I changed so much!
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
6. Back in development I wanted the Central Med froze and some Italian shipping placed there because I believed it was the only way to stop the UN from hording HF's in the Central or Eastern Med. Your 2.0 change places an Italian Transport in the Central Med which I always wanted, but I see you choose to allow the UN to move thru it to the Eastern Med. It would probably be best to freeze it
Freezing is easy. But I like that you can move through it. Especially to reinforce Malta, and have some choice as to how you do it.
I think that just putting the TF there is a big change, and I'd like to get some games under the hood before doing more.
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
7. Your email got me thinking about what could be done here to make the UN fleet useful in protecting England. First of all it needs to be harder to hit when untrained aircrews are used. Meaning pretty much all air accept CAG. This is historical. I remember reading and seeing film clips of land based air trying unsuccessfully to use level bombing and dive bombs to sink a fast moving warship. HB's apparently were not much threat to warships.
Note that one thing I changed is to reduce CV anti-air, increase the HF AA world standard, and give a little seeding of research to HF AA. I would like to enable HFs to provide CVs the flak cover they gave in real life, and give back a little value to the HFs.
Despite all the discussions about how useless it is to research suppression attacks, it will actually be a very big deal to boost HF AA from 3 to 4. Taking it to 4 makes a roll of 15 much more likely, which means the dreaded 1-evasion roll is more likely to actually result in damage.
You have some good ideas here, I was reluctant to go that far. I wonder what others may think.
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
8. Could you add more levels of damage to infrastructure?
I would very much like this myself, combined with a limit of 2 repairs per turn (force a delay). But I'm reluctant to dig that far into the code. I thought that the port benefit was important enough to invent some rules, but this is just going beyond what the game is.
Honestly, I'd be willing to do it if there were enough interest (one thing I don't want to do is something only 2 people want to actually play the game with), and if 2by3 were on board. I think this might depend on the interest GG receives. If this kind of detail is of interest to more than you and me, I'll try.
If this were implemented, I would think of adding 2 super-damage levels, each would cost 10 supply to super-repair, and after one super-repair level you couldn't repair that resource again that turn. And then I might want to let you super-destroy these resources yourself, like the concrete the British poured down the Iraqi wells. Something like 1 supply gives you 25% chance of doing 1 level of super-damage (after 100% chance of doing normal full damage).
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
9.At first glance it looks like the Russian surrender odds are to high.
You may be right. The odds could be tweaked, or it could be changed so that all three of Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad are prerequisites.
I don't think it is unrealistic, though. and it would add tension. At least that was my reasoning when I settled on it.
I've played 3 games with recent versions so far, if I recall then 2 were Allied victories and one was an Axis squeeker victory on time. Never got close to the surrender.
There has never been a game where the Russian surrender event fired. I'd really like to experience or hear about such an event. I imagine that once it actually happens there will be some issues people bring up and things they don't like. This one is definitely worth some discussion.
The easiest way to see the event in action and see what really happens when it fires is to load up the 1942 scenario and play all sides to give the Germans the key regions.
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
10. Rearrange some events. It would be best I think to move the surrender events to page two at the end. Try to keep them separate from the others for appearance sake. Also does an event trigger prevent the check for surrender further down the list?
The order is a little different in the game from the documentation.
One thing I noticed as I experimented with surrenders is that the impact of events upon each other, in that when an event fires it blocks out all events below it for that turn. If the Russian surrender is low down and on the turn that it has a high probability it gets blocked it could be very frustrating. So I kept Russian surrender as the first of the new events (except Syria, which is next to Iraq).
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
11. I like the leasing of the Azores event, and it was one that I wanted added. Portugal joining the WA event could just be discarded now. Or maybe placed after the new event since that sequence would make more sense. In other words, a prerequisite for Portugal joining the WA would be the lending of the Azores event.
I actually avoided any direct coupling of events. There is no syntax for specifying "this event can happen only if this other event has already occurred".
You're right, the Portugal event should be removed. Again, I was following the "don't change it if there isn't a strong reason to" mindset.
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
12. If changing the ship stats gives the UN fleet staying power to protect England, then some English land forces can be removed.
13. A minor thing I would like to see tried. Crete should be changed to an op-fire island covering both adjacent sea zones. Try 5 in place of 4 in the regions data file and see if that works.
14. A Map Change to the English Channel. I had an idea that improves on what I did in Franco's Alliance. When I draw it up I will post it for comments.
I'll check out the map change. I avoided all map changes, except the severing of links in Africa which is easy to remember.
There are map changes I would like, but I don't think that the map is really broken like it was before Franco's Alliance. I want to keep it simple to install and run the mod.
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
Noticed small bug I figure I'll mention here. Upper case N does not advance turn. Noticed when I had caps lock on. Maybe you could easily fix this?
I imagine that as a frustrating few minutes ... the thing is that this applies to all of the hot keys. I'm not sure whether it should be considered a bug or just something to be aware of. I'd prefer to leave it.
-
WanderingHead
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
- Location: GMT-8
RE: Global Glory v2.00
FYI, I see that the scenario has posted at the wargamer.
Better to get it from there than from here, since the zip posted at wargamer has documentation with full image resolution (that's the only difference).
Better to get it from there than from here, since the zip posted at wargamer has documentation with full image resolution (that's the only difference).
RE: Global Glory v2.00
How does the modified transport interdiction work for Malta etc.
-
WanderingHead
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
- Location: GMT-8
RE: Global Glory v2.00
ORIGINAL: BenTaylor
How does the modified transport interdiction work for Malta etc.
I encourage downloading and reading the description, it is comprehensive (I intentionally omitted details from this thread because there are so many details).
Global Glory v2.00 Description (PDF), section 3.7 "Transport capacity changes", page 14.
Be sure you got v2.00.
But this can be described pretty simply. It is a modification to transport capacity limits (applied per transport) based on the region in which the transport resides:
- base capacity is 20 cargo points
- connected to friendly port bonus +15 points
- radiated from friendly port (and not connected to a port) bonus +10 points
- adjacent to hostile land region penalty -10 points
"radiated from port" means the sea zone is adjacent to another seazone which is connected to a port. Again, non-cumulative (and superceded by direct connection to port if appropriate).
"adjacent to hostile" is pretty obvious, this is noncumulative for multiple hostile regions, but does get added to the port benefits.
For example, with a 1942 start scenario (just to define the region control), the Central Med gives the Allies a per transport capacity of 25 per transport (20 base + 15 connected port - 10 hostile). The Central Med gives the Axis a per transport capacity of 20 per transport (20 base + 10 radiated port - 10 hostile).
The scenario also added several ports and changed seazone connectivity of Cape Town and Singapore. The most obvious places these rules are felt are:
1) shipping around Africa (few ports, plus hostile interdiction from East Africa, which also has a new port in Djibouti)
2) the Med (lots of hostile regions, for either side - without Malta, Greece, Istanbul or Cairo the E Med only supports 10 points/transport for the Axis)
3) the deep Pacific, between the radiation range of Hawaii or the (new) port in Okinawa.
4) lend lease to Russia, where Norway can either give a port bonus if controlled by the WA or a hostile penalty if controlled by Germany
RE: Global Glory v2.00
WH: I started a game against the AI as Axis an since in v2.00 you froze C. Med the AI sistematicaly enters that zone therefore declaring war on Italy, then all French North african territories unfreeze and so does Southern France, these limits a lot a game against the AI, imo.
When I finish some of the ongoing pbem games I really want to try your scenario against somebodyelse.
- Attachments
-
- GG.jpg (100.76 KiB) Viewed 472 times
GG's AWD, GG's WBTS, GG's WitE Beta Tester
Beta Tester: Panzer Corps, Time of Fury, CtGW, DC CB, DC3 Barbarossa, SC WWII WiE, SC WWII WaW, SC WWI
-
WanderingHead
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
- Location: GMT-8
RE: Global Glory v2.00
Yikes, that really does make playing the AI a complete waste with this scenario.
The AI is something I really had no intention of touching, but I guess I can take a look and see if there is an easy way to at least avoid attacking a neutral Italy. But it might be too complicated to fix.
The AI is something I really had no intention of touching, but I guess I can take a look and see if there is an easy way to at least avoid attacking a neutral Italy. But it might be too complicated to fix.
RE: Global Glory v2.00
WH:
I finished the game against the AI (Allied), me Axis, I made some notes which I will post tomorrow, there might be something buggy with the Russian surrender.
Regards.
I finished the game against the AI (Allied), me Axis, I made some notes which I will post tomorrow, there might be something buggy with the Russian surrender.
Regards.
GG's AWD, GG's WBTS, GG's WitE Beta Tester
Beta Tester: Panzer Corps, Time of Fury, CtGW, DC CB, DC3 Barbarossa, SC WWII WiE, SC WWII WaW, SC WWI
RE: Global Glory v2.00
After playing GG (V2.00) scenario as Axis here are some remarks:
When the Russia Surrender event took place several things happened that caught my attention:
First, I was able to produce all kind of units with the factories in Soviet conquered soil, the population used to build those units was taken from the russian territories (I guess they were Pavlov's soldiers [:D]) since it was different from the population used to build units in Germany and other Axis countries.
Second, after Russia's surrender all partisans dissapeared in the USSR, it made it a lot easier to maintain control, no garrisons are requiered.
Third, all supplies that were in territories yielded to Germany after Rusia's capitulation fell into German hands, they were not withdrawn to Soviet territory, this I must recognise I did like [;)], though may be it should be changed.
Fourth, from the pdf notes I read that the USSR is assign a random war readiness between 1 to 40 and once it reaches 50 its factory multiplier increases to x3 and declares war once again, this declaration did not took place. Also in 1947 the factory multiplier for Russia was x5 (yes I kept on playing to see what happen)
Fifth, if you declare war against the USSR after she has surrender all partisans appear gain and you no longer can produce units with their factories.
This issue, producing units with russian factories should be fixed imho.
None of these five point, but number three did occur when the Australia surrender took place.
Also the 17 threshold for the x2 multiplier for Russia is a bit too high when playing against the AI since it doesn't move units to E. Poland, don't know how it would be like to play against a human opponent, in my next pbem I want to try this mod.
So this is it, hope this notes are useful Brian, also if you need any saves let me know, it really is a good scenario.
Rafael
When the Russia Surrender event took place several things happened that caught my attention:
First, I was able to produce all kind of units with the factories in Soviet conquered soil, the population used to build those units was taken from the russian territories (I guess they were Pavlov's soldiers [:D]) since it was different from the population used to build units in Germany and other Axis countries.
Second, after Russia's surrender all partisans dissapeared in the USSR, it made it a lot easier to maintain control, no garrisons are requiered.
Third, all supplies that were in territories yielded to Germany after Rusia's capitulation fell into German hands, they were not withdrawn to Soviet territory, this I must recognise I did like [;)], though may be it should be changed.
Fourth, from the pdf notes I read that the USSR is assign a random war readiness between 1 to 40 and once it reaches 50 its factory multiplier increases to x3 and declares war once again, this declaration did not took place. Also in 1947 the factory multiplier for Russia was x5 (yes I kept on playing to see what happen)
Fifth, if you declare war against the USSR after she has surrender all partisans appear gain and you no longer can produce units with their factories.
This issue, producing units with russian factories should be fixed imho.
None of these five point, but number three did occur when the Australia surrender took place.
Also the 17 threshold for the x2 multiplier for Russia is a bit too high when playing against the AI since it doesn't move units to E. Poland, don't know how it would be like to play against a human opponent, in my next pbem I want to try this mod.
So this is it, hope this notes are useful Brian, also if you need any saves let me know, it really is a good scenario.
Rafael
GG's AWD, GG's WBTS, GG's WitE Beta Tester
Beta Tester: Panzer Corps, Time of Fury, CtGW, DC CB, DC3 Barbarossa, SC WWII WiE, SC WWII WaW, SC WWI
-
WanderingHead
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
- Location: GMT-8
RE: Global Glory v2.00
Cool, thanks for the observations.
I've never actually played a game of this scenario where Russia surrendered (it has never yet happened in a human game), and in my testing I was not observant enough to notice these things.
I think that the biggest quirks you noticed (producing German units in Russian territories and no partisans) is because Russia is no longer "at war" with the Germans. This is a consequence I hadn't considered, I'm not sure what will be able to be done about it. I had expected and intended that they'd behave like regular conquered territories, factories at FM=1, no usable pop, and partisans.
BTW - there are some other (more easily fixed) bugs in the scenario itself that I should correct. I'll try to post an update by this weekend. I'll take a look at all the accumulated suggestions so far. I don't think I can fix some of the things you posted with data file changes, though.
If there are any, it'd be a good time for any other comments from others playing the scenario, since I have to post the fixes anyway.
I've never actually played a game of this scenario where Russia surrendered (it has never yet happened in a human game), and in my testing I was not observant enough to notice these things.
I think that the biggest quirks you noticed (producing German units in Russian territories and no partisans) is because Russia is no longer "at war" with the Germans. This is a consequence I hadn't considered, I'm not sure what will be able to be done about it. I had expected and intended that they'd behave like regular conquered territories, factories at FM=1, no usable pop, and partisans.
BTW - there are some other (more easily fixed) bugs in the scenario itself that I should correct. I'll try to post an update by this weekend. I'll take a look at all the accumulated suggestions so far. I don't think I can fix some of the things you posted with data file changes, though.
If there are any, it'd be a good time for any other comments from others playing the scenario, since I have to post the fixes anyway.
RE: Global Glory v2.00
I haven't noticed any bugs yet. As for the Soviet surrender, perhaps it could be coded similar to the French surrender? But I'm not sure whether it would work or not since I think France is still technically at war with Germany. It sounds like the bug is working for the Germans like the current "occupy" feature works when the Western Allies retake a Soviet region from the Axis.
Another idea would be to try to keep the Soviets "at war" (technically) with Germany while not letting them actually attack. For instance, could you re-freeze the remaining Soviet areas while keeping Russia at war and then only unfreeze them again if war readiness got to a certain point?
Another idea would be to try to keep the Soviets "at war" (technically) with Germany while not letting them actually attack. For instance, could you re-freeze the remaining Soviet areas while keeping Russia at war and then only unfreeze them again if war readiness got to a certain point?
-
WanderingHead
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
- Location: GMT-8
RE: Global Glory v2.00
The Russian surrender issues can't be fixed without changing the code and going to a new patch.
If Joel and company allow, then I plan to add support for the French surrender as part of the Political Events syntax. This is because it would allow modified rules for E France so an early Italian entry is feasible. As part of this, the French surrender event must be coded to change the nationalities of some regions to Vichy. Something similar could be done for a Russian surrender, change the nationality of the remaining regions.
What would be an appropriate name for surrendered/crippled Russian state? Something like "Vichy Russia", but nationally appropriate.
The reason the surrender causes Russia to be not "at war" with Germany is precisely because if Russia is at war, then the regions unfreeze. This is the way the code is implemented. The intention was as you said, Forwarn45, but the details of the implementation had this other unexpected side effect. I'll have to contemplate whether or not it can be salvaged gracefully without defining a "Vichy Russia". Vichy Russia is actually not so easy to implement.
There are three bugs with the "USA responds to Asian crises" event. Right now, it cannot be triggered. And if it does trigger, then it does something wrong. These bugs can be fixed in data files, and in our current game I surreptitiously modified the data using the software debugger before saving one of my turns, in order to fix the problems. It should work OK for that game, if it ever gets to the point where it can fire.
If Joel and company allow, then I plan to add support for the French surrender as part of the Political Events syntax. This is because it would allow modified rules for E France so an early Italian entry is feasible. As part of this, the French surrender event must be coded to change the nationalities of some regions to Vichy. Something similar could be done for a Russian surrender, change the nationality of the remaining regions.
What would be an appropriate name for surrendered/crippled Russian state? Something like "Vichy Russia", but nationally appropriate.
The reason the surrender causes Russia to be not "at war" with Germany is precisely because if Russia is at war, then the regions unfreeze. This is the way the code is implemented. The intention was as you said, Forwarn45, but the details of the implementation had this other unexpected side effect. I'll have to contemplate whether or not it can be salvaged gracefully without defining a "Vichy Russia". Vichy Russia is actually not so easy to implement.
There are three bugs with the "USA responds to Asian crises" event. Right now, it cannot be triggered. And if it does trigger, then it does something wrong. These bugs can be fixed in data files, and in our current game I surreptitiously modified the data using the software debugger before saving one of my turns, in order to fix the problems. It should work OK for that game, if it ever gets to the point where it can fire.
-
WanderingHead
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
- Location: GMT-8
RE: Global Glory v2.00
Since there are some bugs in the events I'd like to post a corrected version this weekend. While doing that, here are some other things I was thinking of changing.
1) Rus FM=2 threshold 16 (from 17). This can be analyzed: if the German invades 1 neutral and captures France in Spring'40, and the Russian moves 2 units per turn to EP, then the minimum WR is 16 after the Spring 1940 turn. If the threshold is 17, it is possible to miss it (but a small probability, 1 in 32, about 3%). Should hitting it be certain?
2) the Australian (New South Wales) factory fix is effectively 15 supply penalty. Why not just remove the supply and have the factory undamaged at start?
3) Change the USA Asian event put 5 supply in SW USA instead of 1 supply in Philippines (right now it puts WA 1 supply in Moscow which is one of the bugs in need of fixing).
4) remove Russian surrender until it can be fixed in the code
5) remove Portugal joins WA event, unnecessary with the Azores event.
6) reorder the events, with the surrenders up top.
Comments solicited. Also, I just quickly re-reviewed Lebatron's post, and he had many good comments (a couple already incorporated in the above list). Any thoughts on his points are also encouraged. At this point, I think that the first 5 are the most promising:
1) Rus FM=2 threshold 16 (from 17). This can be analyzed: if the German invades 1 neutral and captures France in Spring'40, and the Russian moves 2 units per turn to EP, then the minimum WR is 16 after the Spring 1940 turn. If the threshold is 17, it is possible to miss it (but a small probability, 1 in 32, about 3%). Should hitting it be certain?
2) the Australian (New South Wales) factory fix is effectively 15 supply penalty. Why not just remove the supply and have the factory undamaged at start?
3) Change the USA Asian event put 5 supply in SW USA instead of 1 supply in Philippines (right now it puts WA 1 supply in Moscow which is one of the bugs in need of fixing).
4) remove Russian surrender until it can be fixed in the code
5) remove Portugal joins WA event, unnecessary with the Azores event.
6) reorder the events, with the surrenders up top.
Comments solicited. Also, I just quickly re-reviewed Lebatron's post, and he had many good comments (a couple already incorporated in the above list). Any thoughts on his points are also encouraged. At this point, I think that the first 5 are the most promising:
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
1. Remove the tutorials to reduce clutter.
2. Add a port to Port Moresby in New Guinea. Increases the importance of New Guinea and Papau in particular. Port in Queensland could be removed.
3. Malaya has decent value on its own without the SP. I suggest moving it to Papau to go along with the port.
4. Move 1 SP from Chungking to Lanchow.
5. Increase Jap tac bomber to torp 3. Why not since they never get built anyway.
RE: Global Glory v2.00
While I dont have the chance to try GGv2 yet, it looks promising!!
I really like the trannies tweaks and the new conditions, in particular the RUS surrender condition.
Pity to know that it will be temporary out in the next verison.
Btw, just wonder whether the RUS surrender condition will create certain in balance in the game. More specifically, given the substantial no. of "free" RPs after RUS' surrender, RUS plays a even heavier role in preventing the axis from achieving AV.
a511
I really like the trannies tweaks and the new conditions, in particular the RUS surrender condition.
Pity to know that it will be temporary out in the next verison.
Btw, just wonder whether the RUS surrender condition will create certain in balance in the game. More specifically, given the substantial no. of "free" RPs after RUS' surrender, RUS plays a even heavier role in preventing the axis from achieving AV.
a511
-
WanderingHead
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
- Location: GMT-8
RE: Global Glory v2.00
ORIGINAL: a511
Btw, just wonder whether the RUS surrender condition will create certain in balance in the game.
I wonder about balance myself. It actually has never yet happened in a real human-human game. I could get it soon in one game, but the AV levels themselves are already long past.
I think it is most appropriate for a non-AV or a continuation game, since otherwise AV will almost certainly follow the surrender anyway (it's a huge shift of power).
I have contemplated making the Russian surrender dependent on Strategic Point level, so that it can be set to the existing SP level for AV. Then it is just sort off a specific realization of what the AV represents anyway. And that way you have some more encouragement to go after India and Australia with Japan even if Russian surrender is the direct goal.
Unfortunately, the code does not currently support this approach, it has to be added.
RE: Global Glory v2.00
well, if its on a non-AV mode, i cant really see how the axis can achieve global domination under a human vs human game.
how abt assuming that the ppl of RUS hate the nazi so much that even RUS surrender, all the RPs + FPs in the RUS controlled area (immediately b4 the surrender event) will suffer from lv 1 (or even lv 2) damage to demonstrate the sabotage action by the freedom RUS army?
in this case, at least the WA got a round or two to try to turn the tide (though very difficult) instead of finding the axis AV outright.
in addition, i think the % of RUS surrender is a bit too high (as mentioned previously in this thread by ?) and may lead to a no-brainer double-squeeze RUS strategy to achieve AV w/o JP even really try to do the pacific war.
a511
how abt assuming that the ppl of RUS hate the nazi so much that even RUS surrender, all the RPs + FPs in the RUS controlled area (immediately b4 the surrender event) will suffer from lv 1 (or even lv 2) damage to demonstrate the sabotage action by the freedom RUS army?
in this case, at least the WA got a round or two to try to turn the tide (though very difficult) instead of finding the axis AV outright.
in addition, i think the % of RUS surrender is a bit too high (as mentioned previously in this thread by ?) and may lead to a no-brainer double-squeeze RUS strategy to achieve AV w/o JP even really try to do the pacific war.
a511
RE: Global Glory v2.00
On the changes you are thinking about, I think they are generally good. I definitely agree Russian war readiness should be lowered slightly. The main reason is that you otherwise put Russian in a pretty tight spot if Germany opts for a very-early (late 1940 or early 1941) invasion. Put all your troops at the front to potentially get killed if Germany immediately shifts East - or keep a reserve and delay getting the 2x production modifier. I know that is part of your intention, but as it is now - it may be a little too much.
As to Lebatron's comments that you are thinking about implementing, I like most of them. But I would keep the strategic point in Malaya. It does have a strategic value without it, but I think leaving an important point there (and in the Phillipines) makes the a-bomb victory conditions more meaningful in the endgame.
I don't have too many comments of my own at this point. But one idea that I had - which I'm not sure is codeable - was to tie the WA gift of resources to Japan to Japanese actions - making it possible to continue later than it did historically and does now in the game or end earlier. Right now, it may end early if - for example - Japan attacks inland China. But why not fine-tune the cutoff of resources (or maybe a reduction of resources) to Japanese aggression? For example, its common for Japan to take the Chinese coastal territory now and aggressively bomb China. Perhaps if Japan does not take these actions, it can keep getting gift resources.....
As to Lebatron's comments that you are thinking about implementing, I like most of them. But I would keep the strategic point in Malaya. It does have a strategic value without it, but I think leaving an important point there (and in the Phillipines) makes the a-bomb victory conditions more meaningful in the endgame.
I don't have too many comments of my own at this point. But one idea that I had - which I'm not sure is codeable - was to tie the WA gift of resources to Japan to Japanese actions - making it possible to continue later than it did historically and does now in the game or end earlier. Right now, it may end early if - for example - Japan attacks inland China. But why not fine-tune the cutoff of resources (or maybe a reduction of resources) to Japanese aggression? For example, its common for Japan to take the Chinese coastal territory now and aggressively bomb China. Perhaps if Japan does not take these actions, it can keep getting gift resources.....
-
WanderingHead
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
- Location: GMT-8
RE: Global Glory v2.00
I haven't had time to really work up a new version, but I created a patch to fix problems with the political events. There were two problems:
1) due to a bug in the code, it is required that each event be dependent on some Player not having surrendered. Most of the events I added didn't originally have such a surrender requirement, so I added them.
2) the "USA responds to Asian crises" event was putting 1 WA supply in Moscow, which caused problems because then the Russian couldn't move into Moscow.
GG v2.00a patch, event changes:
Russian surrender: only occurs if Germany has not surrendered
Australian surrender: only occurs if Japan has not surrendered
Indian surrender: only occurs if Japan has not surrendered
Caucasus border tensions: only occurs if Germany has not surrendered
USA Asian crises: only occurs if Japan has not surrendered, builds 5 supply in SW USA instead of 1 supply in Philippines
Portugal leases Azores: occurs only if Germany has not surrendered
This is in a single file, "wawgoldscendat39_GGWAWGG.txt". Download the attachment, change the extension from ".txt" to ".zip", and extract into your "Gary Grigsby's World at War A World Divided/dat" directory.
1) due to a bug in the code, it is required that each event be dependent on some Player not having surrendered. Most of the events I added didn't originally have such a surrender requirement, so I added them.
2) the "USA responds to Asian crises" event was putting 1 WA supply in Moscow, which caused problems because then the Russian couldn't move into Moscow.
GG v2.00a patch, event changes:
Russian surrender: only occurs if Germany has not surrendered
Australian surrender: only occurs if Japan has not surrendered
Indian surrender: only occurs if Japan has not surrendered
Caucasus border tensions: only occurs if Germany has not surrendered
USA Asian crises: only occurs if Japan has not surrendered, builds 5 supply in SW USA instead of 1 supply in Philippines
Portugal leases Azores: occurs only if Germany has not surrendered
This is in a single file, "wawgoldscendat39_GGWAWGG.txt". Download the attachment, change the extension from ".txt" to ".zip", and extract into your "Gary Grigsby's World at War A World Divided/dat" directory.
- Attachments
-
- GGWAWGG_v2..atch.zip.txt
- (9.53 KiB) Downloaded 24 times