Bombur: What kind of units are you thinking about? Remember, the scenario takes place in the mid 80s. Regarding the map. Yeah. i like the world map. But its to big to play AI on my computer and needs to much work to be good. I actually think the WAW-map is really good. I have made some key changes to it also. making afghanistan bigger and including the arctic sea for example. I do not agree that south america would be involved much in such a conflict. We do miss the Namibia/Congo in africa, but its not critical. You still get to play out the war in the african horn.
What it all comes down to is that you have to weigh your ability to mod and the time you can invest against your ambitions.
But if someone would be willing to help i would very much appreciate it. For example one unit that i actually miss is a helicopter unit. I someone could make such a unit for me i would appreciate it. Also if someone could design lend lease events between China-Soviet and USA-Nato. If someone is interested they can post here. But tell me before they start modding so that i can stop while they work.
Have upploaded new version in scenario bank.
Of course, creating custom units will take a lot of time. That´s what is happening with me. I´ve been working in my mod in the last 7 months and I have only 70 units fully defined. For a 80 decade scenario, I would suggest the following changes.
1-Heavy and Medium tanks would replaced by the Main Battle tank. You can design the custom units (M47, M48,T-55, T-62, T-72, M60, M1 and so on) or develop three or four classes of MBT´s.
2-You will need more submarine classes (diesel attack, nuclear attack, cruise missile, and so on)
3-Maybe you could delete the Battleships (except the Iowas). You would work with CG´s, DD´s, DDG´s and Frigates (FF´s and FFG´s)
4-By the 1980´s only the USA had capacity to build carriers. You could create VTOL CV´s for UK and USSR´s
5-The Air OOB´s should be reworked, as there is no dive bombers in the 80´s...maybe you should create specialized interceptors |(like the MIG-31 and MIG-25), fighters (like the F-15, MIG-21, F-16 and MIG-23), fighter bombers (like the Su-17, Tornados, F-15E, maybe the Su-24 and F-111), medium range bombers (almost exclusively Soviet-the Tu-16´s and Tu-22M´s, with very high antiship values), ASW aircraft, Strategic bombers, transports, ground attack aircraft (like the Alpha Jet or the A-10). Ther best choice would be to create custom aircraft. The Chinese should be equipped with 2nd rate planes (MIG-19´s and Tu-16´s)
-Well, these are only a few suggestions. I know they are very hard to be implemented. AT is highly moddable, but creating new units is very time consuming...particularly if you make them for one scenario only.
-On South America, it should be noticed that the cities weren´t placed and the South of the Continent is missing.
One thing to note with Chinese armed forces. Most of their weapons were knockoffs of the Russian designs. A classic example being the AT Red Arrow that came out in the early 70's in China and was a direct copy of the Russian Sagger, an ealy 60's design. You will find this with their aircraft and tanks as well.
Another thing to note is that the Russians sold many tanks to their allies, mostly Warsaw pact countries but they were stripped down export systems. For example the t72s that fought in the first gulf war for Iraq lacked even laser sighting, and used sub standard shot that could not penatrate any type of advanced armor. Another confusion exists in their design designations in that they had two types of tank designs, one a decent tank, the other a deathtrap. The good design was the T-55, T-64, T-80 series while the craptastic ones were the t-62 and t-72s. Note most exports were the t-62s and 72s.
All in all a very complex OOB for the reds if you use equipment to fill it out.
My advice would be to get away from the actual equipment and focus on units instead as it is a very high level game with what looks like hexes in the 100's of miles. You could go with Armies or corps at the top level and fill them in with divisions or birgades/regiments.
Good luck.
Moscow by winter? Only if you send Fast Heinz to Kiev.
Bombur: I understand what you mean. But i think you are a very tech interested person. I am more interested in things that have a grand strategic impact or that change the rock-paper-scissor context. Whether you call an heavy tank MBT or t72 or whatnot, or if a carrier is VTOL. Yes it adds flavor. But the role of the tank or carrier didnt change much (in the grand strategic scheme). So i tend to agree more with Dazoline II in this one.
That said. I am not going to rework the whole tech/sft system for this one. I have made some small changes though. I renamed the divemomber tactical bomber and levelbomber strategic bomber. Also i introduced the Katuysha in all regimes as rocket artillery. I would be very interested in adding attack helicopters if someone could design them for me. Also if you can find better names for the existing SFT types i would be happy to rename them (for example renaming Bazooka "TOW-infantry" or something like that)
Other recent changes.
- Added north Korean, Taiwanese & South Korean, Ethiopian, Somali & Sudanese and Vietnamese as peoples. I think this provides flavor in a larger sense since you can still se which country each unit belongs to. I have also added some "military advisors" to african countries and mujaheddin.
- Added 2 US bases in Europe (Edinburrough and Antwerpen)
Dazoline: You can download in the scenario bank. Its playable already. I am going with Theater and Army HQs. Units are at Corps and brigade level (one brigade is generally made up of 10 INF sfts each).
It seems i am in a quite intense modding period right now.
The latest changes.
- Made some changes to AI behaviour. AI:s of USSR, PDRC, USA more aggressive, NATO more defensive.
- Made AI see 50 VP:s in Beijing, Tokyo, Paris, Berlin and Moscow.
- Changed AI give up air war ratio from 35% to 10%.
- Have implemented PP and Supply grant actioncards for the major powers. For 14 PP:s each player can grant 10PP and 1000 supply to their ally. The supply appear in New York, London, Moscow and Beijing.
- Have enabled Special Forces Infantry and Long Range Air Transport. So far they are only available for USSR through an event costing 10 PP that places 1 TRA and 10 INF in Moscow. With the 40 % longer air range this unit is huge. It can deploy from middle of Germany to Spain. Opponents really have to keep their Cities Defended.
- Changed the horn of africa so that Ethiopia aligned with USSR and Somalia, Sudan (& Eritrean Guerilla) aligned with USA
- Aligned Portugal with USA.
- Small overall changes to the OOB. Added a lot of new staff & 1 more armoured corps for USSR.
- added 1 small 4th Chinese army on border of India (with mountain brigade).
Upploaded latest changes.
Attachments
Revised Africas Horn.jpg (87.11 KiB) Viewed 520 times
One thing I noticed, you will have troubles with the NAtO, US regimes in europe. The US forces will not be able to move across hees owned by NATO. Try it with your current version with that HQ in Antwerp.
there is no good way to get around this limitation ecept by making fronts such as europe or asia a two regime confrontation and the countries (peoples) that make up the regimes contributing to all regimes they are in. I.e. the US is a people which has cities that produce for NAtO or for JDF.
PS my keyboard is malfunctioning, pardon the lack of some characters.
Moscow by winter? Only if you send Fast Heinz to Kiev.
No probs about the keybord.
I agree totally that this is a problem. I have done somethings to help the situation though. You have the Aid button to give help. Then you have the US bases in Edinburrough, Island, Antwerpen and Cyprus. Here the US can base Aircraft and Navies. And if the USSR advance they will get in contact with Antwerpen. Also Israel will join the USA regime and USA will have som indirect access here. So there is some possibility for interaction. Maybe there should be more. Do you have any ideas?
Still agree that its a problem though. But its the same problem that the central powers have in the "Great War" scenario and that scenario works well.
The sollution to make NATO and USA 1 regime would solve this problem perfectly. But i think it would kill AI play and it would not be a four player scenario anymore.
- Have implemented special unit for USA. They get stealth bombers throught action cards. 4 bombers for 20 PP. They act like strategic, tactical bombers and fighters at the same time and have the range of long range transports.
- Have implemented victory condition for all four players. Each have to capture around 100 VPs than they have in the beginning. Some cities have a lot of VPs (around 50). These are Leningrad, Kiev, Paris, London, Sydney, Tokyo, New York, Beijing and Shanghai.
- Small changes to OOB (not much)
- Opened up Öresund so that Aircraft from USA can fly through.
Looking for playtesters in the opponents wanted section.
Bombur: I understand what you mean. But i think you are a very tech interested person. I am more interested in things that have a grand strategic impact or that change the rock-paper-scissor context. Whether you call an heavy tank MBT or t72 or whatnot, or if a carrier is VTOL. Yes it adds flavor. But the role of the tank or carrier didnt change much (in the grand strategic scheme). So i tend to agree more with Dazoline II in this one.
That said. I am not going to rework the whole tech/sft system for this one. I have made some small changes though. I renamed the divemomber tactical bomber and levelbomber strategic bomber. Also i introduced the Katuysha in all regimes as rocket artillery. I would be very interested in adding attack helicopters if someone could design them for me. Also if you can find better names for the existing SFT types i would be happy to rename them (for example renaming Bazooka "TOW-infantry" or something like that)
Other recent changes.
- Added north Korean, Taiwanese & South Korean, Ethiopian, Somali & Sudanese and Vietnamese as peoples. I think this provides flavor in a larger sense since you can still se which country each unit belongs to. I have also added some "military advisors" to african countries and mujaheddin.
- Added 2 US bases in Europe (Edinburrough and Antwerpen)
Dazoline: You can download in the scenario bank. Its playable already. I am going with Theater and Army HQs. Units are at Corps and brigade level (one brigade is generally made up of 10 INF sfts each).
-Hmmmm....attack helicopters. Do you want them to work like aircraft or land units?
Hi Bombur
Have been away a little, but worked a lot on the scenario. Coded like 40 lines of events. For the attack helicopter i am thinking shortranged aircraft. Good against armour, trucks and equipment. Bad against fighters. Aircraft makes better sense strategicly. Even if helicopters can land anywhere they still have to refuel and re-equip.
New update. A testgame will begin shortly. Have to disable seasons for now. There is some codeline that makes the soviets not lose readiness. Cant have it in this scenario, but dont know how to fix it.
Here is current scenariodescription
World war III
Overview. This scenario simulates a hypotetical third world war between NATO and the warsaw pact in 1986. In the middle of the 1980s fighting intensified in the African Horn between the Soviet backed Somalia government with the support of the Peoples republic of Yemen and the NATO backed regimes of Sudan and Eritrea. At the same time Soviet were expulsed from Afghanistan by the west aided Mujahedin.
After an incident involving the death of some soviet military advicors in Somalia tensions become high. Small skirmishes start on the turkish and german borders. Not waiting untill the USSR gains initiative the NATO high commande decide to take action.
Not surprisingly much of US pacific allies decide to remain neutral to see in which direction the wind blows. Tired of their constant wars Pakistan and India decide to not participate in the fighting. Most countries in middle and south america also remains neutral.
On the side of USSR and PDRC fights fights Vietnam, Laos, Cambodja, Cuba, North Korea, some of the Arab Nations, Nicaragua and Ethiopia.
On the side of NATO and USA fights Afghan guerillas, Japan, Australia, Israel, Sudan, Somalia, Cyprus, Thailand, Malaysia and Panama.
Important events
- On turn 2 Israel Joins USA
- On turn 2 The Arab Nations joins USSR.
- On turn 3 Peoples Republic of Korea joins PDRC.
Map. The map wraps and is drawn in 2 scales – a smaller scale for Europe and the Atlantic and a larger scale for Eastern Asia, the Pacific, and North America. A few land types have been added – ‘big sea’, ‘big land’, and ‘impassible’. These types have been added to manage the distortion associated with a 2 scale map and maximize the playing space of the game.
Locations. A simplified location structure has been added. Cities can produce 0, 2, 4, 8, or 16 k in production points. There is also a resource hex that can produces 2k in supply or pp and a factory hex that produces 2 k and can be built (cost 60 pp or a 15 month payback). Note that the vp of the hex is also the same as the production value of the hex (divided by 1000). A military base location has also been added. This is a combination of a port and an airbase.
Victory Conditions
Each of the superpowers has to capture roughly 100 VP more than they had from the start to win the scenario. If one superpower wins its ally share the victory. A couple of cities are worth 50 VP:s. These are Paris, London, Leninggrad, Kiev, Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, Sydney and New York.
Research. R&D has been simplified. There are now 10 research tracks – basic infantry, heavy infantry, specialized infantry, guns, armor, fighters, bombers, ships, submarines, and carriers. These tracks cover multiple sftypes (e.g., armor covers light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, and tank destroyers). There are still 4 levels of research.
Research cost is doubled.
USA starts with lvl 2 fighter and bomber technology, USSR start with lvl 2 guns technology. NATO starts with lvl 2 fighter technology, Starting units are not upgraded though.
Units. The scenario uses the standard unit set with some modifications and additions. Modifications include:
- Dive-bomber ship and sub combat values dramatically reduced.
- Carrier carry capacity reduced
- BB artillery range reduced to 1 hex
- AA range capped at 2 hexes
- Supply cost 2 pp
- Ship speed is quintupled
- Air speed is increased by 40 %
- Armoured cars are replaced with APC which can carry 10 INF.
- Bazookas are called Anti Tank Infantry, Dive bombers and level bombers are called Tactical and Strategic bombers.
Additions include
- Carrier Air. This is a combination fighter (though weaker than land based fighter) and has strong anti – ship and sub combat values. It is light and can fit on carriers like standard planes on standard CVs.
- Rocket Artillery. Lvl 2 artillery with range of 1 that move as trucks and can carry 5 INF.
- Trains. Cheaper than trucks but limited to roads
- Ship hulls. Capital ships (CG, BB, CV) can no longer be built directly. Players must build a hull. Once built, there is a 10% chance per month that the ship will be complete.
- Partisans. Weak infantry units that can live of the land for some turns. Can only be created by certain events.
- Special forces infantry, long range transports, stealth bombers. Can only be created by certain events (se below).
Special Peoplegroups
- The Israeli forces fight with a 20 % combat increase.
- The Vietnamese fight with a 20 % combat increase
Special Units and events
- The USSR can buy spetznaz paratrooper brigades with 1 Long range transporter each in Moscow (10PP). Spetznaz brigades are paratroopers that can carry 6 turns of supply and have characheristics of a lvl 4 scout. They can destroy bridges and hide well.
- USA can buy Stealth Bombers in New York (20PP). Stealth bombers function as an allrund tactical and strategic bombers and also have ok fighter qualities. They also have an extreme long range.
- The USSR can deploy submarine packs in different locations in the Barents Sea (20PP).
- USA can deploy Mujaheddin units in different locations in Afghanistan. They are overpowered for their cost but defensive in nature (10PP).
- China can incite uprisings in various pacific countries through three different action cards(5-10PP). This generally causes the regimes to join USA or NATO, but places guerilla units inside the countries.
- NATO can through different action cards take advantage of their people by erecting fast fortifications (10 PP) or sabotaging the USSR war efforts in europe (10 PP). The sabotage actions also deploy special forces infantry, The fortifications event provides an extra engineer unit.
- NATO can also use an action card (25 PP) to call for african allies and align Marocko, West africa and South Africa with NATO. This however means that Namibia and Tanzania become controlled by the USSR.
First of all, zip is wrongly packed. Secondly WW3 needs ww3 units. There is no ME-109 or PZ-I or anything else from ww2. You should totally revamp OOB. It is not enough for ww3 if you just reposition twebers WaW units and rename events...
"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"
"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"
Have you read the thread? The discussion about tecnology has been up?
OOB means order of battle, and has nothing to do with which tecnology is used. The OOB is so totally changed that i have to assume that you mean something else.
Is it the pictures you dont like? because the units have changed. For example, APC, anti-tank infantry, stealth bombers, strategic and tactical bombers. Work in progress on helicopter and anti air units. Changes are not big and in some cases cosmetical though. Because the basic rock-paper-scissor features of the games core SFT:s are really good and shouldnt be meddled with lightly. But this has beens subject to discussion.
I have written 30 or so new events, 19 actioncards, 12 new regimes, 12 peoples. remade landscape map in big way at least 3 or so areas. Give me more credit than just shuffling around hitlers panzers. Have you even opened the scenario?
Finally. Work in progress. Dont worry. It will be correctly zipped when that day comes. You dont have to play it though if you dont like it.
A couple of thoughts about your thoughs (in short). Your comment seams mean-spririted, unconstructive and stupid. If you are gonna have this attitude you can fuck of!
ORIGINAL: Grymme
A couple of thoughts about your thoughs (in short). Your comment seams mean-spririted, unconstructive and stupid. If you are gonna have this attitude you can fuck of!
I have read this thread and checked your mod. I thought this thread was open for community to comment your job. If you don't like feedback, why do you even bother to talk about it in forum?
I can admit that I may be a bit hurry with my feedback, since your scenario is not ready yet. When I see those magical words: "World War III", I don't expect to see ww2 graphics in it.
You seem to talk about attitude and offense people. I don't need to do that. Your own words tells enough about bad attitude.
"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"
"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"
I am perfectly civil to people who come with constructive critizism. As you will se if you read my earlier responses to Bombur among others. So yes, the mod is very open to discussion. I have made a lot of changes based on what people have said.
That doesnt mean that i have to be civil to people who just complain and degrade my work without even taking their time to look at it properly. So basicly i treated you the way you treated me. I you call that bad attitude, well fine. I stand by it.
ORIGINAL: Grymme
That doesnt mean that i have to be civil to people who just complain and degrade my work without even taking their time to look at it properly. So basicly i treated you the way you treated me. I you call that bad attitude, well fine. I stand by it.
I can be civil to people who insulted me like you. Shame you can't handle that.
You are saying you treated me like I treated you. Did I call your scenario stupid or mention anything about your spirit? Did I end my post to words "**** of"? No I didin't but you did. What I did was, that there certainly is two things at start to say. Zip should be correctly packed so even new AT players can unzip and enjoy this excellent AT game without asking an old question "zip doesn't work, whats wrong?". Second thing were quite obvious as well. When I see World War III game and open that mod, I am not expecting to see the same units than in WW2 game.
Those things and your answer are not the same. If you can't see the difference between our posts and attitude, thats your problem. Hovewer I don't need to stand and see someone calling my posts stupid. English is not my main language, so thats a bad one
"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"
"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"
Before someone chooses to critizise someone else they should always check that their critizism has some foundation. If they dont know whether they are right or not then they risk that the person they critizise turn around and say that their critique is stupid because its wrong and because they are wasting the other persons time since he has to point out that their critique is wrong. As has happened here.
Your "critique" of my scenario was basicly on two subjects.
1) it was zipped incorrectly.
As it says on the community webside a scenario has to be zipped correctly to be approved."This will be tested before your scenario is approved". As i havent submitted it for aproval yet and even stated on the thread that its in its infancy i havent botherer to do that yet. When it will be approved it will be zipped correctly.
2) you stated that i only moved around units on twebers map and renamed events.
As i have said before. There is much more to the scenario than that. New regimes, peoples, events, sfts, rules, changes in the map, action cards and so on. Also i start with playability and then i move on to changing pictures, descriptions and so on when i now that there is a possibility that there will actually be a scenario. So when you wrote that i only moved around some units your comment was wrong, unfounded and it ended up wasting a lot of mine, yours and the readers time. That is why the comment was stupid. I cant say it any clearer.
Your comment was also unconstructive since you didnt really suggest any sollution. But i guess we agree on that since you really arent contesting that.
I noticed english isnt your first language. Neither is it mine. So i guess we are equals there.
So now i have defended and explained my critizism of your comment. If you had bothered looking at my scenario and the thread for 10 minutes before writing, this could have been avoided.
