1942: Endsieg (1.10 Update)

[kahta]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

bugs are weitd often exposed in only certain situations.. I am having zero issues with the game non mods...
that it failed at same point and I waited several minutes on a fast machine made me think its specific to this calculation in my situation

I'm not sure what could be causing this.

Has anyone else experienced this issue?

[freeboy]

how long should I wait for the game to advance with a moderately fast pc with good memory ?

[SparkleyTits]

I've been poking around the scenario, and loading seems to be the same as the other scenarios vs AI

[kahta]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

how long should I wait for the game to advance with a moderately fast pc with good memory ?

I have not had any issues with delays or challenges in this area and my computer is a couple years old.

[kahta]

And now I am having the same frozen screen issue after turn 8 when it changes to 1943. Is this when others have experienced the same issue?

[erikbengtsson]

I have successfully crossed into 1943 with 1.08.

[freeboy]

Might be solved
letme run some turns and see..
not sure why its working

[potski]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

You can adjust the TBs by going to the map and using the ctrl-b TB screen. Click on the word "Active" to turn a TB off. Other numbers like requirements can be changed here as well. Happy modding.

There still hasn't been a manual published for the Editor yet, I think? Any possibility of giving us a list of some of these hidden features which are not visible in the Editor interface, with the hot keys? Try as I might I couldn't figure out how to remove a hex from the map, so I suspected there was a way to edit things on the map. Maybe I'll just try CTRL with everything else to see what pops up, lol.

[freeboy]

I like what if type stuff. and this does fit the need
I also play with the balance by adding changes to logistics and morale
So like the challenge to where as German player can I counter.. where to fall back... how to save the poor italians run baby run! \ lol

[kahta]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

I like what if type stuff. and this does fit the need
I also play with the balance by adding changes to logistics and morale
So like the challenge to where as German player can I counter.. where to fall back... how to save the poor italians run baby run! \ lol

I am a big fan of what-if type stuff- it's what proves theories correct or incorrect.

How far into the scenario are you? Have you pulled off a late-Summer Axis victory?

[freeboy]

I just yesterday restarted
I am at turn 9
Working the various fronts

[kahta]

1.10 Has been posted.

Changes:

Removal of the Finnish theatre box event
Addition of more LL tanks for the Soviets at the start.
More pilots for the Soviets (assuming they received more LL aircraft, it only makes sense that they would train more pilots)

[Skritshell]

A friend and I played a H2H game to turn 15. At that point we decided to call the game as it their was a number of imbalances that was ruining the scenario. If I may be so bold I would list some of them now;

A. Air. The air war for the soviets is simply impossible, the Germans make almost as many planes as the Soviets, shoot the soviet down 8-1 at worst, and have the potential to have as many planes on the map(both sides are limited by the number of squadrons). This created a death loop for the soviet airforce, let me explain. With their high production capacity the Germans were able to always fly ground support without fear of burning out their pool, because of the high number of squadrons and map aircraft the Germans were almost guaranteed to have 75+ fighters and 100+ bombers join a battle. With such a high number of Bombers joining a battle the Soviet ground elements were always disrupted by 20-30% minimum by air(even in winter). This creates a situation were in order for a Soviet player to have any hope of a successful attack they MUST fly their own planes in retaliation when on the offence(god can not help a Soviet who leaves GS on when it is the axis turn, the will quickly lose 3k+ planes), thus suffering the above mentioned loss ratio. But one might ask, can't the Soviet just attack with more numbers somewhere else? This ties in nicely with the next segment.

B. Land. The large scale reinforcement of the Nazi Army to include not just everything from every other front, but to also make every Nazi Division a first rate infantry division(equipped with magickly appearing artillery and manpower) allows the Nazi army to have material and manpower parity on the map. As one can expect this quickly delves into a stalemate, as the Germans can not afford the casualties of high tempo operations against Rifle Corps, and the Soviets have no new sector to adjust their focus off attack towards. The Germans will be strong everywhere. This means that in order to go on the offence the Soviets must consign themselves to a meatgrinder that they can not win. Any artillery superiority the soviets manage to afford will quickly be overcome by axis airpower, forts and reserves. The losses will be to heavy. Thus once the mad scramble for land in the first few turns subsides the best strategy for both players is to dig in and wait out their opponent, conducting limited offensives to flip 2-5 tiles a turn. Anything higher tempo will quickly develop against the aggressors favor.

C. Production. Axis production as has already been touched on with air is to high, the can rebuild an entire tank division a turn, and will never have to worry about running out of planes. Their only real constraining factor is manpower and artillery, the inability to replace any high tempo losses means that any large scale, war winning offensive is essentially a Hail Marry. The addition of extra tanks and planes to the soviet pool allows for nothing but an endless reserve of tank and mech corps waiting for a breakthrough that will never happen. The planes seem to just exist to generate more axis aces. Numerically you will never be able to trade them for anything close to air parity and trying to do so will just exhaust the trained pilot pool. What the Soviets really need is more artillery(especially the kind that shoots down planes), while the Nazis need less over all production, or conversely the same production but less units at the start of the game.

D. Axis Reinforcements. This is a smaller gripe but something that should be cleaned up. The axis are reinforced with a number of high commands(afrika, Balkans, OKW, Italy etc) These hold 20k men each and not be sent to reserve and do nothing. Please delete them. Allowing for a more gradual transfer of troops(say 10 divs a turn) east from other theaters at the start of the game might also help with the WW1 simulator you have now created. Perhaps have the "reinforcing" units simply recreated as a reinforcement instead of a transfer would make this more doable(I have not experimented with the parameters that can and can not be modded in editor).

Please do not take this criticism to harshly, I am not trying to discredit or detract from the work you have done. In fact I think you have the beginnings of a very interesting scenario, however in its current state I do not foresee it as much more then a lark, and I am hoping that if you chose to address some of these issues the scenario will grow into something great.

Best of luck, and I surely enjoyed the time I did play it.

Skrit

[kahta]

Thank you- I sincerely appreciate this kind of feedback. I don't take it harshly at all. Some of what you highlight is what I hope to fix with future editor changes (such as removing large equipment pools).

Which version of the scenario did you play with?

I'm personally a big fan of alternative history and what if scenarios and I hope to continue to build this scenario and others out so that others can dabble in the genre.

[potski]

ORIGINAL: Skritshell

With such a high number of Bombers joining a battle the Soviet ground elements were always disrupted by 20-30% minimum by air(even in winter). This creates a situation were in order for a Soviet player to have any hope of a successful attack they MUST fly their own planes in retaliation when on the offence(god can not help a Soviet who leaves GS on when it is the axis turn, the will quickly lose 3k+ planes), thus suffering the above mentioned loss ratio
...
Skrit

The point you make here I think is a general problem with the game engine. Start a 1941 scenario and the Soviet air force loses huge numbers. It appears at first sight that we don't need to question this - the historical attacks on the airbases are the cause, but careful examination of the air doctrines shows the Germans do not have a doctrine to bomb airbases and no air directives are set-up by the AI to bomb the airbases, and no reports of such bombings come back after the air phase.

If you manually control the air directives and set-up bombing missions then you get the reports of planes destroyed on the ground, and this can be extensive especially if a base is not heavily protected by AA. However, the biggest losses of Soviet planes are if the bombing missions are intercepted. 40 Soviet fighters can intercept 40 bombers with 20 escorts and the whole of the 40 Soviet fighters get shot down. This is wholly unrealistic. There is no evidence that the German planes and pilots enjoyed that level of superiority in the air, the massive losses of the Soviet air force were the result of the surprise attacks and catching so many planes lined up on the ground not in dispersed and protected situations.

What you find by experimenting with the air directives is that it hardly seems worthwhile to change them and set-up all of the airbase bombing missions. It's alot of effort with no obvious benefit. Just leave your planes on ground support missions. Then when your combat units attack, the Soviet airforce will send out squadrons to intercept and they will be wiped out in the air. Overall, this results in almost exactly the same Soviet losses on turn 1 as the deliberate attacks on their airbases would. And potentially can result in lower German losses because the frontline Soviet ground units are not equipped with much heavy AA, compared to the losses from certain airbases which are.

I am unsure if this is a bug which has not been identified in testing of the game, or it is deliberately setup in this way to provide the superficial result that the Soviets can suffer 10-1 or even as high as 20-1 losses early in the 1941 scenarios. But this is then being carried through the whole game.

It seems to me that the balance is wrong - squadrons which are "defeated" in an air battle should be able to withdraw from combat after sustaining a certain amount of losses, not fight to have every single plane shot down. It is also possible that the German planes are just massively OP. The turn 1 situation for Barbarossa just needs a special rule to account for the surprise element, such as making the effects of the bombing higher and reducing the effects of AA. Possibly even make it that the Soviets cannot launch any interception missions on turn 1.

There should be an advantage to a human player to actually make the effort to plan at the start of the scenarios in 1941 to carry out bombing of all of the airbases, currently there is not. And the effect that the Soviet airforce is wiped out comes more from the disruption that occurs when the Axis forces advance and capture the airbases. Squadrons which are not already moved from the airbases on the front before the hex is captured, cannot be destroyed, but the pilots all jump in their planes and fly off, and the squadron is forced into the reserve and therefore won't return on the map for several turns. Once they do, they will come back to new bases with very little supplies/support and rinse/repeat as they fly missions at a severe disadvantage. And I am not arguing against that gameplay mechanic, just pointing out that it hides that when the Soviet squadrons meet German squadrons in the air the typical result is often complete annihilation of the Soviets with hardly any losses for the Germans.

So, if the Germans have the increased capacity in this scenario to replace all of their (small) losses, then they will easily maintain their numbers of planes. As you suggest, the Soviet player might be better off not engaging in intercepting German ground support missions, indeed may even be better off just parking their whole airforce at some remote airbases well away from the front and carrying out no air directives, to avoid the VPs given to the Germans from their losses. They will still gain almost as many VPs from German losses just because of AA and operational losses as they can ever hope to inflict by actually flying missions.

[potski]

ORIGINAL: kahta

Historical Overview
---------------------------------
Facing the threat of Axis success in North Africa, on October 31st, 1942, Germany and Italy signed the 1942 Treaty of Versailles with the Western Allies.



The treaty included the following provisions:
Finnish/Soviet peace agreement

Axis withdrawal from Western Europe and Norway, to be replaced with puppet governments.

Western Allies can continue to provide lend-lease to the Soviets


Changes to the scenario include:

Axis allies have a slightly better starting position in the Stalingrad area
Western Europe, Norway, Finnish, and North Africa theater boxes are closed. All units sent to Map or Axis reserves.
Strength requirement for Italian theater set to zero
Removal of Transcaucus and Northern Front for the Soviets

Larger starting pool of LL reinforcements
Changes to Soviet Mech Corps OOBs to accomodate increased LL stockpile.
Increased Soviet pilot pool

I am in favour of alt-history scenarios. However:

- Finland was a co-belligerent with the Axis powers, it wasn't part of the Western Allies nor the Axis. Any 1942 Treaty of Versailles couldn't have brought peace on the Northern Front. Under the terms of the Treaty of Moscow in 1940 the Winter War ended with Finland giving up Karelia to the Soviet Union, and this territory was regarded as part of Russia, and had been before Finnish independence. The Finns invaded Karelia in the Continuation War in 1941 to try to win it back. Since the Soviets couldn't possibly be party to this 1942 Treaty of Versailles, then they couldn't possibly agree to any outcome either way, and the Finns could also not be party to this treaty. Historically it is an interesting fact that the Finns were never at war with UK and USA, despite them entering into a secret agreement with Germany to invade a UK/USA ally and allowing Finland's territory to be used to engage in attacks on UK forces in the Barents Sea. Whatever agreement is made between the Western Allies and Axis could not have resulted in peace in Finland, unless there was a separate treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union to give up Karelia and restore the 1939 borders. I don't see any motivation for this by either of them, nor from the Germans to give up the pressure on the Murmansk railway and the hope that this would be severed to stop the LL from that route. Even if there was peace treaties, this doesn't mean that the TB's should be closed - there would (same as Far Eastern) still be a requirement to garrison these fronts with some forces.

- No peace treaty with the Western Allies could have concluded with the agreement that they become neutral countries but still provide supplies to an enemy of the Axis. That's not how neutrality works. In fact, this makes things even worse, and is of course the reason why Hitler declared war on the USA, because if the LL convoys are flying "neutral" flags (and are protected by the Treaty) then the Axis cannot attack them. The whole purpose of their occupation of Petsamo and much of their garrisoning of Norway was to be able to attack the convoys heading for Murmansk, the peace treaty (and any separate peace between Finland and Soviet Union) would prevent that and require Germany who have "won" the war in the west due to their apparent victory in North Africa [on the very eve of their most devastating defeat IRL] to accept worse terms. Any attacks on the convoys would enable the western allies to attack German ships with immunity, as happened throughout 1941 with the US destroyers sinking German subs, but the German subs couldn't attack US/UK shipping. And, if the allies are not providing so much LL to North Africa/Italy and other theatres, they could even increase the volume to the Soviets, using them as a proxy to continue the war they had "lost". No, the Axis diplomats would have required at the bare minimum that the Western Allies cut-off all LL supplies to the Soviet Union. We need hardly point out that there was also a war going on in the Pacific with the third main power in the Axis, and the possibility that the Western Allies would have signed a peace with Germany and remained at war with Japan is ridiculous. Still, in this scenario, the idea is that the Soviet Union is simply left to fend for itself, standing alone against a Germany which is freed by some miracle from fighting the two front war it decided to engage in on 22 June 1941. And freed from its own decision to declare war on the USA six months later, without even deploying any additional forces to the North Africa TB to ensure that Rommel wins, and freed from having the inconvenience of the allied forces defeat him at Alamein and Torch, finally ending with a defeat nearly on the scale of Stalingrad, so that those forces were utterly destroyed. The entire forces in the TB! Yet you have NA and other forces presumably teleported fit and well to the Eastern Front, and presumably in plenty of time to reinforce the Romanian and Italian forces on the flanks of the Sixth Army to guarantee there is no defeat at Stalingrad. They don't have to provide a garrison force to occupy Libya, Egypt and the Middle East etc. There's alt-history and fantasy.

So, if you are going to engage in fantasy, at least make it consistent - there would still be the Continuation War (even if by 1942 the fighting in the TB is at low intensity with the Finns satisfied with their advances to the 1939 borders and the Soviets concentrating on the Eastern Front) and there would be no Lend Lease at all.

[kahta]

ORIGINAL: potski

ORIGINAL: kahta

Historical Overview
---------------------------------
Facing the threat of Axis success in North Africa, on October 31st, 1942, Germany and Italy signed the 1942 Treaty of Versailles with the Western Allies.



The treaty included the following provisions:
Finnish/Soviet peace agreement

Axis withdrawal from Western Europe and Norway, to be replaced with puppet governments.

Western Allies can continue to provide lend-lease to the Soviets


Changes to the scenario include:

Axis allies have a slightly better starting position in the Stalingrad area
Western Europe, Norway, Finnish, and North Africa theater boxes are closed. All units sent to Map or Axis reserves.
Strength requirement for Italian theater set to zero
Removal of Transcaucus and Northern Front for the Soviets

Larger starting pool of LL reinforcements
Changes to Soviet Mech Corps OOBs to accomodate increased LL stockpile.
Increased Soviet pilot pool

I am in favour of alt-history scenarios. However:

- Finland was a co-belligerent with the Axis powers, it wasn't part of the Western Allies nor the Axis. Any 1942 Treaty of Versailles couldn't have brought peace on the Northern Front. Under the terms of the Treaty of Moscow in 1940 the Winter War ended with Finland giving up Karelia to the Soviet Union, and this territory was regarded as part of Russia, and had been before Finnish independence. The Finns invaded Karelia in the Continuation War in 1941 to try to win it back. Since the Soviets couldn't possibly be party to this 1942 Treaty of Versailles, then they couldn't possibly agree to any outcome either way, and the Finns could also not be party to this treaty. Historically it is an interesting fact that the Finns were never at war with UK and USA, despite them entering into a secret agreement with Germany to invade a UK/USA ally and allowing Finland's territory to be used to engage in attacks on UK forces in the Barents Sea. Whatever agreement is made between the Western Allies and Axis could not have resulted in peace in Finland, unless there was a separate treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union to give up Karelia and restore the 1939 borders. I don't see any motivation for this by either of them, nor from the Germans to give up the pressure on the Murmansk railway and the hope that this would be severed to stop the LL from that route. Even if there was peace treaties, this doesn't mean that the TB's should be closed - there would (same as Far Eastern) still be a requirement to garrison these fronts with some forces.

- No peace treaty with the Western Allies could have concluded with the agreement that they become neutral countries but still provide supplies to an enemy of the Axis. That's not how neutrality works. In fact, this makes things even worse, and is of course the reason why Hitler declared war on the USA, because if the LL convoys are flying "neutral" flags (and are protected by the Treaty) then the Axis cannot attack them. The whole purpose of their occupation of Petsamo and much of their garrisoning of Norway was to be able to attack the convoys heading for Murmansk, the peace treaty (and any separate peace between Finland and Soviet Union) would prevent that and require Germany who have "won" the war in the west due to their apparent victory in North Africa [on the very eve of their most devastating defeat IRL] to accept worse terms. Any attacks on the convoys would enable the western allies to attack German ships with immunity, as happened throughout 1941 with the US destroyers sinking German subs, but the German subs couldn't attack US/UK shipping. And, if the allies are not providing so much LL to North Africa/Italy and other theatres, they could even increase the volume to the Soviets, using them as a proxy to continue the war they had "lost". No, the Axis diplomats would have required at the bare minimum that the Western Allies cut-off all LL supplies to the Soviet Union. We need hardly point out that there was also a war going on in the Pacific with the third main power in the Axis, and the possibility that the Western Allies would have signed a peace with Germany and remained at war with Japan is ridiculous. Still, in this scenario, the idea is that the Soviet Union is simply left to fend for itself, standing alone against a Germany which is freed by some miracle from fighting the two front war it decided to engage in on 22 June 1941. And freed from its own decision to declare war on the USA six months later, without even deploying any additional forces to the North Africa TB to ensure that Rommel wins, and freed from having the inconvenience of the allied forces defeat him at Alamein and Torch, finally ending with a defeat nearly on the scale of Stalingrad, so that those forces were utterly destroyed. The entire forces in the TB! Yet you have NA and other forces presumably teleported fit and well to the Eastern Front, and presumably in plenty of time to reinforce the Romanian and Italian forces on the flanks of the Sixth Army to guarantee there is no defeat at Stalingrad. They don't have to provide a garrison force to occupy Libya, Egypt and the Middle East etc. There's alt-history and fantasy.

So, if you are going to engage in fantasy, at least make it consistent - there would still be the Continuation War (even if by 1942 the fighting in the TB is at low intensity with the Finns satisfied with their advances to the 1939 borders and the Soviets concentrating on the Eastern Front) and there would be no Lend Lease at all.

Thank you for the input.

[Fullervc]

How do you get all of the available Italian air groups into the game? I'm not smart enough to figure it out.

[kahta]

ORIGINAL: Fullervc

How do you get all of the available Italian air groups into the game? I'm not smart enough to figure it out.

Are you referring to in-game or in-editor?

[Fullervc]

In game...