TRP - Total Realism Project for War in Europe (1.12 Download)

[CAHouston]

i did

[Lothos]

i did

You can try uninstall it (meaning the full game not the mod)

Then make sure that War In Europe folder is deleted in the Documents section

Then reinstall it

Then see if that folder was created again by the installer

Then copy the mod back in

[CAHouston]

i am using the twin version of war in europe and world war. the stand alone version would be better?

[Lothos]

i am using the twin version of war in europe and world war. the stand alone version would be better?

I don't know what twin version means.

[CAHouston]

here

[Lothos]

here

Never seen that before so I can't comment.

[CAHouston]

thanks will reinstall

[Unfortunate Son]

here

Thats how the game appears for me. I just click on the WEI or the WaW button. The mods are there as long as you place them in the correct folder.

[CAHouston]

my error. my W in E was not up to date.
added units France surrenders. England recognized Vichy then error.

[Unfortunate Son]

my error. my W in E was not up to date.
added units France surrenders. England recognized Vichy then error.

If this error is what I think it is, then you need to turn off the National Moral bars at the top of the game screen.

[Lothos]

my error. my W in E was not up to date.
added units France surrenders. England recognized Vichy then error.

FYI, I put the fix on the download thread. You need to turn off your National Bars.

[Lothos]

TRP v0.9.18 has been released

Lots of fixes and adjustments. The biggest change is adding of mine fields around the Spanish ports. What I saw happening is that human players would use their ships and camp those ports making them un-usable to the Axis.

To prevent this, while Spain is Neutral, those ports will now have a mine field around it extending 2 hexes. Any allied ship in that zone will get hammered so I recommend you do not go in. These mines will only effect a human controlled Allies. It will have no effect on the AI since it does not camp those areas.


########################
# TRP 0.9.18 Europe
########################
- (Bug) Germany, Escort Carrier CAP changed from 0 to 2
- (Bug) Germany, Carrier CAP changed from 2 to 1
- (Bug) Germany, incorrect text for Graf Zeppelin (should be 80MPPs at 10MPPs per turn)
- (Bug) Germany, fixed text bug when Synthetic plant comes online the pop-up was blank
- (Bug) Germany, fixed a bug that if you had more than 18 units on border USSR Mobilization did not increase
- (Bug) Removed several events tied to event 999 that did not need to be tied to it, so removed duplicates
- (Bug) USA, Pearl Harbor event deleted by accident (put it back)

- (Upgrade) Long Range Aircraft, no longer increases Spotting Land range (this was to powerful)

- (New) Italy, decision to focus on airpower deleted (you can buy the planes yourself)
- (New) Germany, rebuilding Maginot will no longer get full tech (you will need to pay for the upgrade)
- (New) USA, changed oil embargo Mobilization requirement from 80 to 70
- (New) USSR, Mobilization adjusted to be higher
- (New) USSR, Reserve events changed to all be at full research and full strength
- (New) USSR/USA, changed lend lease through Vladivostok from 50 back to 80
- (New) USSR/USA, changed lend lease through Persia from 20 back to 40
- (New) USA, Fighter CAP increased from 6 to 8
- (NEW) USA, Strategic Bomber CAP increased from 3 to 6
- (New) Spanish ports (while neutral) will have a minefield around it that will damage Allied shipping

- (OOB) Germany, Tirpitz battleship moved from decision into the production que instead
- (OOB) UK, Anson battleship moved from decision into the production que instead
- (OOB) Romania, starts with a destroyer and has it added to the build caps
- (OOB) French Colonies, Carrier changed to an Escort Carrier (represents the Bearn which was in the USA)
- (OOB) South Africa, HQ strength changed from 3 to 10
- (OOB) Finland, added a corp near Petsamo
- (OOB) Germany, removed paratrooper event as they already get one in the production que

- (AI) USSR, made adjustments to how it builds
- (AI) USA, made some adjustments to its builds

[Taxman66]

1) 80 mpp for the German cv? Seems so cheap as to be a no brainer particularly for something that was never completed.

2) So Germany can't get the 3rd paratrooper now? Sea Lion fans will be disappointed.

3) Suggestion: Remove the Spanish mines, that doesn't make sense. Replace with a small mobilization increase for Spain.

I don't know the real history of fighting near those ports. I do know that: a) Subs can get on and out of there in silent mode even if there are camping DDs; b) With your change Allied player can still camp them just takes a 2nd or 3rd DD to do it; c) The real threat to subs using those ports is from esort carriers. If you take that away you are being unfair. The response is to build AA on those ports.

[Lothos]

1) 80 mpp for the German cv? Seems so cheap as to be a no brainer particularly for something that was never completed.

2) So Germany can't get the 3rd paratrooper now? Sea Lion fans will be disappointed.

3) Suggestion: Remove the Spanish mines, that doesn't make sense. Replace with a small mobilization increase for Spain.

I don't know the real history of fighting near those ports. I do know that: a) Subs can get on and out of there in silent mode even if there are camping DDs; b) With your change Allied player can still camp them just takes a 2nd or 3rd DD to do it; c) The real threat to subs using those ports is from esort carriers. If you take that away you are being unfair. The response is to build AA on those ports.

1 - it's a CVL not CV

2 - It is for two reasons, first they did not have 2 entire CORPS of Paratroopers in Germany in 1939 and second to prevent an exploit just as you mentioned. I am not a fan of giving to many units by event because it lets people go above their gearing limits.

3 - its to stop a human exploit. Historically they were neutral so allies stayed away

EDITED: Added comment for item 2

[Klydon]

Well, I seem to have stumbled my way in here. (You can thank OCB's you tube game with Unfortunate Son for that, so if this gets sideways, blame him. )

Another disclaimer is that the written word can be hard to interpret for intent at times. People can make a lot of assumptions (usually negative) from what is written, even if the person doing the writing doesn't have that intent. As someone who has used the written word as a primary means of communication in games and in forums for many years of gaming, I try to be as polite and respectful as possible. I am not one to flame, etc. I have also read this entire thread.

A bit of background before I go into my observations. I have played wargames since the 70's. I was a early avid computer gamer (got my first PC in the early 80's: a TRS 80 color computer with 16k of memory that you loaded programs with a cassette player). I have been on mod teams before, but it has been awhile. Probably my most involved one was Civ3 back in the day. The organizer did a terrific job of manipulating things to get the most out of the Civ3 editor and game engine.

I also want to say I am very impressed at how ambitious this mod is and also how far it has come in a short amount of time. I think someone mentioned how much they detested free units while playing the AI and I am in that same boat. Given my limited time to play games and work schedule, I usually play single player. I was messing around with the Civil War game as the CSA and basically quit when the Union got 7 infantry divisions and 1 cav division for free. Earlier, it had gotten a ton of free infantry brigades all over the map. At any rate, I digress.

So with the current version (18) I started a game as the Allies. I had played WIE way back and have won with both sides. The big issue to me was I could never really do a Russian campaign without the UK landing a massive invasion force in 1942 or early 1943 because of all the free units they get. I won because I was able to pull off a Sea Lion and then clean up the rest of the map. I know there have been newer versions of the game since then, but at the end of the day, because of all the free units, it ruins the game experience for me.

So as the Commonwealth, I did no investment in Poland in terms of spending points for replacements or moving units around. We defended Poland practically to the last Pole and it finally fell on 15 October. One thing to note on the campaign, I think Warsaw needs to be a bit higher supply (make it an 8 or so). On the prior turn, the Germans smoked the Warsaw unit I had in there, but could not move in. On my turn, it was raining and between being at supply 4 and German ZOC, I could not move a infantry corps in. It would have not made a difference in the long run, but still from the standpoint of "feeling right", it might help. I don't know how that rates (length of time for the German AI to defeat Poland), just information.

On the infantry corps being what they are (really unable to make any progress against other bigger units unless they hold a tech lead), I somewhat agree that it seems counter intuitive that a corps essentially can't hurt another corps very much when it is even. That is because the base hard attack value of a infantry corps is 1 (I don't know if that is intended as I am not sure what constitutes "hard", but infantry might be "soft". Soft attack and defense values are 4 and 3 respectively, which would be fine). The hard defensive value of a corps is 1. Very low combat values, so corps are not going to do much damage to each other at all. If anything, I would consider bumping the hard attack value by 1 to 2. Infantry corps historically were much more than just infantry. They had regular field artillery as well. My understanding is that the artillery in the game is supposed to represent concentrations of large caliber siege guns, etc. It should not be needed for breaking a position defended by infantry in regular terrain.

Naval items:

On the sub front. I agree with OCB and Unfortunate Son that Germany should start with sub tech 1 and most of the U-boats upgraded, although leaving 1 not upgraded to represent older designs, etc would be good.

There are a lot of ships that were seen as "battleships" historically that are marked as battle cruisers in game and some ships that were seen as "battlecruisers" historically marked as battleships. I understand some of it from a capability standpoint of view, but it is confusing to a person that knows a bit about history as to why both the Rodney and Nelson are marked as battlecruisers. They may also be confused as to why the Renown is a battleship. I also noticed that the RN has no light cruisers to start the game, which I find confusing as well. Some of the cruisers marked as CA's were light cruisers (if you consider 6" main armament vs 8" main armament as the difference between the two). So here is a list I found with some notes:

Hood (Listed as a battleship. Technically a battlecruiser although many see her rightfully so as the first modern capital ship vs a dreadnaught or super dreadnaught). She was to be refitted, but the outbreak of the war put an end to that. I can go either way with this one tbh, but most will remember her as a battlecruiser. I would suggest leaving her as either a un-upgraded battleship or battlecruiser, but my suggestion is battlecruiser.

Nelson and Rodney. Both listed as battlecruisers. Should be battleships. Had 16 inch guns and lots of armor. No major refits before the war, so base battleship should be fine.

Warspite, Valiant, and Malaya. All three listed as battlecruisers. Now, I can see the reasoning in making them battlecruisers. They are WW1 era warships and making them not a battleship is one way to represent that. However, they had good armor, reasonable speed and armament and were the best all around ships that actually saw action in WW1. Most people know these as battleships. I think you could go a couple of ways. Both Warspite and Valiant were extensively rebuilt and modernized between the wars. You could leave them as battle cruisers if you wish, but they should have the upgraded AA and naval weaponry. Malaya was not rebuilt, so should be left as a base ship. You could also bump Warspite and Valiant to battleships, leaving Malaya as a battlecruiser or you could look at it that Warspite and Valiant were probably the best all around battleships the RN started the war with, especially from a AA standpoint of view, etc. Realistically, all three would be battleships with Warspite and Valiant having naval weapons 1 and AA 1. Malaya would be just a base ship.

Renown. Listed as a battleship, should be a battlecruiser, but an upgraded version with 1 in naval weapons and 1 in AA. Renown didn't have the armor (even after extensive rebuilding) to justify the defense of a battleship. 6 15 inch guns come up short as well.

Southampton and Glasgow show as heavy cruisers in game (CA). These were Town class light cruisers with 6 inch guns. Should be CL in game.

French:

I am wondering where the Dunkerque/Strasbourg is. Should be a 10 strength battlecruiser. The other French BC units are WW1 dreadnaughts that were pretty obsolete by the start of the war. They had pretty much inferior everything compared to any other major power except the Russians.

By splitting up the French fleet into 5 point capital ship units, it is far less dangerous to the Italian fleet unless the French want to spend some major MPP's to fix them up.

Have to cut this post short (an oxy-moron as it is already a book) as I just looked at the time.

One final thing I did note:

The French armor unit listed in the production track is showing as a tank army. (XXXX instead of XXX). I don't believe that is intended.

I will try to post from time to time as I get a chance to play more and get more impressions. Overall, there is a ton to love about this mod and I hope more people try it out.

[Lothos]

Lets agree to disagree on your assessment on the ships

A battleship is not just the size of their guns. I took into account how fast they were as well. Since the game engine only has 1 class Battleship it makes no sense to put them all in the same boat with the same abilities.

So older slower models, although called battleships, are really battle cruisers at that point in history because of them being outdated.

I see your icon is world in flames

You can use their latest version counters and you will see the CAs the UK have are the CAs in World in Flames etc....

I don't like reinventing the wheel when many others have done all the research and work for me. World In Flames has been around since I was a teenager and I am about to turn 50 years old now so I trust their research.

As for subs, I left it at tech 0 but increased their base dive percentage by 5 percent and gave subs a new ability to evade damage. They start with 5% chance to evade damage and if you research Naval Warfare then it will go up to 10% to evade damage. This combination will get you the same results pretty much.

"The French armor unit listed in the production track is showing as a tank army. (XXXX instead of XXX). I don't believe that is intended."

Thanks, I will fix the name

[Klydon]

Couple of other things I forgot while I have a couple of minutes.

I believe the CVL unit has a bit too much submarine defense. I would knock it down by 1. I suckered one of the RN CVL's out with a bunch of u-boats waiting in ambush. It came rolling out and bombed one of my subs, knocking it down to an 8. I had 3 subs that all took shots at it and while the CVL is down to a 6 or a 7, all the u-boats took at least 2 damage each, which doesn't seem right.

RE your comments on BC vs BB. Do you have the ability to change the category? I think it would be beneficial to call those ships you see as older (and slower) dreadnaughts instead of battlecruisers or battleships. By the way, is there a certain speed cut off in your designation? I was trying to look at the whole picture in terms of armor and gunpower for the most part with an eye towards speed as well. I will have to peruse my WIF deluxe and take a look. I bought the original when it came out in the 80's and it blew away Third Reich (something we played very heavily in the 70's). It didn't have ship names, just ship types. I know in one version of Ship in Flames, it is just heavy cruisers and up. I think Cruisers in Flames adds light cruisers. I was never a fan of adding all this extra stuff to a point because it bogs down the game so much, but then I have not played it in oh... 35 years. I had high hopes for MWIF, but its been 10 years I think and progress on it is extremely slow. Maybe one day.. oh well.

Also, if you can change the name, I would get rid of the torpedo boat designation (which makes it sound like that unit is anti-ship, which it absolutely is not) and call it either a destroyer escort or ASW ship. I know it is that way in the base game, but it always bugged me. It is counter intuitive to what it is. I also heartily approve upping its action points as well.

*edit*

One other note I forgot about. As far as I can tell, the only difference between motorized infantry and regular infantry is the motorize have 4 action points and the regular have 3. Most people know the Germans simply didn't have that much motorization due to a lack of production and even if they did, there wasn't the POL for it. The French didn't have POL worth a lick either and their regular army was foot bound as well. What I would consider doing is making the number of motorized infantry units really restricted in that you simply can't build very many at all as the Germans/French/minors, etc. The Commonwealth, especially British? Lots of motorized. Same with the US. You can increase the number of regular infantry the Germans can build accordingly, but this will especially come into light with any campaign in Russia and especially in mud. The German mech and armor will have markedly better mobility compared to regular infantry. BTW, I like the change to force march.

[Klydon]

Sorry, not trying to be too heavy on the posting here, but I went back and reviewed some stats from the base game to the mod and indeed in the base game, infantry corps are considered hard targets. (A soft target would be something like a HQ for example or a plain infantry division so those really get wrecked by just about anything).

I did also load up WW1 and in that, infantry corps are also hard targets. The difference there is that offensive values are 1 point higher than defensive values, be it hard or soft. Looking at Civil war, brigades are even while divisions and corps all have a 1 point higher than the defense difference.

It doesn't mean changes can't be made, but what it was is sort of a tried and true formula so a really good case would have to be made to make changes. (Along with a good amount of play testing).

[Elessar2]

Lothos told me that operational usefulness was the rationale for the battleship/battle cruiser decision. Note you can easily adjust the speeds there, thus making the slower WWI tubs less operationally useful (as in can't keep up with the carriers). I do agree the older units should have inferior stats to those of the post-treaty BBs, and that there are only 3 slots available, making for some tough decisions. Note that the Japanese and Americans use their Dreadnought slot for the Yamatos and Montanas respectively-perhaps move all the old and slow units for the other countries to that slot, freeing the BB one for the post--treaty ships while retaining the BC slot for the historical BC's, with speeds to match. [I also put the Yamatos and Montanas into the DN slot, mainly because of the scary name even if the historical meaning was applied to anything built pre London Treaty]

[Lothos]

Lothos told me that operational usefulness was the rationale for the battleship/battle cruiser decision. Note you can easily adjust the speeds there, thus making the slower WWI tubs less operationally useful (as in can't keep up with the carriers). I do agree the older units should have inferior stats to those of the post-treaty BBs, and that there are only 3 slots available, making for some tough decisions. Note that the Japanese and Americans use their Dreadnought slot for the Yamatos and Montanas respectively-perhaps move all the old and slow units for the other countries to that slot, freeing the BB one for the post--treaty ships while retaining the BC slot for the historical BC's, with speeds to match. [I also put the Yamatos and Montanas into the DN slot, mainly because of the scary name even if the historical meaning was applied to anything built pre London Treaty]

Been doing this 30+ years and people who play these kinds of games tend to be very passionate about history.

The problem is you have a game engine to work with and you are trying your best to make things work with it.

Basically my thoughts are this (and I used the World In Flames official game as a guide)

- Very old ships regardless of their combat abilities (mainly their speed) got classified as a Battle Cruiser (these are the old and outdated Battleships)

- Battleships are the new ships coming out like the Bismarck etc.. which have better armor and more speed (due to technology) with the good size guns (about the same or slightly better than their ancestors which are now classified as Battlecruisers)

- Dreadnoughts are what I like to call PLANET KILLERS LOL!! Yamato, Musashi and several of the American battleships that came out at the end of the war

When options are limited you keep things simple, in the end it is a game and people want to have fun.