TRP - Total Realism Project for War in Europe (1.10b Download)

[Lothos]

To the east and west away from Malta. Axis fighters and maritime bombers with passive sea spotting range could cover the area around the Malta, insuring a first strike with the Italian Navy and the Luftwaffe on the RN. The fleet if positioned within intercept range of Malta would be vulnerable to a one-two punch. All RN elements including CVs, CVLs and their screening vessels would be in full view.

There will be initial strikes on an Italian ftr in west Sicily. But I pulled back when I got indications of the rest of the air potential plus the numbers of Italian ships nearby. Also, the western TF was waiting to escort some critical units for a dash to Egypt...so we had a dual mission to do.

Regardless of that...it was the alpha strike bombardment of a Rail Gun that sealed Malta's fate.
The 11 strength AA was clipped down quickly. If I had brought the entire RN and massed around the island, and had the one CV and the CVLs on intercept mode...it might of delayed the outcome for awhile longer with massive casualties and a diminished response. There are the Italian ports for the BBs to duck back into and German and Italian Hqs to support the air elements with a significant boost.

Later there is a trap within a trap that was detrimental to the Allies, but that happens after Malta.
My points above in the other post still stand in my view.

Malta is weaker than it was before in both early versions of TRP mainly because previously it had a 13 strength AA if the UK DEC to strengthen it was chosen, air strikes were not allowed in rain, and a house-rule to restricting a Rail-gun from bombardment of Malta. Also now, the UK has only 1 CV. The CVLs are fine for some kind of air coverage, but not as potent as CVs with their two strike ability to retaliate.

One thing that's a plus now, is that medium bombers can not de-trench in bad weather. Unfortunately, that patch came in after the assault on Malta in this on going match. At least that can be factored in if any tweaking to increased Malta's native defenses is considered.

The other thing that helped a bit previously in the past was the ability to put AA upgrades in the town and ports. It was a small help but every little bit helps.

Anyways that's the report. The Axis was waiting for the RN to do exactly that, get in close to try to support Malta. Easy to operate an entire air armada in quicker than it takes to round up a massive task force out at sea that had other duties like sea lane convoy patrols, home waters defense, and escorting troop convoys into a dangerous sea A.O.

I have an idea, one thing I can do is change Malta to a Major Fortress and then make it so Rail Guns have no effect on Major Fortresses.

I could in theory do this with all fortress types. Make it so Strategic Bombers and Rail Guns will not be able to hit them causing their supply to go down. It would force players to find other ways. Places this would effect I believe are

Malta
Gibraltar
Odessa
Singapore
Tobruk
Maginot Line (French Only not when Germans Control it later in the game)

Can't think of any other places

That's a great idea and the fortress list is perfect imo. Odessa was a hard nut to crack for quite awhile in 1941, and had to be seiged by a large component of the Romanian army.
Tobruq being a Fortress good to...as it was a thorn in Rommel's arse for some time till the Port was wrecked.
Gibraltar and Singapore of course.
Maginot Line Fortresses instead of pillboxes would force the Germans to seriously consider not attempting to breach the line but tear through the Low Countries and flank it as Guderian planned and executed.
Leningrad and Sevastopol have to be left out of course. The latter places realistically and historically were prime targets for super heavy guns.
Btw I like the proposed version changes you listed before my 'Malta post' except giving hvy arty a range of 3.

Sorry I meant Sevastopol instead of Odessa

[Taxman66]

1. ART
I like the idea of Rocket ART being heavy on demoralization while Heavy/SP specialty is de-entrenchment. Still 2 de-entrenchment is an awful lot and all but renders fort building a minor nuisance. Maybe split the difference and give Heavy/SP demoralization of 15 (20 with Tech increase)?

2.
Off the top of my head, Brazil comes to mind as they have a pretty robust force pool including air units and will now have no way of them being useful without an HQ. Have no idea about Brazilian leaders in WW2, so I would be left with just googling the info. Also, obviously, Brazil should have transport capability too.

3.
Would Rocket units (not Rocket ART) still be usable against major fortresses?

[Lothos]

1. ART
I like the idea of Rocket ART being heavy on demoralization while Heavy/SP specialty is de-entrenchment. Still 2 de-entrenchment is an awful lot and all but renders fort building a minor nuisance. Maybe split the difference and give Heavy/SP demoralization of 15 (20 with Tech increase)?

2.
Off the top of my head, Brazil comes to mind as they have a pretty robust force pool including air units and will now have no way of them being useful without an HQ. Have no idea about Brazilian leaders in WW2, so I would be left with just googling the info. Also, obviously, Brazil should have transport capability too.

3.
Would Rocket units (not Rocket ART) still be usable against major fortresses?

1- I limited to De-Entrenchment of 1 (it is not 2 anymore) however if they have 2 shells then they get 1 De-Entrenchment per shell.

2 - Yes I left Brazil with Transport Abilities, we need a general for them so I can give them an HQ.

3 - Unless I see some major objections to this idea then I am going to block all Strategic Bombing Types from, damaging Fortifications Resources.

NOTE: I think I could make it also so they do not De-Entrench Fortifications which is another idea I am thinking of. If you look at the Penalties chart it is something I can do. This way you can use artilerry on fortifications but it wont de-entrench them which makes sense honestly as you should not be able to. They are in a fortress. I actually like this idea! It would make Russia ALLOT harder to get through their foritifcation line.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

1. ART
I like the idea of Rocket ART being heavy on demoralization while Heavy/SP specialty is de-entrenchment. Still 2 de-entrenchment is an awful lot and all but renders fort building a minor nuisance. Maybe split the difference and give Heavy/SP demoralization of 15 (20 with Tech increase)?

2.
Off the top of my head, Brazil comes to mind as they have a pretty robust force pool including air units and will now have no way of them being useful without an HQ. Have no idea about Brazilian leaders in WW2, so I would be left with just googling the info. Also, obviously, Brazil should have transport capability too.

3.
Would Rocket units (not Rocket ART) still be usable against major fortresses?

1- I limited to De-Entrenchment of 1 (it is not 2 anymore) however if they have 2 shells then they get 1 De-Entrenchment per shell.

2 - Yes I left Brazil with Transport Abilities, we need a general for them so I can give them an HQ.

3 - Unless I see some major objections to this idea then I am going to block all Strategic Bombing Types from, damaging Fortifications Resources.

NOTE: I think I could make it also so they do not De-Entrench Fortifications which is another idea I am thinking of. If you look at the Penalties chart it is something I can do. This way you can use artilerry on fortifications but it wont de-entrench them which makes sense honestly as you should not be able to. They are in a fortress. I actually like this idea! It would make Russia ALLOT harder to get through their foritifcation line.

All interesting ideas here especially regarding engineered fortifications. In the vastness of the USSR, this could make the Germans consider trying to envelop them instead of frontal assault.

Btw like Brazil, make sure South Africa and Canada has transport ability if you implement that minor country change. Can't really think of any other minors in TRP-WiE that would need that except Free France.
With TRP-WORLD that list of other minors that could transport would have to be larger. Australia and New Zealand come to mind.

[Taxman66]

Yeah, I was arguing on not reinstating the 2 de-entrenchment which wasn't 100% clear in regards to you comment about "I could change it back".

Not so sure about making ENG built fortifications immune from de-entrenchment. I worry that might make things too difficult for the Axis.

Years ago I tried arguing with the devs on hexes having a minimum entrenchment value representing the fact that no matter how much you pound a heavily defended area you can't completely remove defenses. Even the rubble becomes its own low grade fortification (think Stalingrad). However there doesn't appear to be a way to implement that idea.

[Lothos]

1. ART
I like the idea of Rocket ART being heavy on demoralization while Heavy/SP specialty is de-entrenchment. Still 2 de-entrenchment is an awful lot and all but renders fort building a minor nuisance. Maybe split the difference and give Heavy/SP demoralization of 15 (20 with Tech increase)?

2.
Off the top of my head, Brazil comes to mind as they have a pretty robust force pool including air units and will now have no way of them being useful without an HQ. Have no idea about Brazilian leaders in WW2, so I would be left with just googling the info. Also, obviously, Brazil should have transport capability too.

3.
Would Rocket units (not Rocket ART) still be usable against major fortresses?

1- I limited to De-Entrenchment of 1 (it is not 2 anymore) however if they have 2 shells then they get 1 De-Entrenchment per shell.

2 - Yes I left Brazil with Transport Abilities, we need a general for them so I can give them an HQ.

3 - Unless I see some major objections to this idea then I am going to block all Strategic Bombing Types from, damaging Fortifications Resources.

NOTE: I think I could make it also so they do not De-Entrench Fortifications which is another idea I am thinking of. If you look at the Penalties chart it is something I can do. This way you can use artilerry on fortifications but it wont de-entrench them which makes sense honestly as you should not be able to. They are in a fortress. I actually like this idea! It would make Russia ALLOT harder to get through their foritifcation line.

All interesting ideas here especially regarding engineered fortifications. In the vastness of the USSR, this could make the Germans consider trying to envelop them instead of frontal assault.

Btw like Brazil, make sure South Africa and Canada has transport ability if you implement that minor country change. Can't really think of any other minors in TRP-WiE that would need that except Free France.
With TRP-WORLD that list of other minors that could transport would have to be larger. Australia and New Zealand come to mind.

With the De-Entrenchment we could make it so planes and artillery wont de-entrench fortifications but attack from units will. So if you attack with an Infantry Corp it will de-entrench regardless of the losses (it is already doing that in the game)

[Duedman]

I'd like to throw a suggestion in the mix:

If possible, let Railguns start with Range 2 and give them Range 3 only when upgraded.
With no doublechitting they would not be able to attack Malta early enough.

On the other points:
I would argue against arty and bombers not beeing able to de-entrench field fortifications.
This would significantly increase difficulty. Fortresses ok maybe.
But if you change Malta into a Fortress and make Airforce unable to de-entrench it would be invincible.

The delayed build time for GE Stratbomber I like a lot. So they can only have one at a time.
Alternatively you could also just nerf their damage on ressources (which is basically doubled compared to vanilla as I tried to explain).

One last thing that really makes things easy is the crazy cheap operating costs. 18 MPP.
In vanilla it is quite a challenge to get the Luftwaffe in position for Malta and later North Africa. And then in place for Barbarossa. Especially since you need all of them to overrun things quickly and not get stuck. In vanilla this costs an arm and a leg and really hampers preparations for Barbarossa. In TRP this is no problem at all.
OCB told me, that this was discussed before in this thread. So I want to put myself on the list

[Lothos]

I'd like to throw a suggestion in the mix:

If possible, let Railguns start with Range 2 and give them Range 3 only when upgraded.
With no doublechitting they would not be able to attack Malta early enough.

On the other points:
I would argue against arty and bombers not beeing able to de-entrench field fortifications.
This would significantly increase difficulty. Fortresses ok maybe.
But if you change Malta into a Fortress and make Airforce unable to de-entrench it would be invincible.

The delayed build time for GE Stratbomber I like a lot. So they can only have one at a time.
Alternatively you could also just nerf their damage on ressources (which is basically doubled compared to vanilla as I tried to explain).

One last thing that really makes things easy is the crazy cheap operating costs. 18 MPP.
In vanilla it is quite a challenge to get the Luftwaffe in position for Malta and later North Africa. And then in place for Barbarossa. Especially since you need all of them to overrun things quickly and not get stuck. In vanilla this costs an arm and a leg and really hampers preparations for Barbarossa. In TRP this is no problem at all.
OCB told me, that this was discussed before in this thread. So I want to put myself on the list

So your railgun suggestion is to have their range extended to 3 once they get the Artillery Tech. Yes that can be done and I like it as a solution to the problem.

The De-Entrench fortifications is definately debatable back and forth. It takes a long time to build forts, attacking with Land Units does De-Entrech (Malta that would need to be invasions if we made the change). I think right now only Medium bombers can De-Entrech a unit and all other bomber types can not (Is that the case?)

The draw back here is that forts are pretty useless when hit with airpower and/or artillery. It never made sense to me that all this entrenchment vanished because of a bombing run or an artillery strike (I was in artillery in the army). Sure they can destroy something local but to destroy the entire defense that a CORP is using in a hex is a bit obsessive.

I always felt taking cities and forts was way to easy. I would hit it with a Medium Bomber or Artillery to get them undug and then attack with land units. If we made that change then you would need to sacrifice some land units to de-entrech the enemy and then come out with the big guns. This will make it so being on the offensive is bloodier and defending forts and cities actually means something.

Also Malta is suppose to be a fortress, the Axis did not invade it because their was a very small chance of success.

[Taxman66]

I agree with Duedman about the ART vs. Forts.
I think we should see/test how the nefred ART suggestions (max de-entrenchment = 1, and no de-entrenchment for Rocket ART) before applying more changes.
(Thought Question: Is it possible that major forts could re-entrench 2 between turns instead of 1 for all other units/terrains?)

[Lothos]

I'd like to throw a suggestion in the mix:

If possible, let Railguns start with Range 2 and give them Range 3 only when upgraded.
With no doublechitting they would not be able to attack Malta early enough.

On the other points:
I would argue against arty and bombers not beeing able to de-entrench field fortifications.
This would significantly increase difficulty. Fortresses ok maybe.
But if you change Malta into a Fortress and make Airforce unable to de-entrench it would be invincible.

The delayed build time for GE Stratbomber I like a lot. So they can only have one at a time.
Alternatively you could also just nerf their damage on ressources (which is basically doubled compared to vanilla as I tried to explain).

One last thing that really makes things easy is the crazy cheap operating costs. 18 MPP.
In vanilla it is quite a challenge to get the Luftwaffe in position for Malta and later North Africa. And then in place for Barbarossa. Especially since you need all of them to overrun things quickly and not get stuck. In vanilla this costs an arm and a leg and really hampers preparations for Barbarossa. In TRP this is no problem at all.
OCB told me, that this was discussed before in this thread. So I want to put myself on the list

Oh and for Rail Movement (thats what I call it) under the old system the cost was based on the actual units cost and it was a percentage of that which I felt was not really fair as some units cost more but their mass for transporation is small. I could change the cost a little. It would need to be someplace where its not over cumbersome and still very affordable.

Idealy, I wanted to limit the maximum amount of railings you can do but I did not see a setting for that.

[Lothos]

I agree with Duedman about the ART vs. Forts.
I think we should see/test how the nefred ART suggestions (max de-entrenchment = 1, and no de-entrenchment for Rocket ART) before applying more changes.
(Thought Question: Is it possible that major forts could re-entrench 2 between turns instead of 1 for all other units/terrains?)

I don't believe so, I think thats hardcoded in the exe

[Lothos]

OK worked on this some more today and have the following changes I have made, open to any feedback or more suggestions.


- (Bug) Fixed weather zone in hex(s) 150,80 and 154,78
- (Bug) Text issue Change Von Rippentrop to Von Ribbentrop
- (Bug) UK Warsprite renamed to Warspite
- (Bug) Saudi Arabia Partisan in wrong hex 239,134 moved to 238,136
- (Bug) Text issue "USSR Mobilizes Reservers" to "USSR Mobilizes Reserves"
- (Bug) Bandar Stapur, Persia, fixed so you can disembark into city
- (Bug) Oslo Batteries Decision (643) will now execute properly to damage German Units
- (Bug) UK, Pacific War Defenses was not firing properly had the wrong Decision ID changed from 111 to 112

- (New) Major Powers can no longer attach minors to their HQs
- (New) Poland add some Secondary Supply Sources and Danzig is a Primary Supply Source
- (New) Vichy can no longer be manipulated with Diplomacy
- (New) Most Minors will no longer be able to transport troops
- (New) Max Shells for all artillery changed to 1 (you get +1 when you research Artillery Tech)
- (New) Rocket Artillery will no longer De-Entrench
- (New) Heavy Artillery (and SP) De-Moralization lowered by 15
- (New) Heavy Artillery (and SP) De-Entrech is capped at 1
- (New) Germany can't build Strategic Bombers until July, 15 1940
- (New) Romania, Tactical Bomber Cap changed from 0 to 1
- (New) Rail-gun Range changed from 3 to 2 you will get it back to 3 with Artillery Tech
- (New) Vichy France changed from not cooperating with anyone to cooperating with supply
- (New) Canada can't build Maritime Bombers until January 1st 1941
- (New) Artillery (& SP), Medium Bombers will no longer De-Entrench in Fortified towns, Fortresses or Major Fortress
- (New) Rail Gun & All Bombers will no longer be able to damage resource points in Fortified towns, Fortresses or Major Fortress
- (New) UK, Decision 111 Home Guard will give the Garrison units immediately instead of only when Germany invades

- (Map) Strasbourg turned into a Fortified Town (162,85)
- (Map) Added label to hex 161,83 (Saar)
- (Map) France added Secondary supply to Strasbourg (162,85) & Mulhouse (162,87)
- (Map) Malta & Gibraltar changed from Fortified Town to Major Fortress
- (Map) Sevastopol changed from a Fortified town to a Fortress
- (Map) Tobruk (194,122) is a Secondary Supply Source for Libya

- (OOB) Poland increase strength of most units to 10
- (OOB) Poland added General Kutrzeba to the map

[Elessar2]

With the De-Entrenchment we could make it so planes and artillery wont de-entrench fortifications but attack from units will. So if you attack with an Infantry Corp it will de-entrench regardless of the losses (it is already doing that in the game)

Giving Engineers -2 De-entrenchment might help there.

The Commonwealth minors most certainly should be attachable to British HQs.

[Lothos]

With the De-Entrenchment we could make it so planes and artillery wont de-entrench fortifications but attack from units will. So if you attack with an Infantry Corp it will de-entrench regardless of the losses (it is already doing that in the game)

Giving Engineers -2 De-entrenchment might help there.

The Commonwealth minors most certainly should be attachable to British HQs.

It is an all or nothing. You can't specified which minors are attachable.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

I like the proposed changes Lothos.
Remember Metz can only have a 3 entrenchment. It should be 6 in line with the other Maginot Line forts (pillboxes?)...excepting Strasbourg which you just changed.

Question: Which Minor Powers can transport (by sea)?
I'm assuming Canada, South Africa, Brazil, and Free France.
Any others or is that it? If it is that sounds realistic but was curious.

[Lothos]

I like the proposed changes Lothos.
Remember Metz can only have a 3 entrenchment. It should be 6 in line with the other Maginot Line forts (pillboxes?)...excepting Strasbourg which you just changed.

Question: Which Minor Powers can transport (by sea)?
I'm assuming Canada, South Africa, Brazil, and Free France.
Any others or is that it? If it is that sounds realistic but was curious.

Netherlands
Canada
Belgium
Norway
Sweden
Turkey
Free France
South Africa
India
Australia
New Zealand
Brazil
Spain
Portugal

I think that may be it (that list is off the top of my head)

[Lothos]

With the De-Entrenchment we could make it so planes and artillery wont de-entrench fortifications but attack from units will. So if you attack with an Infantry Corp it will de-entrench regardless of the losses (it is already doing that in the game)

Giving Engineers -2 De-entrenchment might help there.

The Commonwealth minors most certainly should be attachable to British HQs.

Interesting, so you are suggesting that Engineers (if they attack) will de-entrench the defender by 2?

[Taxman66]

The attachable issue with minors is a real problem, particularly for the UK minors (some of whom AUS, INDA, etc... don't have HQs and were clearly historically led and incorporated into UK command structure without issue).

In my opinion, what you gain by this is less than what you lose by it.

[Lothos]

The attachable issue with minors is a real problem, particularly for the UK minors (some of whom AUS, INDA, etc... don't have HQs and were clearly historically led and incorporated into UK command structure without issue).

In my opinion, what you gain by this is less than what you lose by it.

Canada, South Africa, India and Australia all have HQs

Germany has had this restriction since I made the mod. IMO it makes sense for this since it is an all or nothing. The issue if I turned it on is all minors can then be attached to the UKs HQs which is not right. I will give this more thought and maybe it will be a UK only ability that they can attach their minors but no one else can.

But remember minors HQs can not attach majors to them nor other minors (I believe).

[Duedman]

I fear I found a major bug.

In my match vs OCB rough terrain seems to have no movement penalty. See the screenshots.
I fired up a vanilla 1941 campaign and there was no such issue.

2023-05-26 13_55_06-Window.jpg (49.02 KiB) Viewed 467 times

2023-05-26 13_54_26-Window.jpg (60.75 KiB) Viewed 467 times