Campaign 1939 Version03

[Glabro]

Hm. Now, I need all the 1939 OOB sites I can find....well, Dr. Niehorster´s is a good start....

[sveint]

Heh, Glabro want to collaborate on this? Instead of doing the same thing twice I mean.

[Glabro]

Hm. Sure, why not?

I´m just about to start looking at the OOBs. Perhaps, if you´d like, you could focus on Japan and the Western Allies (Inc. the English and the French, naturally), while I dig into Germany and Russia?

Edit:
Just finished with the Germans. Your work was actually quite well representative - good job.
I did a lot of counting the divisions - and as a result, the Germans have been beefed up a bit. The main points being including all the second rate units, including the border guard, as militia, beefing up the submarine strength in a major way - Germany actually did field seven U-Boat flotillas at the start of the war, although one of them was a training fleet, and adding a bit to the strength of the Luftwaffe.

Okays, next up - the U.S.S.R. The only material I have on it is, of course, from August 22nd, 1941. However, Soviet military production was extremely slow before the war, and they only went from 194 divisions to 200 in 1940 to 220 in 1941....A difference of less than ten units in the game´s scale for all production between 1939 and 1941! (let´s assume, in our case, from summer ´39 to summer ´41). So....the Soviet Union could start with much larger forces than they do right now, but their production could be lower somehow....? Hm, I wonder if factory multipliers need to be integers? Would 1.5 do?

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: Glabro

I did a lot of counting the divisions - and as a result, the Germans have been beefed up a bit. The main points being including all the second rate units, including the border guard, as militia, beefing up the submarine strength in a major way - Germany actually did field seven U-Boat flotillas at the start of the war, although one of them was a training fleet, and adding a bit to the strength of the Luftwaffe.

Germany started the war with 57 submarines in commission (32 of them were coastal types, 18 were standard VII type, 7 long range IX).

In comparison, on May 1st, 1940 Germany had only 48 submarines in commission (29 coastal, 13 medium, 6 long range).

On June 1st, 1941, Germany had 139 submarines in commission (43 coastal mostly employed as school boats, 73 medium range, 23 long range). Note that at least a third of commissioned submarines (those not employed as schoold boats) were in training before becoming operational.

On May 1st, 1942, Germany had 302 submarines in commission.

Finally, on July 1st, 1943 Germany had 426 submarines in commission.

It is obvious from these figures that Germany needs no "beefing up" for 1939 scenario.

What needs to be beefed up is Italian submarine arm. Italians started the war in June 1940 with more than 100 operational submarines, a few of them based in Indian Ocean.


Drax

[Glabro]

Aha, Drax, thanks for the info. I wasn´t sure about how many subs each sub unit in the game represents. So, those 58 subs would be equal to one unit in the game?

I must admit my relative lack of knowledge on naval matters. If 10 or so armoured ships are enough to justify a heavy fleet unit, then is 60 subs about right for one sub unit?

Edit - wait a sec, by beefing up for the ´39 scenario, do you mean compared to the spring ´40 scenario? When I said "beefing up" I meant that in the current form of the ´39 scenario, Germany only has 1 sub fleet. I beefed that number up to three, the same number as in the ´40 campaign. Not sure if that´s the right amount, still....

Edit 2: Working on....the Italians and the Yugoslavians have been looked at. The Royal Yugoslav army actually was quite large - and won´t be such a cakewalk in this scenario anymore.

[SeaMonkey]

Glabro,

When setting up the OOB for USSR, remember Soviet formations usually were smaller in manpower then the other national formations. Rule of thumb is a Soviet Corps is equal to a Division of other nations. You could reflect this in the combat parameters, but since the WaW supply model(consumption) is generic for all participants, I would use the "rule of thumb". Of course, it is your choice.

[Oleg Mastruko]

I must admit my relative lack of knowledge on naval matters. If 10 or so armoured ships are enough to justify a heavy fleet unit, then is 60 subs about right for one sub unit?

Definitely wrong, I suggest you to read the game FAQ in sticky thread on this board.

Edit 2: Working on....the Italians and the Yugoslavians have been looked at. The Royal Yugoslav army actually was quite large - and won´t be such a cakewalk in this scenario anymore.

Royal Yugo Army laid down their arms after whopping 12 days struggle, which is ~0,1333 of a single turn in WAW [;)] True, they were left alone and had no help, but if that's not a walkover for Germans, I don't know what is. Actually, in WAW, such as it is, they put up much stronger defence.

They might have been numerically large, but were ridden with ethnic "issues" (to put it mildly), badly trained etc. Hardly any division sized unit put up prolonged defence vs. Germans. (Vs. Italians it was another story, but not very relevant in big scheme of things.)

You must keep things like that in mind when modding the game on this scale. If you're going to represent armies just by reflecting their numerical size into number of units you'll get very unhistorical, not to mention unbalanced scenarios.

O.

[CharonJr]

Yup, I was actually fairly surprised to see the Yugoslawian army at a strength of 4 infantry division, I think I would have prefered Militia (maybe a tad more than 4).

CharonJr

[sveint]

One thing one really has to look at in a game this abstract is effectivness and suitability to the game. In many cases it might be better for the game to do some ahistorical adjustments.

I have quite a few ideas I'm working with but they are all waiting for next patch. Chief among them is turning Militia into Garrison (cannot attack or move tactically but slightly increased combat values).

[Glabro]

Oh yes, the Yugoslavians are all militia, forgot to mention that. Still, I really do appreciate the info. Perhaps, after I´ve done tinkering, I´ll let you all judge how the forces look...

[Glabro]

I just found out that the Chinese had about 80+ corps worth of units around in mid-1941....I have to ask, exactly how small and insignificant was each of these? Any extra units would be militia, in either case. Sure, the militia rule they have gives them a variable amount of extra units, but what if the militia rule was abolished in China´s case and the units would be deployed? Their supply situation would mean that they wouldn´t easily be able to mount offensives with those numbers that easily, without outside help.

[Oleg Mastruko]

[:D]You need to play WITP Glabro [:D][:D]

(I am afraid only hardcore WITP players will understand my above attempt at being funny [:D]).

O.

[Drax Kramer]

The rule of the thumb for Chinese (there's really very little data about their army) is to put two Chinese infantry units for every Japanese one in China.

Anyway, I find interesting how Chinese are allowed to build battleships, tanks and similar items with almost same characteristics as Western Allied counterparts, only with additional turn delay. What Chinese heavy air is supposed to represent? Lend Lease bombers produced in US?


Drax

[sveint]

Couldn't wait for patch... now at v03:


New in v03

- Reworked ALL nations' forces (more historical, more balancing)
- MAJOR change: Militia is now considered a Garrison (cannot change name for one scenario sadly)
- MAJOR change: China is now much more historical and no longer a pushover

[sveint]

I should also note that I playtested v03 against myself and it seems to work well. Of course I didn't try and surprise myself with any crazy moves

[Traveler]

UNIT,INFANTRY,PLAYER_GER
UNITDATA,TD_TYPE,2,TD_AA,3,TD_SA,0,TD_UA,0,TD_LA,6,TD_TORP,0
UNITDATA,TD_SPEED,1,TD_RANGE,1,TD_EVADE,6,TD_ARMOR,0,TD_DURAB,4
UNITDATA,TD_CAP,5,TD_AMPHIB,0,TD_COST,2,TD_CLASS,2,TD_SUP_USE,1
UNITDATA,TD_FUEL_USE,0
UNIT,MILITIA,PLAYER_GER
UNITDATA,TD_TYPE,2,TD_AA,3,TD_SA,0,TD_UA,0,TD_LA,5,TD_TORP,0
UNITDATA,TD_SPEED,0,TD_RANGE,1,TD_EVADE,5,TD_ARMOR,0,TD_DURAB,4
UNITDATA,TD_CAP,5,TD_AMPHIB,0,TD_COST,1,TD_CLASS,2,TD_SUP_USE,1
UNITDATA,TD_FUEL_USE,0

I'm glad to see that TD_SPEED was changed to zero (Militia were not offencive units!). But they still seem rather strong even with the "one hit" rule.

[Oleg Mastruko]

As I said many times before, scale of this game must be kept on mind when doing mods.

One turn = three months. Area like, for example, Kiev = huge area, nearly half of Ukraine. When you move, say, 2 ARM, 2 ARTY, 3 INF and 4 militia there, it does not mean 11 units go there and fight one afternoon to decide who won. It's a simulation of complex, three months campaigns, taking place in area the size of Indiana (to make this more familiar to US guys), with operational, and of course tactical levels abstracted. Certainly Militia units - in my opinion at least - should take part in these operations, and be able to move.

If this game was operational level simulation, you'd use militias to protect flanks, mop up pockets of resistance, keep supply lines open, fight guerillas etc, all within this 3 month period, in the area the size of Indiana or Oklahoma.

Making miltia unmovable is wrong.

Just my opinion of course. Feel free to disregard it. [:'(]

Oleg

[Traveler]

Was Mongolia really a full part of Russia in 1939?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Traveler

Was Mongolia really a full part of Russia in 1939?

In theory no, but for all practical purposes - yes.

Often cited Japanese-Russian "duel" near Nomonhan in 39 was actually fought on Manchurian-Mongolian border, far from both Japan and Soviet union "per se". In as much as Manchuria was Japanese puppet, for all practical purposes occupied and owned by Japan (and is represented as such in WAW), Mongolia was the same for Russians.

O.

[GenTroy]

Very much enjoying this v03 so far!

GenTroy