Raw Deal '40 - GG WAW mod

[Oleg Mastruko]

Let me try answer some of the comments/questions...

I don't have much time for play (I saw you asking for opponents who could do 3 turns a day ... how can you do that?!), wish I had time to try this but not now.

Well frankly I can hardly make more then turn per day now. Opponents are more and more experienced, and playing turn in anything but perfect conditions to concentrate would be too uncautious [:D] But I usually manage to make turn-per-day in multiple games in parallel. Actually, experience from playing so many opponents is what led me to make this mod.

Aren't all small (ocean encircled) islands "rough terrain" in the standard setup? I considered that a small beni to compensate for the lack of places to retreat to and representing the problems with landing huge numbers of troops in a small area.

Most of them are indeed rough. But this hasn't come up as problem, perhaps because Japanese player does not have units to spare, to abuse the lack of overstacking rules. Gibraltar and Malta could (and are) easily overstacked which IMO creates problems.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
- Removed armor from USSR heavy bombers, added armor to USSR tactical bombers. Soviet tactical bombers Il-2 Sturmovik were heavily armored and known as "flying tanks". In fact I wanted to remove armor from all Allied bombers, maybe compensate by adding durability, but decided the game works OK as it is, and left the armor on heavies (except Soviet heavies, as explained).

I suppose it's not the place for the discussion, but what bugs me the most about the air situation is that it is uneven amongst the nationalities. The Axis has an insurmountable disadvantage in heavy bombers. Were the Germans really technically incapable of developing bombers as durable/armored as the WAllies, even if they poured research into it? I'd rather see the differences be things that can be equalized with research, which seems both more realistic and more fun.

Armor attribute, and durability, are not researchable. They are pre-set (and usually set the same for all sides with notable exception of heavy bombers). Evasion is researchable. So, what can we do to give the Allies the advantage, and make Germans capable of catching up? Not much I am afraid.

We could raise the evasion factor for Allies, so that Germans can catch up on them, but frankly it seems silly to me. Allied heavies certainly were not great at "evasion". So, after some thinking I came to regard the original decision to apply armor to Allied heavies to represent inherent changes in design and "philosophy" and decided to leave it be.

Any suggestions and ideas will be appreciated.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
- Added transport link Alaska-Vladivostok.

That seems like an uninterruptable chain (w/o Jap/WA war) that can funnel an awful lot of supplies ...

It's not uninterruptible - Japanese can break it easy, only they will be in war with USSR then [:D] And, supplies delivered via this link will have to sit for one turn in Kamchatka as explained in some posts above.

Hey, it is a sad fact of life (sad for Axis that is [8|]) that Russians DID have this, "uninterruptable chain that can funnel an awful lot of supplies" in real war. Prior to Raw Deal Axis had it very easy in USSR. I think Raw Deal models the Russian Bear much more realistically.

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

- Added fort to East Germany. In most games Berlin fell too easy, while West Germany held out in its fortified area.

I suppose fort in Western Germany represents Siegfrid line. What should fort in the Eastern Germany represent? Historically, Germans had some prepared positions in Pomerania build prior 1939, but nowhere on the scale of Maginot or Sevastopol. Berlin region was woefully unprepared for fighting compared to say, Moscow with its Mozhaysk line..

Fort in East Germany does not represent any hisotric man made defence, it just represents the German will to fight Russians rather than US at the end of the war [:D] In real life, at the end of the war Germans were only too eager to surrender to WAllies, while they still resisted the Red onslaught in the East. Adding the fort to EG is attempt to represent this.

I guess this is largely moot, because by the time Allies reach the German borders...

I believe next patch will bring some "official" changes to the way German forts are modelled which will make this part of Raw Deal mod unnecessary.

Only around the pilot. IIRC, the gunner was outside the armoured box and anyway, on ground strategic level, any formation of stormoviks caught unescorted by messerschmits was masacred. Simply, ground assault aircraft should not mess around with fighters.

So I take it you suggest removing armor from Soviet tac bombers?

- Removed one starting militia from Bulgaria.

Why? And when I am on the subject of militias, how about placing one in Portugal? I somehow doubt Portuguese would just give up and serve Porto to whomever cross their border first.

Axis Bulgarians didn't do anything worth noting in the whole WW2. In fact, a point could be made that their only significant contribution came in 44-45 when they switched sides, went to Allied side and as part of Soviet army did some fighting in Yugoslavia up to and including Austrian border.

Bulgaria starts with 3 militia. To garriosn Yugoslavia, Axis needs to allot three militia units. This means whole Yugo (or similarly hostile area) could be garrisoned solely by Bulgarians? Not realistic. In fact I think even 2 militia is too much perhaps...

Potrugal militia is good suggestion.

Despite the disagreement of our resident Finn, let me be another Croat who supports this modification. Finns were good soldiers, but were not capable of serious offensive warfare. Their army was not equipped up to the German standards and was not trained to undertake large offensive operations against prepared positions. Ambushing individual Soviet divisions in the freezing conditions was one thing, storming Soviet prepared defenses was another.

Yep, we agree....

That's it. I personally HATE badly documented mods, and never use them unless everything is clearly explained. So you can be sure this mod is going to be thoroughly documented, argumented, and explained. And of course - open to discussion...

Have you considered replacing Yugoslav infantry with militia? Why Malta doesn't have a port? It was surely a surprise for me to watch Scenario 1941 without British submarine fleet in Malta.

Malta does have a port.... in both original game and Raw Deal.

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

This looks very good overall, Oleg. Some comments:

1. I like the idea of removing maybe one resource from the Caucusus, but remember that the resources here -- oil -- were particularly valuable to the Axis. So I'm not sure about removing two. Besides, the Axis often has trouble repairing all six resources, doesn't it? I sure did. That takes 60 supply, only some of which you can strategically-move there in one turn. I don't mind the idea of moving one to the Urals, but I guess my core objection is removing a second AND denying it to the Soviets. I'd just move one to the Urals and be done with it.

Thanks.

Caucasus... well, if you got to Caucasus as German, AND repaired ALL 6 resources I take it you won that game on auto victory? [:D] Do not forget you have 2 more res just north in Grozny. That is a LOT. In my experience, these resources are used to:

a) Be repaired and bring immediate auto victory to Axis (usually done when Axis is already at 60-some PPs). I am usually fine with this strategy BTW.
b) Be destroyed just for the sake of denying them to USSR, or making the USSR player go thru trouble of repairing them all (wasting ungodly ammount of supply by USSR standards) and this is kinda screwy IMO. Raiding Caucasus will still be possible, and 4 res are still there...

I've seen 1 Para unit dropping to Caucasus, laying waste and getting out... It's not that easy to actually "destroy" something, even an oilfield [;)] Of course if USSR player allows for 1 Para to surprise him, he deserved the catastrophe, perhaps just not on that level.

2. It may be historic to chop down German armor, but I think it might detract from the "feel" of a Blitzkrieg if the player doesn't get to push a few tanks around on turn 1. Again, I'd suggest a more moderate approach: maybe just take out one tank. As for Spain...

In Raw Deal Germany starts with 5 ARM units instead of 7 in the stock game. 2 "missing" Armored units are converted to INF. I think this gives good feel of the 40 campaigns. Keep in mind France is weakened by converting 50% of their INF to Militia, to reflect their low morale and training...

3. ... I completely agree that it's far too easy to conquer Spain. It happens in every game I play now; it's a routine move. Why not beef up Spain's defenses instead of stripping Germany of tanks?

That's a tricky question, because Spain issue should involve some politics. I think it would not be really hard for Germany to take Spain if they really wanted to, and decided to push the Med strategy (something Hitler was never interested in).

I think the best solution would be to leave Spanish military as it is, but make Germans pay some heavy price in supply points, similar to what Allies (and USSR) pay for invading neutrals. Say, make Germans pay 15 supply points if they decide to attack Spain?

That would represent some bad PR they will get, and disappointment that Hitler attacked his fascist buddy Franco...

4. As for Gibraltar, if you're worried about it being overrun too easily -- and again, I see this happen every game -- then the last thing you want to do is remove its rough terrain. I've been to Gibraltar: the Rock is plenty "rough." It's a natural fortress if ever there was one. If the game allowes static base forces, I'd also advocate adding a static infantry unit there.

Yes but I don't want to make Gib harder to take for all the wrong reasons [:D] Spain is what needs to be made tougher, not Gib. If Axis controls Spain, it is in my opinion ridicolous to ask for 4:1 advantage to take Gib. With German artillery in Algeciras (just accross the border in Spain) Gib would be rendered useless hideout for couple starving British defenders (who would either surrender or be shelled into insignificance). In stock game, even with half the German army in Spain, Gib continues to function as key to the Med, needing 4:1 to take. Because of fort+rough benefits, I've seen Gib being defended by, say, 1 INF, 3 Militia and 3 ARTY. This combo in fort + rough can easily resist to 18 unit German mega army, attacking from Spain, including teched up tanks.

Don't forget in stock game ONLY Gib and Malta are both fort + rough, whih means attacked needs 4:1 to take them, and makes those miniscule territories harder to conquer than Stalingrad or Leningrad or Moscow.

Oleg

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: dapamdg
7. How do you keep the Germans from taking Leningrad on the first turn? Only so much can be built there before the DoW and the Germans can hit it very hard.

We could easy make L. unconquerable on the first turn, by making it rough. Tanks can't make 2 areas in single turn if one of them is rough. This would even be reasonable, because forrested Baltic states and Leningrad region are not the best tank country in the world.

But I am OK with German player being able to take L. on the first turn IF he is willing to invest a LOT of tanks for that task.

Trust me, if taking L. would not give you benefit of unlocking super-Finns, and taking Murmansk with them, you will see a LOT less German players willing to use his tanks in the north, instead of Ukraine and the south, where it really matters (resource wise).

O.

[sveint]

We could easy make L. unconquerable on the first turn, by making it rough

I made Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad rough in my mod. There was NO way these cities would be captured by rapidly advancing tanks. (Much more likely the armor would have surrounded them and the infantry would have assaulted).

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: sveint

We could easy make L. unconquerable on the first turn, by making it rough

I made Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad rough in my mod. There was NO way these cities would be captured by rapidly advancing tanks. (Much more likely the armor would have surrounded them and the infantry would have assaulted).

That solution is fine... but we must not lose focus though. Tank icon on the map does not mean it's just 800-some tanks in that unit, and nothing else. It is actually mechanised corps (in datafiles unit name is actually "mechanised", not "tank" or "armor").

Mechanised corps mean there's still more infantry there (but fast, well motorised infantry), than actual tanks. Seen from this point of view I'd allow that Germans can take L. if they earmark LOTS of units for that task. Believe me, with "Finnish lock" removed, players will much rather use those mechanised units to attack in Ukraine.

O.

[Drax Kramer]

4. As for Gibraltar, if you're worried about it being overrun too easily -- and again, I see this happen every game -- then the last thing you want to do is remove its rough terrain. I've been to Gibraltar: the Rock is plenty "rough." It's a natural fortress if ever there was one. If the game allowes static base forces, I'd also advocate adding a static infantry unit there.

If you've been in Gibraltar than you know this place could hardly fit a division, not to mention several corps sized units as wargames often allow British to deploy there. If Germans ever reached the place they would do exactly what Japanese (with far less capable artillery) did at Corregidor. Shelled it into submission. That's what US general Marshall told to his British hosts at Gibraltar when they started to brag about their mighty fort.

In my opinion, the only honest simulation of Gibraltar would be to remove it from the map all together. As long as Spain is neutral, it is assumed Gibraltar is British controlled and hinders Axis naval movements into and out of Mediterranean. When Spain is Axis controlled, Gibraltar falls and it is the Allied turn to have problems with entering the Mediterranean.


Drax

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: dapamdg

However, Glabro is right that the Finns were superior troops. Throughout the war the Germans had to "corset" the units of their Italian and Rumanian allies -- integrate a small German unit into a larger allied formation to improve their combat performance. However, in Finland, it was the Germans who needed to be "corseted" by Finns to improve their fighting prowress in the frozen north.

True. German 6th SS division ran in disgrace in its first assault up north. However, the first time Soviets attacked Finns in typical late war Soviet style (june 1944) Finnish lines were pulverised, high command paralysed and Soviets got into Vyborg by driving to the most powerful defenses Finnish could erect.

Soviet offensive was checked and stopped only when Finns put their last reserves as well as asked for help from Germans who sent Luftwaffe reinforcements that cleared the skies from Stormoviks and attacked Soviet tanks as well as an abteilung of sturmgeschutz that was very useful in anti tank role.

In Oleg's mod, Finns are still better than Rumanians or Hungarians who have no infantry units at all.


Drax

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

In my opinion, the only honest simulation of Gibraltar would be to remove it from the map all together. As long as Spain is neutral, it is assumed Gibraltar is British controlled and hinders Axis naval movements into and out of Mediterranean. When Spain is Axis controlled, Gibraltar falls and it is the Allied turn to have problems with entering the Mediterranean.

I agree with you on too many points to feel comfortable Drax. People will start thinking we are planning some great Croat conspiracy, aimed at reducing Finns and British in WAW [:D] And how am I going to play you in PBEM?! [:D]

Indeed, Gib has been overpriced (make it waaay overpriced) in every game I've ever seen.

This mighty fortress was never really tested in modern war. All it ever did was to serve as harbor for Force H (any medium sized harbor would suit fine) and house couple ASW patrol aircraft to keep Gib straits under control (and not very effective control at that). That's all! Never downed a plane, never sunk a ship... and was subjected to humiliating attack by Italian frogmen.

In WAW, with no stacking limits, you can put unlimited amount of heavy bombers in Gib and use them to terrorize whole Med with them. But, I could even live with that. And I could live with Gib controlling the mouth of the Med. What I can't live with, is that you can do all that WITH Spain in Axis hands, AND enjoy fort + rough benefits on top of all that.

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer
In Oleg's mod, Finns are still better than Rumanians or Hungarians who have no infantry units at all.

Trivia question for all. Name the second largest Axis army in the European theatre of operations in WW2:

a) Italians
b) Finns
c) Rumanians
d) Hungarians

O.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


Fort in East Germany does not represent any hisotric man made defence, it just represents the German will to fight Russians rather than US at the end of the war [:D] In real life, at the end of the war Germans were only too eager to surrender to WAllies, while they still resisted the Red onslaught in the East. Adding the fort to EG is attempt to represent this.

Well, Germans fought bitterly on the Western front until Allies crossed the Rhine in strength in March 1945. The only remaining combat worthy force (Army Group B) was surrounded in Ruhr where it stayed until April 15th when it capitulated (and Model shot himself).

Allies indeed advanced swiftly, until they reached Elbe where they were checked and stopped by Wenck's 12th army (one that Hitler hoped to do about face and relieve Berlin).

So, basically you have a difference in determination to fight on both fronts for perhaps a month.

So I take it you suggest removing armor from Soviet tac bombers?

If armor was going to make them less vulnerable to German fighters, yes, remove the armor from Stormoviks. I am always amused when some people ridicule stukas for being vulnerable to interceptors. I mean, what non-fighter plane was not vulnerable to fighters? It took Schweinfurt to teach some of the more stubborn American bomber barons that even Flying Fortress wasn't immune.

Bulgaria starts with 3 militia. To garriosn Yugoslavia, Axis needs to allot three militia units. This means whole Yugo (or similarly hostile area) could be garrisoned solely by Bulgarians? Not realistic. In fact I think even 2 militia is too much perhaps...

Potrugal militia is good suggestion.

Sorry, you're right. I was looking at 1941 scenario where Bulgaria has only one militia. In 1941 Bulgarians had two divisions in Macedonia/southern Serbia and one in Greece. That's about one militia for foreign deployment and another to protect the Tsar Boris.


Drax

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

In Raw Deal Germany starts with 5 ARM units instead of 7 in the stock game. 2 "missing" Armored units are converted to INF. I think this gives good feel of the 40 campaigns.

You got that right too. Germans invaded France with 10 panzer divisions in five corps. (Guderian had three while 9th Panzer operated alone in Netherlands). In 1941 Germans standardised the organisation of panzerkorps with two panzer and one motorised division. So ten panzer and several motorised divisions give exactly 5 mechanised units. Good work.


Drax

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: sveint

I made Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad rough in my mod. There was NO way these cities would be captured by rapidly advancing tanks. (Much more likely the armor would have surrounded them and the infantry would have assaulted).

The way I understand regions is that they encompass more than city. So, rapidly advancing mechanised units (with average German panzerkorps having 7 regiments of motorised infantry as well as three regiments of motorised artillery) do not engage in street fighting, but rather employ the usual German tactics of cutting off the city and making Soviets disintegrate in attempts to break out of the encirclement.

Kiev and Kharkow were the third and fourth largest cities in USSR. Neither of them showed particularly German resistant during the war. There was nothing special about Leningrad, Stalingrad or Moscow that made them more difficult to capture excpet for unfavourable ratio of attackers to defenders.

If Germans had a panzergroup to spare around Tikhvin in late 1941, Leningrad would have shared the fate of Kiev and Kharkow. Fortunately, Soviet counterattack recaptured the town and saved the last railway between Leningrad and Moscow.

Stalingrad was for all gaming purposes captured by Germans. Few pitiful bridgeheads controlled by Chuikow would have been evantually wiped out, if it weren't for Soviet counteroffensive that demolished units on the flanks.


Drax

[Grotius]

Well, you've convinced me on some points.

First, you're right -- the game permits lend-lease any time. Funny thing is, I started a thread asking that very question, and two beta-testers gave me that same answer: I promptly then forgot the rule! Interesting that my Soviet ally is not yet bugging me for lend-lease in my current PBEM game, which is up to 1941...

That said, I'm still a bit unsure about an open pipeline of lend-lease from the USA to the USSR before Pearl Harbor. Yes, goods flowed along this path, but not military materiel primarily, and I thought that was what supplies represented. In GGWaW, "free trade" and "resource gifts" are supposed to represent this sort of trading and giving, no? Also, I worry that this route will unbalance the game in other ways -- greatly diminishing the importance of the U-Boat and the Battle of the North Atlantic, and conversely increasing the importance of the less historically-significant Japanese submarines. One thing I love about GGWaW right now is that U-Boats really do matter.

If you're only chopping down Germany's armor to five, that seems fine -- though I'm not sure we should assume that each armored unit corresponds to any particular size unit historically. And I really like the idea of adding a supply cost for attacking Spain. 15 or 20 seems about right to me; can modders impose such a cost? Also, I would think a smaller cost would apply to attacking the Salazar regime in Portugal too.

I like having Gibraltar separate from Spain: the two were separate in WW2 as they are today, and if Spain remains neutral, that doesn't mean Gibraltar should be. But I see your point about the absence of stacking limits creating the possibility of an invincible fort. In my games, that hasn't happened. In my current game, I did hold Gibraltar for two turns after the fall of Spain, but to hold it a third turn, I'd have had to strip Suez and lose that to the Germans. I chose to hold Suez instead. Early in the game, there's only so much the Wallies can dump in Gibraltar without endangering themselves elsewhere. So I still don't see a need to change it from rough terrain, but I guess I can live with it as a proxy for stacking limits.

You've mostly convinced me on the Caucusus.

It will be interesting to see how your mod affects game balance. What would you guess? On the one hand, you'll slow the Axis down with your new Spain and Caucusus rules; on the other hand, the Axis gets a fortified Eastern Germany. Can't wait to try it.

[SeaMonkey]

To easy....C.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

To easy....C.

Correct, C) Rumania did field the second largest Axis army in ETO.

Your award is one free copy of Raw Deal campaign for GG WAW, collect it here:

Raw Deal Campaign

[:D]

O.

[SeaMonkey]

Thanks Oleg...want to PBEM me. Maybe we should get a couple of other members and do the 2 on 2? I've been waiting and practicing until the patch comes out to go PBEM, but it seems you may have already incorporated a number of the modifications in your campaign.

[Oleg Mastruko]

I have couple very demanding games going on right now, after I bring them to conclusion I'd be happy to play you SeaMonkey....

Meanwhile, do you guys have any ideas and suggestions as regards the Superpower activation? BTW I am OK with current rules (W43 if not attacked previously) but this seems to be area of the game that draws much criticisms (mainly from the Allied players who would wish to have the superpowers activated earlier).

Any suggestions/ideas?

Oleg

[Maginot]

-If Scotland or England is taken by the Axis, US activates
-If Canada is taken by the Axis, US activates

[Drax Kramer]

I am fine the Win 43 as the final day of entrance. Axis must be given the chance to decide between 1941 and 1942 Barbarossa before Stalin takes the initiative.

A wimpy Axis player that engages in "child molesting" around the Mediterranean instead of doing the "real deal" and capturing the "Lebensraum" deserves every "Mongol horde" that violates the "sacred soil of East Prussia" in 1943...

The Winter 1943 entrance for US is appropriate as well. Without open agression by any of the Axis powers, Roosevelt would not push the Congress to declare war before the mid term elections in Autumn 1942. Once the internal politics are put under the rug, Roosevelt could feel more confident to push the Congress into action.

Now, I agree with proposition that US activates if Axis capture anything (not already frozen) in the Western hemisphere, i.e. any territory in Americas. This was perfectly within the proclamation of American countries in some conference.

However, I don't want for Americans to intervene if Germans capture Britain. Any Allied player that allows successful Sea Lion deserves his fate and should not count on Americans to take him out of his misery.

Historically, had Britian fell in 1940, it would mean that people like US ambassador in London, Joe Kennedy were right and that US should mind its own business for a while. The only thing Roosevelt was interested was for Royal Navy not to fall into German hands.


Drax