Eastern Front 1941-1945 Scenario. v4 11/2015

[secadegas]

And one more thing...

What does it means the yellow diamond symbols on hex's 48,11 (Volkhov), 42,60 (Novorossisyk) and Moscow?

[governato]

Nah, it's the briefing that is a tad vague...

Point 5 just implies that taking Moscow and another big production center will effectively cripple the Red Army, possibly for good.

Then 7.1 just suggests a Sudden Death rule, but there are not events that actually stop the game when those criteria are met (too many events required). So it's more of a house rule.

Thanks for pointing it out, I will update the briefing!

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

And one more thing...

What does it means the yellow diamond symbols on hex's 48,11 (Volkhov), 42,60 (Novorossisyk) and Moscow?

another gotcha! The yellow diamonds show (undocumented) cities that, if taken, remove the supply point in Leningrad and Sevastopol respectively. I.e. they will resist a siege if there is a reasonable chance that they will be supplied by sea.

The one in Moscow points to a 10% chance of a Sudden Death if Moscow is taken by the Axis.

More updates...

[governato]

Modeling operational losses in TOAW. This is mostly a scenario design update on some approaches I am using in 'EF'

TOAW does not have an explicit way to simulate operational losses (or wear and tear) of equipment and the significant losses that an army suffers from illnesses, accidents and low level combat in quiet parts of the front due to mines, patrol action and snipers. In TOAW as units lose equipment due to movement, it goes straight to the replacement pool, meaning that it gets 100% repaired. However, in real life tanks rust in the rain and snow, axles and tracks break beyond repair, soldiers get sick or become injured, equipment beyond repair is scrapped or abandoned. For example the operational life of a Russian T34 tank was estimated in the order of 100 combat hours, if it was lucky enough not to end in the crosshair of an 88mm AT gun. Another connected problem is that it is not obvious how to scrap obsolete equipment and squads from units. In both cases equipment that should have been retired long ago stays in a unit until destroyed in combat. While Panzer divisions surely kept a small share of old tanks, overall this is very unrealistic as it leads to a unit 'overloaded' with equipment, way above what their support structure would allow. Last but not least, units in quiet parts of the front tend to fill up to the brim with replacements, while in real life they would probably be slowly stripped of assets (a good example is Army Group North after 1942).

To summarize, I have been thinking about:

- 1) how to simulate wear and tear of equipment and squads that is not due to combat.
- 2) how to remove obsolete material from units.
- 3) how to avoid loading with excessive replacements units in quiet sectors.


All the above problems become relevant in long campaigns with significant changes in equipment (this post is motivated by developing my "Eastern Front 41-45 scenario), or, in general, when an army goes through several phases with low action followed by intensive campaigns. Here are the options I came up with, some are relatively new and so I decided to share them with fellow designers. All are quite transparent to players.

1) reduce the equipment replacement rate to account for operational losses. Typical values would be 25% for Red Army tanks in 1941 or
the Whermacht late in the war (retreating armies have a hard time recovering or just repairing damaged equipment). This is the
simplest approach and it works well for short scenarios where the initiative does not change hands (a good example would be the
Ardennes offensive). This method however, as it assumes a constant breakdown of equipment, does not work well in long scenarios, where units should be allowed to 'stock up' on equipment during the pauses in the campaign. Also, what if, for any reason, the scenario plays out more static than historical? Surely operational losses should be lower....so it'd not work well in 'EF'.


2) Introduce a 'sink unit'. This is a new idea (?) I have tested recently and introduced in the next version (v2.1, due in June?)) of 'Eastern Front'. It's simple: a unit in garrison mode is placed on the map away from the reach of players and with empty equipment slots. When a unit takes losses some equipment will be resent to the replacement pool. Once there, some of them will trickle in the 'sink' unit, never to come back. This approach works well for obsolete equipment, which would otherwise be available forever until destroyed in combat. Instead, the equipment will keep working..until it is sent to the replacement pool, where it has a chance to get scrapped (again by ending into the sink unit). Different sink units may arrive and then withdraw at different times, to soak in different obsolete equipment, or to represent times when operational losses become significant. To efficiently scrap obsolete equipment the sink unit will need a higher replacement priority than the active unit. To model operational losses, its' priority should be lower. Without using option 2, by Spring 1942 both sides in Eastern Front end with about 1000 too many old tanks per side, this in turn may cause too many infantry losses, eventually unbalancing the scenario.

3) Pestilence effects. This works well for infantry, as for each level of pestilence, 0.5% of squads is permanently destroyed and 0.5% gets returned to the replacements pool. All equipment is returned to the pool. A number of Pestilence events can be used to regulate the amount of losses that come from non related combat events. Now, this approach has also a useful side effect: equipement and squads rarely return to units with low priority for replacements, avoiding the problem of filling up units in quiet sectors. Instead those units fill up to a level that is in equilibrium with the rest of the front. In EF infantry units (especially in AGN) have a low replacement priority an have a chronically low TOEs, while Panzer units (and late war units) tend to get most replacements. Over all I have found this approach very effective, with the exception that equipment is never permanently lost (and so adding option 2 as well).

None of these approaches is optimal, together they give the designer some options to model operational losses. I am already using option 3 (Pestilence effects) and currently testing option 2 (Sink units).

[secadegas]

I can't answer your detailed questions or i don't even think they matter much to your scenario atm.

I have tested and PBEMed your scenario very recently. I already PBEM it against another experienced player (game over by Axis (too?) fast victory) and have another game currently under my belt (on opposite side).

Your scenario is very good, one of the best i know of in 3.4 terms.
Fun, very playable and with some "real" EF simulation feeling.

However in a 4 years / 200ish units per side scenario you have to accept a huge degree of abstration.
IMHO there's a good deal to do in terms of general play balance, event debugging and other elementary issues (i.e. unit's capabilities of your dedicated equipment database).
So worrying about "tanks rust in the rain and snow, axles and tracks break beyond repair" or "mines, patrol action and snipers" only make sense on a scenario from a completely different scale than your EF 41-45.

Probably i'm being a bit too crude (obvious language barrier doesn't help here) but these are my 2 cents.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

I can't answer your detailed questions or i don't even think they matter much to your scenario atm.

I have tested and PBEMed your scenario very recently. I already PBEM it against another experienced player (game over by Axis (too?) fast victory) and have another game currently under my belt (on opposite side).

Your scenario is very good, one of the best i know of in 3.4 terms.
Fun, very playable and with some "real" EF simulation feeling.

However in a 4 years / 200ish units per side scenario you have to accept a huge degree of abstration.
IMHO there's a good deal to do in terms of general play balance, event debugging and other elementary issues (i.e. unit's capabilities of your dedicated equipment database).
So worrying about "tanks rust in the rain and snow, axles and tracks break beyond repair" or "mines, patrol action and snipers" only make sense on a scenario from a completely different scale than your EF 41-45.

Probably i'm being a bit too crude (obvious language barrier doesn't help here) but these are my 2 cents.

Ha!You are not being crude, but this is an important detail, about 20% of losses for both men and equipment came from operational losses, not combat (probably even more for the Red Army and the Whermacht in 41 and past 44). If both forces end up with a thousand extra tanks in Spring 42 that is going to wreck play balance. This is also true if old equipment is retained, one ends up with Panzer divisions with 300 hundred tanks...

I brought this up (and the possible solutions) because this problem is worth addressing by designers, especially in long scenarios where it is more important.

I am really glad you are enjoying the scenario so far, feel free to PM me if you have specific suggestions while I am working on an update!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: governato

Modeling operational losses in TOAW. This is mostly a scenario design update on some approaches I am using in 'EF'

TOAW does not have an explicit way to simulate operational losses (or wear and tear) of equipment and the significant losses that an army suffers from illnesses, accidents and low level combat in quiet parts of the front due to mines, patrol action and snipers. In TOAW as units lose equipment due to movement, it goes straight to the replacement pool, meaning that it gets 100% repaired. However, in real life tanks rust in the rain and snow, axles and tracks break beyond repair, soldiers get sick or become injured, equipment beyond repair is scrapped or abandoned. For example the operational life of a Russian T34 tank was estimated in the order of 100 combat hours, if it was lucky enough not to end in the crosshair of an 88mm AT gun. Another connected problem is that it is not obvious how to scrap obsolete equipment and squads from units. In both cases equipment that should have been retired long ago stays in a unit until destroyed in combat. While Panzer divisions surely kept a small share of old tanks, overall this is very unrealistic as it leads to a unit 'overloaded' with equipment, way above what their support structure would allow. Last but not least, units in quiet parts of the front tend to fill up to the brim with replacements, while in real life they would probably be slowly stripped of assets (a good example is Army Group North after 1942).

To summarize, I have been thinking about:

- 1) how to simulate wear and tear of equipment and squads that is not due to combat.
- 2) how to remove obsolete material from units.
- 3) how to avoid loading with excessive replacements units in quiet sectors.


All the above problems become relevant in long campaigns with significant changes in equipment (this post is motivated by developing my "Eastern Front 41-45 scenario), or, in general, when an army goes through several phases with low action followed by intensive campaigns. Here are the options I came up with, some are relatively new and so I decided to share them with fellow designers. All are quite transparent to players.

1) reduce the equipment replacement rate to account for operational losses. Typical values would be 25% for Red Army tanks in 1941 or
the Whermacht late in the war (retreating armies have a hard time recovering or just repairing damaged equipment). This is the
simplest approach and it works well for short scenarios where the initiative does not change hands (a good example would be the
Ardennes offensive). This method however, as it assumes a constant breakdown of equipment, does not work well in long scenarios, where units should be allowed to 'stock up' on equipment during the pauses in the campaign. Also, what if, for any reason, the scenario plays out more static than historical? Surely operational losses should be lower....so it'd not work well in 'EF'.


2) Introduce a 'sink unit'. This is a new idea (?) I have tested recently and introduced in the next version (v2.1, due in June?)) of 'Eastern Front'. It's simple: a unit in garrison mode is placed on the map away from the reach of players and with empty equipment slots. When a unit takes losses some equipment will be resent to the replacement pool. Once there, some of them will trickle in the 'sink' unit, never to come back. This approach works well for obsolete equipment, which would otherwise be available forever until destroyed in combat. Instead, the equipment will keep working..until it is sent to the replacement pool, where it has a chance to get scrapped (again by ending into the sink unit). Different sink units may arrive and then withdraw at different times, to soak in different obsolete equipment, or to represent times when operational losses become significant. To efficiently scrap obsolete equipment the sink unit will need a higher replacement priority than the active unit. To model operational losses, its' priority should be lower. Without using option 2, by Spring 1942 both sides in Eastern Front end with about 1000 too many old tanks per side, this in turn may cause too many infantry losses, eventually unbalancing the scenario.

3) Pestilence effects. This works well for infantry, as for each level of pestilence, 0.5% of squads is permanently destroyed and 0.5% gets returned to the replacements pool. All equipment is returned to the pool. A number of Pestilence events can be used to regulate the amount of losses that come from non related combat events. Now, this approach has also a useful side effect: equipement and squads rarely return to units with low priority for replacements, avoiding the problem of filling up units in quiet sectors. Instead those units fill up to a level that is in equilibrium with the rest of the front. In EF infantry units (especially in AGN) have a low replacement priority an have a chronically low TOEs, while Panzer units (and late war units) tend to get most replacements. Over all I have found this approach very effective, with the exception that equipment is never permanently lost (and so adding option 2 as well).

None of these approaches is optimal, together they give the designer some options to model operational losses. I am already using option 3 (Pestilence effects) and currently testing option 2 (Sink units).

One other idea would be to remove all of a side's supply points by event for a turn - return them the next turn. Give it a 5% chance of triggering and it will occur about every 20 turns, but neither side will know just when (to prevent the enemy from synching heavy combat with the unsupplied turn).

This would have the most impact when units had been in heavy action (lots of red lights), and least when they had been in a lull period (lots of green lights) - kind of realistic.

I've never tried anything like it, though.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: governato


(...) this is an important detail, about 20% of losses for both men and equipment came from operational losses, not combat (probably even more for the Red Army and the Whermacht in 41 and past 44). If both forces end up with a thousand extra tanks in Spring 42 that is going to wreck play balance. This is also true if old equipment is retained, one ends up with Panzer divisions with 300 hundred tanks...

I fully understand that you mean. You're describing a fact of RL war. But TOAW (or any other game isn't RL war... that's why we like it so much...). All games and scenarios are just made to be played... by players.
I' aware that some (most?) TOAW scenarios were done just for designer's enjoyment. That's why that are sooooo many TOAW scenarios available. But what are the most popular and which are played time and again? Exactly those which were created to be played. And those aren't so many.

There are a lot of posts (in this and other forums) questioning database caracteristics, equipment transitions, tactical details and chrome... and most of them are right and well supported.
But when you play TOAW (even experienced players) what really matters is a nice recognizable terrain (map), good degree of operational simulation (as most of us are war history "experts") - meaning units and formations performing as you expect them to perform plus a sound historical flow - and playability supported, of course, on fine management of all important engine variables.

This is the common recipe of all really good TOAW scenarios.

I can't see where detailing how many losses results from combat or from operational losses are important at this level. When you play they're just... losses.

However TOAW is so rich in design variables and different factors that allows you as designer to try to simulate whatever what you want but IMHO that's not what really matters.

[governato]

I have started testing the patched version of TOAW kindly made available to me by kmitahj (see 'Discontinued' thread). This patch fixes the 'infamous AA bug', allowing ground units to fire back at aircraft without any workarounds as changing the units' icons. kmitahj was so kind to send me his new version and I quickly tested it on the first three turns (three weeks) of 'Eastern Front'. How it works? Well I just put the new executable in the TOAW folder and ..it really just works. I was also able to read in old PBEM turns and save new ones.

Seriously, this is a big deal!

The images show the Luftwaffe losses and replacements at the end of turn 3. Two things showed up: losses for the bombers more than doubled while fighters had a lot more damaged frames sent to the replacement pool. I ran the test twice, to make sure that these results are representative. At the moment the AA overall strength is a scenario parameter, which means that it can easily be tuned up or down to give the desired answer.


As a reference: the Luftwaffe losses were at about 80 aircraft just for day one and will amount to about 2000 by the end of the year. Without better data (these came from a quick skimming of Wikipedia) I'd assume that 50% of these were combat aircraft, the one represented in TOAW. If anyone can point me to a better online reference it would be very useful. I also point out to a free to download book on the Luftwaffe, with lots of notes on air losses during WWII. I still have to digest it though.

Williamson Murray's 'Strategy for Defeat', published by Air University Press.


By looking at different sources it seems to me that effective AA should contribute 'significantly' to overall aircraft losses. I would handwave wildly to say about 30-50%.



Here is an important point that kmitahj makes:

As I said above it is rather dumb patch [edit: you kidding me I am amazed]: it is allowing literally all units in range to participate in AAA fire. All units in this case means that also AIR units within fixed range (50km) may contribute to AAA fire as if they were equipped with long-range SAM missiles. BAD!!! I'm going to find a way to exclude AIR units (and only AIR units) from participating in AAA procedure. However such bit smarter version won't be ready before weekend when I should have some time to work at it.

I am actually fine with AIR units within range scrambling locally to intercept IF they can be shot down as well by the attacking aircraft. Is this how it works? Opinions from other people in the forum?

Again many thanks to kmitahj. This is the most interesting news for TOAW in a long time.

[PRUSSIAN TOM]

Killer scenario. More than a bit habit forming...[&o][&o][&o]. Thank you for all the hard work...I think I am actually wearing out the units. [:'(]

[sanderz]

Hi

i am a newb at this game but thought i'd at least have a look at this epic mod - however when i loaded i got an error message saying "you are playing with the wrong .eqp file"

i found a very old post on google saying just load the game up in the editor and save it and all ok - is it really as simple as this?

thanks

[josant]

You get this error message because you (or the scenario) are using a modified equipment.eqp file.
check if the scenario comes with a equipment.eqp file (in this case you can copy to altgraphics folder).

There is also another way to do this, changing the name of the equipment file who comes with the scenario by the same name of the scenario (example if the scenario names west44.sce the equipment file who comes with the scenario must be renamed to west44.eqp

i found a very old post on google saying just load the game up in the editor and save it and all ok - is it really as simple as this?

Yes, if the database only have change it values (for example armor, AP, AT, range strengths) is as simple as this, but if the database is reworked and add new equipment the units must have strange equipment (for example spare equipment or planes in an infantry units)

[sanderz]

ORIGINAL: josant

You get this error message because you (or the scenario) are using a modified equipment.eqp file.
check if the scenario comes with a equipment.eqp file (in this case you can copy to altgraphics folder).

There is also another way to do this, changing the name of the equipment file who comes with the scenario by the same name of the scenario (example if the scenario names west44.sce the equipment file who comes with the scenario must be renamed to west44.eqp

i found a very old post on google saying just load the game up in the editor and save it and all ok - is it really as simple as this?

Yes, if the database only have change it values (for example armor, AP, AT, range strengths) is as simple as this, but if the database is reworked and add new equipment the units must have strange equipment (for example spare equipment or planes in an infantry units)

thanks for the info

i have copied "Eastern Front 1941-1945.v2.eqp" to the altgraphics folder and error went away

HOWEVER - i belive you are saying i could have just ignored the error message because it is using the correct eqp file for the scenario (i.e. the error message means the GAME has a non standard file; rather than the scenario is using the wrong game file)

ALSO
have i installed this wrong as shouldn't it have 'just worked'? e.g. in my east front folder i have another folder called "Eastern Front 1941-1945.v2" that contains the eqp and a bmp file - should that folder be there or should i have put the contents in the main east front folder

thanks again

[josant]

wait a minute i will test it

[josant]

If you put the .eqp file in the same folder of the .sce file (in your case east front folder), the message dont appears.

I remember that both files (.eqp and .sce) must be in the same folder and must be the same name.

[Oberst_Klink]

Hola,

normally in the Graphics folder. But yes, sometimes it's a bit iffy.

Klink, Oberst

[governato]

ORIGINAL: sanderz

Hi

i am a newb at this game but thought i'd at least have a look at this epic mod - however when i loaded i got an error message saying "you are playing with the wrong .eqp file"

i found a very old post on google saying just load the game up in the editor and save it and all ok - is it really as simple as this?

thanks

From the pdf document that comes with the scenario:

To play:
1-Unzip the scenario file in the ‘Scenarios/WW II - East Front’ folder.
2-Move the folder ‘Eastern Front 1941-1945.v2‘ into the TOAW ‘Graphics’ folder.
3- Start TOAW and Select ‘Eastern Front 1941-1945.v2’ from the scenario menu (WW II -
East Front folder).

Let me know if you still have problems. Also, the pdf has a lot of info that is useful to play 'Eastern Front'. With about 900 events in the scenario I recommend giving it a quick look before starting a game!

[sanderz]

ORIGINAL: governato

ORIGINAL: sanderz

Hi

i am a newb at this game but thought i'd at least have a look at this epic mod - however when i loaded i got an error message saying "you are playing with the wrong .eqp file"

i found a very old post on google saying just load the game up in the editor and save it and all ok - is it really as simple as this?

thanks

From the pdf document that comes with the scenario:

To play:
1-Unzip the scenario file in the ‘Scenarios/WW II - East Front’ folder.
2-Move the folder ‘Eastern Front 1941-1945.v2‘ into the TOAW ‘Graphics’ folder.
3- Start TOAW and Select ‘Eastern Front 1941-1945.v2’ from the scenario menu (WW II -
East Front folder).

Let me know if you still have problems. Also, the pdf has a lot of info that is useful to play 'Eastern Front'. With about 900 events in the scenario I recommend giving it a quick look before starting a game!

Unzip the scenario file in the ‘Scenarios/WW II - East Front’ folder

thanks - error message gone

in my defense --- those instructions aren't in the section on installation which is why i missed them - sorry

[governato]

Just a quick note that I tested the new AA-patch with Eastern Front and highly recommend using it with this scenario. This patched executable restores the ability of all untis with AA equipment to fire back at aircraft. It has been made by forum member kmitahj [&o] (so it is not an official patch) but it works very well, it is trivial to install and you can still play the old version if you want. It is described here:

tm.asp?m=3376085

It is available at this dropbox link HERE

Also, I appreciate how careful kmitahj was with security issues: to make it easier to verify the identity of the patch (thus avoiding
any mistakes or possible malevolent fakes reposted as the original patch) he shared are checksums of the patch version:

MD5: 4887107d99e08db5888c48746ae27319
SHA-1: 36a1b3de471b12dde2a78d7a5324069c404374e4
SHA-256: 2f9496d54f6139798c8f32a2b75efb1b07cd78f77f75ed6e858d324aee30b4a3

[governato]

Get the new version in the top post!


After PBEM playtesting well into 1943 and more useful feedback from other players (SMK, Jeff Norton and Carlos2012) I have updated the scenario to what it should be a final version. This is especially true after the AA patch. You can retrieve the file at the top entry of the thread.

Changes in V3.0


-The AA-combat patch is included with the scenario. The use of the modified EXE file is recommended as it will ensure more realistic air losses and air attacks.

-Withdrawal of Soviet Garrison/Factory units delayed by a few more turns, to be more in line with the historical evacuation of factories. This will encourage the Red Army to attempt a forward defense in Summer 1941.

-Introduced a few ‘sink units’ (lower left of map) to model operational losses due to attrition and the removal of obsolete equipment.

-Proficiencies of 1944-45 units increased for the Red Army and decreased for the Axis.

-Proficiencies of some Axis Allies units decreased by 5%.

-The PO is now a bit more effective, due to the use of multiple PO tracks.

-The diamond symbols in Volkhov & Novorossisyk are explained in the text (page nine)

-Added 1945 pestilence effects.

-Reduced the number of tanks in Axis units arriving as reinforcements, to avoid ‘double counting’ Axis production.

-Slightly increased number German Rifle squads arriving with low proficiency, late war reinforcement, and reduced normal reinforcements accordingly. This approach reduced replacements for veteran, high proficiency units, to better represent the decline of German infantry as the war progressed.

-Reduced supply rate to 5% for supply points in German Festung cities.

-Added Rifle squads slots to Red Army Engineer Armies, to increase their ability to increase the entrenchment levels in a hex, but reduced their proficiencies to 20%, to emphasize their role as non-combat units. Again, these units should be disbanded asap!

-Reduced number of Red Army Sapper Squads arriving in Spring 43 and increased number of Rifle Squads accordingly.

-The loss of Koenigsberg or Bucharest activates a permanent (negative) shock of 98% for the Axis, to represent the decreased quality of replacements late in the war.

-Air Transport reduced for both sides.

-Sea Transport from Germany to Narvik (49,3) is now possible, but no sea invasions are now possible for Murmansk or Narvik.

-Air Shock return to normal (100%) values at turn 74, instead of 70. This gives the Luftwaffe an extra month of air superiority bonus.

-Fixed a withdrawal effect that left Helsinki without a garrison.

-Tests confirmed that limiting fortified units to ‘Limit Losses’ gives more realistic results.

-The scenario description has been updated in places to include the above changes.

The AA patch. (July 2013)

The scenario is distributed with an additional file. The 'AA patch' was created by kmitahj (from the Matrix TOAW forum) and replaces the standard TOAW executable to fix a well known bug in TOAW v3.4 (version 3.4.0.202 to be precise) that allows only units with the Anti-Aircraft (AA) icon to fire at aircraft. Drop the "AAA2Opart 3" executable in the TOAW folder, make a shortcut to the desktop and double click on it. It will start a version of TOAW with the latest v3.4 that also includes the AA-patch. The use of this patch is recommended to simulate a realistic loss rate of aircraft. It will affect both sides equally. To make it easier to verify the identity of the patch (thus avoiding any mistakes or possible malevolent fakes reposted as the original patch) below are checksums of the patch file:

MD5: 4887107d99e08db5888c48746ae27319
SHA-1: 36a1b3de471b12dde2a78d7a5324069c404374e4
SHA-256: 2f9496d54f6139798c8f32a2b75efb1b07cd78f77f75ed6e858d324aee30b4a3