Any interest in a Scenario "1.5" for 11.26B?

[BananaConvention]

So I'm playing both a Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 campaign on version 11.26B as Japan in PBEMs right now and I'm just shocked at the differences. Scenario 1 is really lacking, and Scenario 2 is just too much. I think a nice, fair and balanced scenario somewhere in between would be a good mix of playability without going to far off the deep end.

Is there any interest in this? My idea would be to take the stock scenario 2 and pare it down across the board to something in between 1 and 2. Let me know! If enough people are interested I'll start working on it.

[btd64]

You know what I think....GP

[BananaConvention]

You know what I think....GP

I got you down for a YES! I'm curious if anyone else thinks there's value here.

[Yaab]

How is scen 001 lacking in PBEM play? I only play scen001 vs Jap AI and I find the scenario adequate.

[GoodbyeBluesky]

Yes, I would like to see just a slightly more capable Japanese Industry and maybe some slightly more increased fuel/supplies but otherwise have mostly the stuff that Scen 1 Japan comes with.

[RangerJoe]

Yes, I would like to see just a slightly more capable Japanese Industry and maybe some slightly more increased fuel/supplies but otherwise have mostly the stuff that Scen 1 Japan comes with.

AndyMac had some scenario modifications that players could purchase. Giving each side a certain number of points to change their side, units and/or infrastructure. A third party would/should perform those edits to the scenario chosen so neither side knows what the other side has picked.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p4906797

[LargeSlowTarget]

If the aim is to have a more "balanced" game with Japan not overrunning China, India and Australia and the Allies not steamrollering back starting in 1943, Japan should not receive additional assets early in the war, but some help starting mid-war, while the Allies should get some help early and less stuff later. I'm not in favour adding ahistorical assets, but there are means to narrow a bit the performance gaps. For example giving the Allied units in India, Australia and China a boost by dis-disabling devices and giving more of them, i.e. instead of starting under-strength and with lots of disabled devices, starting at full strength and less disabled devices in order to be able to resist better. OTOH the *hitload of Eng assets the Allies receive could be reduced in performance, replacing some real "engineer" type 24 devices with "squad" type 23 devices i.e. useless "eaters" that won't fix/build. China could get a bit more supply production, Japan a bit more resource / oil within the SRA to capture and exploit. OTOH the Allied industrial base should produce much less supplies and fuel at start and would need to "ramp-up" over time (via disabled HI/LI that need repairing). Japan could receive more pilot replacements with better exp later in the war, while the Allied replacement exp could be toned-down. The performance of 2nd-gen fighters like T-Bolts, Corsairs, Mustangs could be reduced a bit (or the Japanese equivalents increased). Nothing radical, but a bit more here and a bit less there. Btw I have done some of this in Bottlenecks.

[Cheesesteak]

If the aim is to have a more "balanced" game with Japan not overrunning China, India and Australia and the Allies not steamrollering back starting in 1943, Japan should not receive additional assets early in the war, but some help starting mid-war, while the Allies should get some help early and less stuff later. I'm not in favour adding ahistorical assets, but there are means to narrow a bit the performance gaps. For example giving the Allied units in India, Australia and China a boost by dis-disabling devices and giving more of them, i.e. instead of starting under-strength and with lots of disabled devices, starting at full strength and less disabled devices in order to be able to resist better. OTOH the *hitload of Eng assets the Allies receive could be reduced in performance, replacing some real "engineer" type 24 devices with "squad" type 23 devices i.e. useless "eaters" that won't fix/build. China could get a bit more supply production, Japan a bit more resource / oil within the SRA to capture and exploit. OTOH the Allied industrial base should produce much less supplies and fuel at start and would need to "ramp-up" over time (via disabled HI/LI that need repairing). Japan could receive more pilot replacements with better exp later in the war, while the Allied replacement exp could be toned-down. The performance of 2nd-gen fighters like T-Bolts, Corsairs, Mustangs could be reduced a bit (or the Japanese equivalents increased). Nothing radical, but a bit more here and a bit less there. Btw I have done some of this in Bottlenecks.

These are great call-outs IMO. I may occupy myself with making a custom mod since there's no interest to my PBEM request in the Opponents Wanted section

[Tanaka]

If the aim is to have a more "balanced" game with Japan not overrunning China, India and Australia and the Allies not steamrollering back starting in 1943, Japan should not receive additional assets early in the war, but some help starting mid-war, while the Allies should get some help early and less stuff later. I'm not in favour adding ahistorical assets, but there are means to narrow a bit the performance gaps. For example giving the Allied units in India, Australia and China a boost by dis-disabling devices and giving more of them, i.e. instead of starting under-strength and with lots of disabled devices, starting at full strength and less disabled devices in order to be able to resist better. OTOH the *hitload of Eng assets the Allies receive could be reduced in performance, replacing some real "engineer" type 24 devices with "squad" type 23 devices i.e. useless "eaters" that won't fix/build. China could get a bit more supply production, Japan a bit more resource / oil within the SRA to capture and exploit. OTOH the Allied industrial base should produce much less supplies and fuel at start and would need to "ramp-up" over time (via disabled HI/LI that need repairing). Japan could receive more pilot replacements with better exp later in the war, while the Allied replacement exp could be toned-down. The performance of 2nd-gen fighters like T-Bolts, Corsairs, Mustangs could be reduced a bit (or the Japanese equivalents increased). Nothing radical, but a bit more here and a bit less there. Btw I have done some of this in Bottlenecks.

I think the changes you made to allied strat bombers not being fighter sweepers is an ideal start...

[Maallon]

I personally don't really see a strong need for a 1.5 scenario.
If I want to play historically, I will play scen 1 or dababes or a mod that is based on them like Bottlenecks.
If I want to play ahistorically, I will play scen 2 or a mod that is based on it.
If I want to really make a custom game, I would play with Variants. (What RangerJoe posted)

Scen 1 always gave me a "you need to make do with what you have" vibe, that I really enjoy.
Also, while I dont have any data on this, my impression is that most players tend to play historically accurate scenarios.

[Platoonist]

If the aim is to have a more "balanced" game with Japan not overrunning China, India and Australia and the Allies not steamrollering back starting in 1943, Japan should not receive additional assets early in the war, but some help starting mid-war, while the Allies should get some help early and less stuff later. I'm not in favour adding ahistorical assets, but there are means to narrow a bit the performance gaps. For example giving the Allied units in India, Australia and China a boost by dis-disabling devices and giving more of them, i.e. instead of starting under-strength and with lots of disabled devices, starting at full strength and less disabled devices in order to be able to resist better. OTOH the *hitload of Eng assets the Allies receive could be reduced in performance, replacing some real "engineer" type 24 devices with "squad" type 23 devices i.e. useless "eaters" that won't fix/build. China could get a bit more supply production, Japan a bit more resource / oil within the SRA to capture and exploit. OTOH the Allied industrial base should produce much less supplies and fuel at start and would need to "ramp-up" over time (via disabled HI/LI that need repairing).

I tinkered once with a scenario where instead of making Japan stronger, I tried making the Allies weaker at the start. Mostly obsolete aircraft on the tarmacs, delayed convoys and reinforcements, less supplies and fuel in place, more inept leaders and captains in charge, etc. The most salient change was I implemented Yamamoto's dream scenario. I placed the carriers Lexington and Enterprise in Pearl Harbor along with their escorts....anchored to face the wrath of the Kido Butai.

The Day of Infamy didn't turn out as poorly for the Allies as I expected. With the same number of Japanese planes attacking a larger number of ships, the US carriers ended up moderately damaged but not sunk. The battleships got off lightly. All those additional cruisers and destroyers in port soaking up hits sort of diluted the overall intensity of the PH attack.

Anyway, it was a Japanese AI game, so hobbling the Allies didn't seem to make much of a difference in the long run. If anything, having two damaged carriers at start killed the temptation to do foolish things with them.

[Yaab]

Every scen/mod (stock, BigBabes, RHS, Bottlenecks etc.) is in the long run beaten by INTERNAL game mechanics. No matter how much you modify the scenario, the same problems remain:

-the Allies enjoy universal supply. Supply produced in Calcutta can be converted there into a US Sherman tank, shipped to Java to become Dutch ammunition or flown to China to become 75mm arty round. This inevitably mostly leads to Allies invading Burma in 1943, driving later through Thailand/Vietnam ( US Shermans are now made in Bangkok, US ammunition in Hanoi etc.) towards China. Dutch supplies magically become Phillipine-compatible in Dec 1941. US units in Australia can use Commonwealth-made supplies with no problem - a 155mm Long Tom gun will be magically created from Sydney supplies etc. You get the drift. This eases the strain on Allied xAK fleet, which can haul fuel as cargo instead in support of naval operations in the Pacific.

-2E and 4E bombers can bomb enemies in contested hexes. Use them en masse for the whole war this way and not a single friendly-fire incident will EVER happen, contrary to what happened in Normandy in July 1944. Lack of bridges and railyards in the game pushes Allied players to use their idle 2Es/4Es on the frontlines, leading to faster Jap collapse.

-both sides can haul fuel in xAK ships, moving unrealistic masses of fuel this way. This of course favors the Allies more. It ups their operational tempo in the Pacific, which also leads to faster Jap collapse.

So, modyfing the scenarios, while commendable, will not alter the gameplay to make it more balanced. I know that players want to have fun playing the game and generally abhor using house-rules, but I do believe you actually have to use them to make up for the game's inadequate mechanics. I can get all the fun while playing Jap AI in stock scen001 while house-ruling myself in regards to universal supply, 2E/4E bombers and fuel as cargo in xAKs.

[RangerJoe]

Every scen/mod (stock, BigBabes, RHS, Bottlenecks etc.) is in the long run beaten by INTERNAL game mechanics. No matter how much you modify the scenario, the same problems remain:

-the Allies enjoy universal supply. Supply produced in Calcutta can be converted there into a US Sherman tank, shipped to Java to become Dutch ammunition or flown to China to become 75mm arty round. This inevitably mostly leads to Allies invading Burma in 1943, driving later through Thailand/Vietnam ( US Shermans are now made in Bangkok, US ammunition in Hanoi etc.) towards China. Dutch supplies magically become Phillipine-compatible in Dec 1941. US units in Australia can use Commonwealth-made supplies with no problem - a 155mm Long Tom gun will be magically created from Sydney supplies etc. You get the drift. This eases the strain on Allied xAK fleet, which can haul fuel as cargo instead in support of naval operations in the Pacific.

-2E and 4E bombers can bomb enemies in contested hexes. Use them en masse for the whole war this way and not a single friendly-fire incident will EVER happen, contrary to what happened in Normandy in July 1944. Lack of bridges and railyards in the game pushes Allied players to use their idle 2Es/4Es on the frontlines, leading to faster Jap collapse.

-both sides can haul fuel in xAK ships, moving unrealistic masses of fuel this way. This of course favors the Allies more. It ups their operational tempo in the Pacific, which also leads to faster Jap collapse.

So, modyfing the scenarios, while commendable, will not alter the gameplay to make it more balanced. I know that players want to have fun playing the game and generally abhor using house-rules, but I do believe you actually have to use them to make up for the game's inadequate mechanics. I can get all the fun while playing Jap AI in stock scen001 while house-ruling myself in regards to universal supply, 2E/4E bombers and fuel as cargo in xAKs.

That is because a lot of things are abstracted.

[BBfanboy]

Correct RJ. The abstraction is justified by the fact that IRL there were millions of people involved in the logistics chain to anticipate and fulfill the needs of the fighting troops. It could not be 100% accurate but it could get the goods within a short distance of the need through the network of depots and warehouses and field dumps. The invention of the Quonset hut revolutionized rapid construction of weatherproof storage. Yes, the foreign weapon ammo was a problem, but often the caliber was the same as existing allied ammo and all that was needed was modified brass to fit the chamber of the foreign guns.

[BananaConvention]

Hey All,

I've been working on my Scenario in earnest for about a week now and I've made a lot of changes, many of them with the assistance of my Discord members. I've made a lot of progress and I am happy with how it's going right now. I've uploaded my changelog for my Scenario 1.5. I would appreciate some review and feedback on what I've done so far. I'm currently working on aircraft and engine pools and the Japanese Air OOB at this time.

If you're interested helping with this Scenario design I would like to invite you to join my Discord where we can have real-time conversations. It's a much better medium for discussing stuff than the forum is I find.

Thanks!

EDIT: I just realized there is a "Scenario Design" sub-forum here. If a moderator wants to shut down this thread and move it there that's fine by me.

[Yaab]

This changes nothing in the Allied steam-roller

Allies:
-75k supplies per turn since 7 Dec 1941
-Allied universal supply lets you mount an all-US Army attack from India into Burma without sending a single ship with US-made supplies from CONUSA to India
-fuel as cargo in xAK lets you unload fuel faster than tankers in smaller ports (thank you, Naval Support! -manual p.212)
-using Allied xAPs for offensive amphib operations let Allies start their counter-offensive earlier than in RL
-2E and 4E mauling Japs in frontline hexes, using carpet bombing from low altitudes because friendly-fire doesn't exist in WITP:AE

Even if you take mods like Bottlenecks and RHS, you still get unrealistic results due to the game's abstracted mechanics.

Read these posts by Symon (a dev), addressing fuel as cargo in xAKs and amphib ops in xAKs

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p3577967
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0#p3589030

A long discussion (with forumites input) about 2E/4Es and CAS missions is here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 3&t=315084

[Alpha77]

@Yaab
...this is so simple to solve (but I wrote that prob 3-4 times already)... just half the number of AK type ships (for both)..this also leads to less stuff to move and less mouse clicks. Usually as Allies (even in a PBM often enough depending whcih scen and ofc how good the players are) you have 100-200 "civilian" ships sitting around. Vs. the AI this is a give also as IJN.. so what were in reality important ships and crews, become throw away in this game:

The Japanese sunk 20 AKs with supplies, WHO TF cares, I have 200 more and get 300 more and 3 mio tons of supply doing nothing... realistic? But this is known for years and no one seemed to care much..I deleted a bunch of ships in the editor but this is also tedious. In mods you have reduced ranges and load for AKs.. but this does not lead to less micro managing, like just get rid of way TOO MANY freighters and supplies / fuel in game. Also lessens the system load (less assets to move for the AI, but ofc the AI should get more ships). Maybe players would acually care also about their 4000tons freighters if they had less of them (and the families of the sailors would also care that u do not send these ships carelessly to be sunk like in real life. Now fanboys will reply yeah but this is a game.. always the same. Do they want realism or fantasy - seem more often the latter

BUT most people do NOT want such changes I guess cause:

a) they want the unlimited supply etc. early on already and got lazy to have to deal w/ actual shortages like even for the Allies up to the end of 43 was the case
b) start to cry when a banana freighter 300 tons built in 1910 does not appear in the game, cause it still existed in the 1940s or some harbour rowing boat which was in Sidney harbour at 8/1943 "THIS NEEDS TO BE IN THE GAME "

AND the WORST is, I know my posts are all a waste of time, cause this will not happen, the BIGGEST "bugs" or problems of the game remain or others are introduced (as evident w/ the new off map bases in the lastest beta) now the "AI" has even more problems I returned to forum anyway for another game (Ageod) for which I had a request ... but now I am posting here again. Yes I am stupid