Matrix Games Forums

I am going to convert Nik's mod for use with my map. This is not just a question of changing the location data though. There are a lot of other things that could be added and/or changed. Some of these, such as adding the new bases that my map is designed for, should definitely be done, but the more changes added the more the scenario will depart from Nik's original version. Because of this I thought that I would seek the opinion of players who use Nik's mod, or anyone who is interested, to comment on what changes I should make to the mod during the conversion process.

Here is a list of the possible changes I could make, based on those I make to the official scenario conversions that I create (such as scenarios 115/116):

Recommended minimum:
-------------------
- Add new bases in:
* Australia/NZ
* North America
* India
* China
* A few other locations (e.g. Society Islands, Maldives)

- Rename bases to more accurate names (also to match the map art)

- Add new units, mainly Allied units to account for the new Allied bases.

Recommended:
-----------
- Redistribute Australian resources and industrial capacity,
including the new Australian bases as well.

- Redistribute Indian manpower, resources and industry, to what I
believe are more accurate values.

Others (affecting gameplay):
---------------------------
- Reduce large stockpiles of fuel and supplies at empty bases,
mainly in the Pacific.

- Modify base port, airfield and SPS values, to what I believe are
more accurate values, mainly in the Pacific.

- Set prep points of all Soviet units to 100 (same as Chinese).

- Remove duplicate leaders.

- Remove duplicate units.

- Remove contsruction engineers from armoured units.

- Change Allied CD unit OOB in Australia and Canada to make it more
accurate.

- Change Australian OOB in 1941 to make it more accurate, including
unit locations.

- Change base ownership to more accurate representation of the
situation on 7th December 1941, mainly in the Pacific.

- Reduce Allied daily supply levels (under review, but I think that Nik already does this, in which case there is no reason to change it).

Cosmetic (my personal preferences only - not affecting gameplay):
--------
- For all RAF air units have been renamed using the format "No.nn
Squadron RAF".

- For all RAAF air units have been renamed using the format "No.nn
Squadron RAAF".

- For all RCAF air units have been renamed using the format "No.nn
Squadron RCAF".

- For all RNZAF air units have been renamed using the format "No.nn
Squadron RNZAF".

- For all Marine air units, "MAW" has been replaced with "Marine Air
Wing".

- For all Dutch air units, "DAF" has been replaced with "NEIAF".

- For all Australian air base units "Aus AF" has been replaced with
"Airfield Sqdn".

- For all Dutch land units "Dutch" has been replaced with "KNIL".

- For all US Marine units "USMC" has been replaced with "Marine".

- For all US Army units "USA" has been replaced with "US".

All comments welcome or I will have to guess what to change (in which case I will probably go for a fairly minimalist set of changes).

Andrew

We need at least one more base between Alice Spring and Daily waters...each base should be less than 10 hexes of distance from the next one due to buggy land movement design

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

We need at least one more base between Alice Spring and Daily waters...each base should be less than 10 hexes of distance from the next one due to buggy land movement design

I know what you are talking about, since I have been following your AAR with great interest (it was the first one I found that was using my map). I thought about the need for adding another base, but the problem is there are quite a few other places with the same problem, especially in Australia. I don't want to put bases all over the place just for this reason, especially in areas that were empty deserts.

I would prefer that the land movement routines were changed to prevent the problems you are seeing. I would also like to see HQs act as mobile "bases" for supply distribution purposes, but I don't think that these will ever happen. Maybe this is a limitation that we will have to live with.

Hi
I think Nik's mod should be left as much as possible in its original "wrapper".

Adding new bases but without the BFs would be good.

Otherwise, you might upset the balance of forces within the scenario. In which case it would then be Andrew's Mod[:D]

Michael

It should be a fairly straight-forward conversion since most of the changes are OOB in nature designed to modify the combat formula results.

An area of grey are the resource/industry changes preposed. Standard Nikmod already incorporated a set of changes, particularily in China where all forward city industries were removed and replaced by a daily supply gain equivilent to the removed resources. This was done to discourage/prevent a "China strategic bombing war" as well as to deny the Japan player additional continental supply generation gained by expansion. Instead, they will have to supply the captured cities themselves from already existing bases or from Japan itself. Other resource changes included removal of North Oz resource centers and major reductions in the daily supply generation for Karachi and San Francisco(Bombay and L.A. removed from daily generation) I did test this change with an AI/AI game and the Allied side suffered no late war supply shortages.

All forward Chinese cities have full fortification values to represent the long static period (but more pragmatically to allow a China player breathing room to counter any rail based Japanese concentrations and drives for specific cities.)

From what Andrew has told me, his China map changes are untested and I did have a chance to look them over. There are more trail based hexes vs the stock but to be on the safe side i'd still leave the closest Chinese controlled cities at fort 9 to make them costly and lengthy to take by the Japanese Army.

Would it be possible to have a scenario that incorporates some of CHS's OOB changes and additions but with Nik's gameplay changes? That would the holy grail of WiTP for me.

I like the Chinese forts idea. However they should be applied to the Japanese bases in China, not just the Chinese. Both sides were equally unable or unwilling to effectively attack each other.

I think at this point the focus should just be on ensuring the mod and Andrew's map changes sync. I'm not ready to tackle or consider the question of merges yet. Andrew's original suggestion was that either he or I 'convert' my basic mod to work with his map. No mention was made about CHS stuff. I'd like to keep it that way for now.

In answer to your forts question, I didn't feel the need to up the Japanese fort levels due to the fact that the Chinese, particularily in the GC start, are so weak in exp and arty power that along with a lack of ENG units its already very hard for them to assault Japanese held cities with any sort of fort level (3 on average)

Giving the Japanese held cities high fort levels to start would IMO actually erode the changes i made as it would allow the Japan player more security in thinning the defensive forces of said cities (for offensive missions) , safe in the knowlege that even a force half the assault value or less than a Chinese army group trying to take a city will dash itself to peices with huge casualties against a force behind as few entrenchments as level 3

Let the Japan player spend time ensuring his territory is already well built up defensive before casting coveting eyes on those nearby Chinese strongholds [;)] Time they'll have anyway since the interior road network makes for slow going in terms of concentrating Chinese assault power.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

It should be a fairly straight-forward conversion since most of the changes are OOB in nature designed to modify the combat formula results.

An area of grey are the resource/industry changes preposed. Standard Nikmod already incorporated a set of changes, particularily in China where all forward city industries were removed and replaced by a daily supply gain equivilent to the removed resources. This was done to discourage/prevent a "China strategic bombing war" as well as to deny the Japan player additional continental supply generation gained by expansion. Instead, they will have to supply the captured cities themselves from already existing bases or from Japan itself. Other resource changes included removal of North Oz resource centers and major reductions in the daily supply generation for Karachi and San Francisco(Bombay and L.A. removed from daily generation) I did test this change with an AI/AI game and the Allied side suffered no late war supply shortages.

All forward Chinese cities have full fortification values to represent the long static period (but more pragmatically to allow a China player breathing room to counter any rail based Japanese concentrations and drives for specific cities.)

From what Andrew has told me, his China map changes are untested and I did have a chance to look them over. There are more trail based hexes vs the stock but to be on the safe side i'd still leave the closest Chinese controlled cities at fort 9 to make them costly and lengthy to take by the Japanese Army.

OK. I think I will do a conversion WITH my resource/industry changes in India and Australia (I don't change anything in China). One reason for doing this is that the changes are done to take into account the new bases. For example, the new Magwe base in Burma is given some oil, which it had historically (by redistributing oil from other Burmese bases, not just a simple addition).

Secondly, Nik's comment about Northern Australia match my own reasoning - my Australian resource changes include the removal of the northern resources as well.

Thirdly - there are no changes to China in my list, so it will remain the way Nik has set it up. Only India and Australia are modified, and the net effect of the changes should be minor.

I will make the scenario and upload it to my site. People can then download it and look at it. I can make a revised version later, or as well, if that is perferred.

I will leave out the extra LCUs. The main effect from this will be that some of the new bases won't have any base forces or other units, which will seem a little odd. For example, the new base of Victoria in Canada won't have any Canadian LCUs, and it won't be possible to move any there unless PPs are paid first (as it is on an island).

Hopefully the scenario will be ready in a day or two.

Andrew