Roger's Scenario Thread

RogerCooper

Scenario Hearts of Iron 2: Turning tide-1943
Description 1943 on a worldwide scale
Download Wikia Entry

Good Points

A rare 1943 scenario
The Axis is strong but the Allies are fully mobilized

Bad Points

No victory conditions.The Axis is going to be beaten and this scenario has to be viewed as a turns to victory problem.

RogerCooper

Scenario Small Balanced 4 Player Teams
Description An abstract symmetrical struggle between 4 nations trying to conquer a central island
Wikia Entry

Good Points

Fast game

Bad Points

Symmetrical position makes it less interesting

RogerCooper

@RogerCooper
Scenario 41 Oztea
Description 1941 on the Global board
Wikia Entry

Good Points

Better balanced than most games on the Global map
Less political stuff makes it easier on the AI

Bad Points

None really, this is a good well-rounded scenario suitable for AI or human to human play

RogerCooper

Scenario CrazyG's Giant World War 1
Description World War 1 on a big map
Wikia Entry

Good Points

Very detailed

Bad Points

Slow even with Fast AI
Germany is too weak

Cernel

@RogerCooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

Germany is too weak

Curious if you mean balance-wise or history-wise or both.

RogerCooper

@Cernel Germany is too weak in both respects. In AI play, the Germans get nowhere and the Entente quickly gains the initiative. Historically the Germans conquered Belgium in 1914, Poland in 1915, Romania in 1916, the Baltic in 1917 and in 1918 came close to breaking the French & the Italians. Only the arrival of the Americans and the demoralizing effect of the blockade defeated them.

The movement allowance are way too low in this scenario. The military superiority of the Germans is lacking. The economic advantage of the Entente is too small.

Cernel

@RogerCooper History-wise, that is beyond any reasonable doubt. Balance-wise, what I understand you are saying boils down to the fact that Germans should have more TUV and either the Entente more production or the Germans' allies less production or both?

But is it possible to pursue both balance and historicity in a WW1 game? Was my "or" possibly not exclusive?

Schulz

RogerCooper

@Cernel Historically the Germans came close to winning WW1. So it is better to ask what was is wrong with the scenarios.

The problem I see is that the Germans should have better attack strengths than anyone else and on large maps infantry should move more than 1.

Cernel

@RogerCooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

The problem I see is that the Germans should have better attack strengths than anyone else and on large maps infantry should move more than 1.

Isn't this supposed to be covered by trains, on this one? I would expect maybe saying that trains should be more/cheaper/faster.

Lord Bevan

AI does not know how to use trains, so if you are playing against AI, just do not use trains.

(but they do in Zombieland, so what's the diff?)

RogerCooper

@Cernel What purpose do trains actually serve? Most of Europe had a fairly dense train network and the initial mobilization of all powers was by train. Either give infantry a move of 2 or 3 or allow factories to boost movement like air bases & naval bases.

prastle

@RogerCooper Have a look atTWW

RogerCooper

@prastle I see the trains. I don't see how they make TWW a better game. Why not use higher move speeds or move bonuses to achieve the same effect?

prastle

@RogerCooper The infra structure can be destroyed or "Rails" destroyed thus more historically accurate. Is I am guessing @Hepps thoughts

RogerCooper

@prastle said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@RogerCooper The infra structure can be destroyed or "Rails" destroyed thus more historically accurate. Is I am guessing @Hepps thoughts

Destroying railroad infrastructure is not historically accurate. Although the actual rails can be pulled apart, the rails can be easily replaced. Even railroad bridges can be rebuilt fairly quickly. The Germans had specialized railroad engineer units in WW2.

You could also have that effect of speeding up movement within your own country with terrain effects or by having railroad stations that give a movement boost.

For a more interesting take on railroads see Warlords: FFA. China's rail net was much less dense than Europe's so depicting specific rail lines make sense.

Hepps

@RogerCooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@prastle said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@RogerCooper The infra structure can be destroyed or "Rails" destroyed thus more historically accurate. Is I am guessing @Hepps thoughts

Destroying railroad infrastructure is not historically accurate. Although the actual rails can be pulled apart, the rails can be easily replaced. Even railroad bridges can be rebuilt fairly quickly. The Germans had specialized railroad engineer units in WW2.

This is how the rail lines operate in TWW. They can be easily repaired during the repair phase... can be rebuilt if destroyed... and where there is the highest concentration of rail networks there are multiple rail units in each territory thus making disabling them increasingly difficult.

You could also have that effect of speeding up movement within your own country with terrain effects or by having railroad stations that give a movement boost.

For a more interesting take on railroads see Warlords: FFA. China's rail net was much less dense than Europe's so depicting specific rail lines make sense.

RogerCooper

@Hepps If they are easily repaired, why make them destroyable in the first place?

redrum

@RogerCooper I believe the limitation during WW2 was more related to how many trains they could run (essentially capacity to move how many divisions around and supplies for all the frontline troops) not the rails themselves as repairing or even in some cases converting the gauge of rails was done pretty quickly.

Hepps

@RogerCooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@Hepps If they are easily repaired, why make them destroyable in the first place?

Because having to spend PU to repair and maintain the broad types of infrastructure (Trains, Rail lines, Trucks,Air Transports, Airfields, Factories, Aircraft Plants, Barracks and Harbours) puts additional costs on each nation as they strive to keep their war machine operational. It means that maintaining those critical infrastructure becomes a essential part of being able to produce and deploy troops rapidly across large distances making it far more realistic and offering the players way more strategic and tactical options.