Roger's Scenario Thread


  • Moderators

    @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?



  • Central powers are almost doomed to lose in any WW1 map in AI play unless map heavily favours them.



  • @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.


  • Moderators

    @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.



  • 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?)



  • @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.


  • Moderators Admin

    @RogerCooper Have a look atTWW



  • @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?


  • Moderators Admin

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



  • @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.


  • Moderators Admin

    @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.



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


  • Admin

    @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.


  • Moderators Admin

    @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.



  • Scenario Lord of the Rings-Middle Earth
    Download Repository/Excellent
    Description The War of the Ring from Tolkien's Middle Earth

    Good Points

    • Map evokes the maps from the book
    • Not just another WW2 games

    Bad Points

    • Hard going for the evil side
    • Unique creatures from the books become mass-produced items

    I know that this is a popular scenario, but if fails to evoke the book at all. Everything can be mass-produced, including Wizards (there were exactly 3 in the book). The book contained decisive battles, the game is WW1 style wars of attrition. In the book, Sauron's forces had military superiority, but the need to attack rapidly to obtain the Ring created a time limit.


  • Moderators

    @RogerCooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

    I tend fully to agree with your review. The only reasons why I never said so myself is that my memories of the scenario are almost all gone and I gave up playing the map too early into it really to be too bold in judging it. That is kind of inevitable: When you have issues with something, you stop playing it, then you don't really have the experience to suggest changes (talking about myself).

    Everything can be mass-produced, including Wizards (there were exactly 3 in the book).

    How about unselecting the "Unlimited Unique Units" option? Is that not enough (no idea myself)? By the way, I've never understood why that is enabled as default.

    The book contained decisive battles, the game is WW1 style wars of attrition.

    Do you think that if TripleA would support the ability for different factions to attack together (instead of only defending together), this may fix most of this issue?



  • @Cernel said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

    Everything can be mass-produced, including Wizards (there were exactly 3 in the book).

    How about unselecting the "Unlimited Unique Units" option? Is that not enough (no idea myself)? By the way, I've never understood why that is enabled as default.

    The unique units option is for the Middle Earth: Battle for Arda scenario which has different units & map.


  • Moderators

    @RogerCooper Right, I mixed the two. Though I think the limit of TripleA of being unable to attack together is a major distortion for any such scenario, or any scenario at all in which you would have to represent "epic" battles, as battles in which both sides have more than 1 faction on the field can just never happen.



  • @Cernel You could build separately and transfer ownership like UK-Pacific in the Global game. For Middle Earth, most of the battles were fought by alliances on both sides.

    I have not tried the Battle for Arda yet.



  • Scenario Ultimate World v3 Rules
    Description World War 2 on large map
    Wikia Entry link text

    Good Points

    • Speed 3 transports make the large map work better
    • Balanced

    Bad Points

    • Slow, even with Fast AI

Log in to reply
 

37404
1780
2097
Who's Online
Visitors Today