The "US Impact and Historicity Mod", by Dgaad.

[dgaad]

After playing the demo countless times, and the actual game a few times (finally got my copy), I decided to make a change to the Fall Weiss campaign to give the US greater impact and certain other historicity changes.

If anyone wants this mod, let me know in this thread and I will make it available on my website.

"US IMPACT AND HISTORICITY CHANGES MOD"

Mod designed to give US a greater impact on the war in Europe, as well as some other small historicity changes.

US Changes :

+2 research points when US enters the war (from +1 in the original). The US had excellent research capacity that was easily turned to wartime functions, the most notable being the Manhattan Project.

5% neutrality setting (original : 0%). US tends to enter too late.

+400 MPPS to initial US production (original : 0), to represent the immediate gearing up of the US for war. (Note : its kind of like the US looting itself, just as it did historically when enormous amounts of consumer goods were immediately scrapped for military production -- like the seizure of the entire stock of rubber tires, new or used, in country by the government a few weeks after the war began).

US initial Industrial Production tech level set to 2 (original : 1). Gives US same industrial production tech level as the Soviet Union.

Italy :

Neutrality setting to 60% (from 65%). Italy tends to enter before the Germans even attack France. Mussolini intentionllly waited to the very last second, thinking the war was just about over anyway.

France :

Algerian Corps given +1 experience. These troops were highly competent and highly valued. The Germans suffered a high proportion of casualties in battle against them in early June, 1940 -- after it already appeared to everyone that France was going to lose.

All Maginot units given an entrenchement value of 3.

DCR Tank Group added with a strength of 2, located south of Paris. It must be built up before its of much use, but it does reflect the enormous number of good tanks the French had, some of which were grouped into tank units instead of dispersed along the front.

Germany :

Luftflotte I and II given +1 experience. This represents the extensive experience the Luftwaffe had already gotton in Spain.

German 12th and 23rd Corps, along the Rhine, given +2 entrenchment value. Also the 23 corps is relocated closer to the Rhine and gets river benefit.

German Rundstedt HQ is given initial experience of 1 (original : 0 ) to represent the traditions of the Prussian General staff, which resulted in a large body of competent and experienced officers in the German army. Also, the theories of Guderian and others gave the German Wehrmacht a confidence in novel operations that other armies lacked at the time. The Bock unit was not modified, because Guderian's changes were opposed by more than half the General Staff !

German Heavy Tanks value set to 1 (original : 0) to reflect the novel organizing concepts of Panzer Warfare, which gave the Wehrmacht a concentration of panzer units and a solid doctrine on use of them in battle.

All German Panzer units start with a strength of 11, not 10.

Britain :

Western Desert Force Tank Group added in Egypt with an initial strength of 2, making it essentially useless. However, it can be built up rapidly and saves the British the trouble of having to build one and run the Med gauntlet.

=== end ===

[KevGaming]

Haven't played SC in a while but, your propasal sounds interesting. A game where the US is actually a threat hmmm ...

[dgaad]

US Impact and Historicity Mod - Get it here

I'm thinking of changing the Sonar and Sub ratings, and altering the strength of the subs, so that Germany can conduct an effective sub war campaign.

[ October 21, 2002, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[Jeff Heidman]

Sounds interesting. Nice to see an effort to change things up a little bit.

Anyone want to PBEM this one?

Jeff Heidman

[dgaad]

If you do PBEM it, let me know how things went and future changes.

I debated whether or not to give the Brits an HQ in the Med for the same reason I placed a tank unit down there. One starting at, say, 1 strength point. Maybe the Auch HQ.

Anyway, I'm serious about toying with the sonar / sub tech levels so Germany can do some damage at least, even with Fog of War off.

[pzgndr]

I like the idea of providing some low-strength units at start to at least represent French and British armor.

Starting units with some entrenchment and experience is also good. I'd still like to see some minimum entrenchment level for certain terrain, like 2 for fortresses and 1 for some of the other rough terrain.

The proposed scenario changes sound good. I want to wait and see some of the other game issues worked out in the next patch or two, then come back to scenario tweaks. But these are the kind of things we can/should do to help make the game better.

[dgaad]

With the campaign editor I believe its possible to come up with an acceptable mod that addresses game balance issues viz : the "25 German Airfleets" phenomenon.

I wonder if people are willing to comment on or even work on this.

[pzgndr]

I wonder if people are willing to comment on or even work on this.

Certainly. Immer Etwas and I are playing your scenario. We're into April 1941 with me as Allies. The French tanks help some but are balanced by the panzer and Luftwaffe mods, so the French campaign played out fairly normal. The Brits took Tobruk afetr Italy entered and have held off a couple of Italian counterattacks. The Afrika Korps has arrived, so the battle will continue. Air power helps both sides in the Med, and we've been having a very interesting give and take. Germany just took Sweden and Norway. I'm waiting to see what happens next.

I've commented that US entry needs to be beefed up a little, and this mod looks good. Just a little boost. But those German L1+ panzers will take their toll in Russia, so I'm not looking forward to that. May need that extra US help.

Ideas about U-boats and sonar mods look good. If we can't get spotting and dive numbers tweaked, then some scenario adjustments may do the trick. Maybe starting some of the French fleet farther south would also help in the opening rounds.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I wonder if people are willing to comment on or even work on this.

Certainly. Immer Etwas and I are playing your scenario. </font>

[EB.]

"US Impact and Historicity Mod"--a wonderful FANTASY wargame. Tolkien is alive and well. Next, you will get to add elves and dragons to the mighty US arsenal.

Why not just go ahead and add the USSR as a German minor ally, and then the almighty US can beat up both Germany and the Soviets--just like they did in "ree-yall" history. You can invade and take Berlin, Warsaw, Kiev, Moscow, even Novosibirsk. I sho would like sumfin like dat! Can you please send me a plastic cowboy hat so that I can act like a patriotic American while I play yo ex'lent "mod".

My opinion without jest: the original SC is infinitely more realistic than your tainted, politically correct Rambo modification.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

"US Impact and Historicity Mod"--a wonderful FANTASY wargame. Tolkien is alive and well. Next, you will get to add elves and dragons to the mighty US arsenal.

Why not just go ahead and add the USSR as a German minor ally, and then the almighty US can beat up both Germany and the Soviets--just like they did in "ree-yall" history. You can invade and take Berlin, Warsaw, Kiev, Moscow, even Novosibirsk. I sho would like sumfin like dat! Can you please send me a plastic cowboy hat so that I can act like a patriotic American while I play yo ex'lent "mod".

My opinion without jest: the original SC is infinitely more realistic than your tainted, politically correct Rambo modification.

In case you didn't notice, the mods to the game involve all the other nations in the game as well. The US changes are relatively minor : US production costs are reduced by 10%, and the at-start MPPs enable the purchase of perhaps 1 airfleet or 1 army and a corps -- VERY MINOR in the context of the game. Far be it for me to point the obvious out to you, though. There aren't any more changes to the US than there are to France, Britain, Germany, Italy, and, in the Historicity Mod, the Soviet Union as well. To the extent its possible to create and change campaigns, I believe that these changes are historically sound, and greatly balance out the game for PBEM play.

On a personal note, EB, your opinions about the US war effort are well known and understood by myself and the SC community, and I personally don't want to hear any more about them. Your rote-parrot like recitation of the Stalinist view of the pre-war, war, and post-war history is not only offensive, its now boring as well.

[ October 24, 2002, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[pzgndr]

I sho would like sumfin like dat! Can you please send me a plastic cowboy hat so that I can act like a patriotic American while I play yo ex'lent "mod".

EB, did somebody light the fuse on your tampon or what? Many of Dgaad's tweaks seem reasonable and interesting; not all, but many. Worth at least a playtest, and Immer Etwas and I are in the middle of a pretty good game right now. Have you got something better to offer, or must you resort to personal zingers to prove something to yourself? Dgaad has made a contribution; you have not.

[EB.]

"Mod designed to give US a greater impact"--these are dgaad's own words. So, if we take his assertion to be correct, the whole point of his mod is to increase the US effort.

My contribution to this topic is to point out that the mod is therefore unrealistic, that it will result in historically deviant and inaccurate gameplay, and that it will thus pervert players' understanding of what really occurred. In other words, I have the ability to warn potential players. like: "Watch out for this nonsense!" That is surely a useful contribution. And as far as contributions to the wargaming community, I devoted about five lifetimes worth of effort on Operational Art of War scenarios which have been widely enjoyed for the past few years. I owe no bills on this account.

So, don't get so touchy. If you want to make a scenario to promote a fantasy US effort, go ahead. But I will be there to publicly expose it, to unmask it before the people. Bottom line is that SC is already very realistic and far better than your mod.

Now, not all mods are bad, of course--just those created to satisfy private fantasies about mighty US power which is not even real. There are some good mods out there--better graphics, for example--which reveal a lot of effort, creativity, and intelligence.

[pzgndr]

So, don't get so touchy. If you want to make a scenario to promote a fantasy US effort, go ahead. But I will be there to publicly expose it, to unmask it before the people. Bottom line is that SC is already very realistic and far better than your mod.

Firstly it's not my mod and not my intent to promote a fantasy effort. This mod, however, appears to be a pretty good effort to address a number of issues beyond just the US effort in an attempt to use the editor for more historical setups. I'm not endorsing it as being accurate, but it is an interesting contribution. Between game patches and scenario mods like this, we'll be going through several more iterations before things settle down.

My "touchiness" was prompted by your offhand remarks. When presented with this mod, I chose to playtest it for consideration so I could provide some constructive feedback later. You chose to insult the mod designer and simply dismiss the effort as stupid. How charming! In your public defender role, I suppose the only mods allowed for consideration are those that are already perfect by your standards? :eek:

[dgaad]

Bill : Thanks for the help. I suppose I should add the following qualifier to the Mod :

*Warning : in the Stalinist view of history, this mod is a "fantasy scenario".

Anyway, Bill, keep me informed on your playtest. Also I put together an even more extensive set of changes in the "Historicity Mod" 1.1.

[ October 24, 2002, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[Darren J Pierson]

Originally posted by dgaad:

Bill : Thanks for the help. I suppose I should add the following qualifier to the Mod :

*Warning : in the Stalinist view of history, this mod is a "fantasy scenario".

Anyway, Bill, keep me informed on your playtest. Also I put together an even more extensive set of changes in the "Historicity Mod" 1.1.

If you would simply submit a copy of all mods (in triplicate) to the Committee for State Historical Security, Chamber Lenin, CPSU HQ, Moscow, we wouldn't have to continually chastise you on your revisionist views. Now be reasonable, comrade.

I do find some of these debates quite informative.

[arby]

Originally posted by EB.:

So, don't get so touchy. If you want to make a scenario to promote a fantasy US effort, go ahead. But I will be there to publicly expose it, to unmask it before the people. Bottom line is that SC is already very realistic and far better than your mod.

I tend to agree with you that the Russian contribution was the deciding factor in the European Theatre; in fact, I don't think there's much question about it. Unlike you, I'm not willing to go so far as to say that the Western Allies, and particularly the US, contribution was inconsequential. In short, you go a bit overboard, but at least you're on the right ship.

But you know what's funny? In every game I've played of SC where the Allied player has won, it's because of the Western Allies. Every single time. What happens is that the Americans land in France under cover of British air and march relentlessly toward Berlin, while the Soviets cower in their caves in the Urals.

And you think this is realistic...

[dgaad]

Very funny stuff guys.

[Zeres]

I'd like to announce that I've begun work on a fantasy mod for SC. Brittian will start with Level 1 Elves to represent the influence of "Druids". I'm not sure if they are going to match the power of Russia's level five TROLLS. But perhaps they will be able to contribute to the war effort!

[EB.]

arby: You make a very good point here, I must admit. There are too many SC games which are decided by the Allies landing early in Western Europe. What I would say is that the balance of relative power between the countries is still pretty accurate though. You are correct that the computer AI plays the Allies with a lot more bravery than was historically the case. Very true. If in real history the Allies had not been so afraid of actual casualties, they would have landed much earlier in France rather than in inconsequential safe places like North Africa and Sicily. If they had, then they could have made a REAL contribution to the war effort before the Germans were almost totally beaten. The Allies were a lot weaker than the Germans and Soviets, but they COULD have done more than they did historically--they COULD have made more of a difference. So the game might not be realistic in terms of the Allies being brave and aggressive. You are very right on this point. I would only say that at least the overall power balance is still correct and realistic. On this point and this argument, you win and I lose. I now change my opinion to match yours on this point. Thank you for your constructive comments.

[EB.]

Trolls as a Soviet unit. Hmmm. The innate regenerative capacity could do wonders for logistics. British elves seem quite appropriate, by the way. "Why make a Second Front when instead we can sing and dance in the summer moonlight?"

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by EB.:

arby: You make a very good point here, I must admit. There are too many SC games which are decided by the Allies landing early in Western Europe. What I would say is that the balance of relative power between the countries is still pretty accurate though. You are correct that the computer AI plays the Allies with a lot more bravery than was historically the case. Very true. If in real history the Allies had not been so afraid of actual casualties, they would have landed much earlier in France rather than in inconsequential safe places like North Africa and Sicily. If they had, then they could have made a REAL contribution to the war effort before the Germans were almost totally beaten. The Allies were a lot weaker than the Germans and Soviets, but they COULD have done more than they did historically--they COULD have made more of a difference. So the game might not be realistic in terms of the Allies being brave and aggressive.

It didn't have anything to do with bravery, it had to do with the fact that one of the allies was run by a raving psychotic and the other two were not. Guess which one was run by the raving psychotic?

Frankly, if I were a Russian it would not be a source of pride to me that twenty-some million Russians had to die because Stalin was (a) so paranoid he had most of his officer corps shot before the war, ( so deluded he wouldn't believe the British intelligence about the impending German attack, and © so stupid it took him the better part of two years to get enough commanders in place who knew what the hell they were doing. If FDR and Churchill had been in charge of the USSR, the Russians would have been eating wienerschnitzel in Berlin by mid-1943 with about 10% of the casualties they actually incurred.

[EB.]

Wrong on all counts. As stated before, the Purge of Tukhachevsky and the other anti-Soviet, Trotskyite forces within the Red Army was necessary and in fact strengthened the Army by removing disloyalty. Without this purge, the Soviet forces would have surrendered easily just like the un-purged French army did in 1940.

If Russia / USSR had a democratic leader like FDR or Churchill (or let's make it clear: like Yeltsin or Putin), then the country would have gotten its ass kicked very easily by the Germans. To have such a mighty victory as our people had over the Germans, we needed the massive heavy industrial base to create our many fine weapons and equipment (credit to Stalin's economic policy of rapid industrialization in the 1930's) as well as ruthless, uncompromising, stern, farsighted leadership during the war itself (also credit to Stalin as war leader on this). Look at the original documents or ask our living veterans, and it is very clear that they proudly fought Za Rodinu, Za Stalina! (For the Motherland, For Stalin!) Do you seriously think that our soldiers would have fought to the death or would have shot the soldiers beside them for retreating if they had anything less than a strong dictator behind them? People will not fight to the death for a vacillating, corrupt, democratic leader. Imagine the slogan Ni Shagu Nazad! (Not one Step Back! (No retreat allowed!)) being spoken by that flabby bastard Yeltsin or that gutless traitor Putin. Nobody would even listen. But when Stalin gave such an order, the troops took notice and followed proudly.

For yourself, you may be more convinced not by our pro-Russian view (which only convinces our people anyway) but by the words of your Western leaders themselves. Take Churchill, for example, who stated on several occasions that the Soviets would have been beaten under any other leader than Stalin. Churchill knew that industrialization was the key to victory, that the Purge was necessary and useful, and that Stalin was a wise leader. Actually, Churchill was a great leader himself, a real genius--his greatest handicap was that his government was not allowed to have many casualties. The people and parliament were too afraid based upon the heavy casualties which the British had in WW1. Poor Churchill, who often had his plans cancelled or perverted into impotence by generals afraid to lose any troops. He said to them, "well, what do you expect--this is war after all!" I may be wrong to criticize Churchill. More specifically, I think that Churchill was a wise leader who if he had been given real dictatorial powers would have retained Britain as a great power. The problem with a "democratic leader like Churchill" is specifically the democratic system in which he had to work. Same actually with FDR. An okay guy as a leader, but when forced to operate within a democratic system, he was essentially toothless and impotent. So, to make it very clear: I attack not the leaders themselves but their inefficient, ineffective, cowardly democratic systems.

[pzgndr]

Anyway, Bill, keep me informed on your playtest. Also I put together an even more extensive set of changes in the "Historicity Mod" 1.1.

Will do. In the current game we're up to Oct 41. Britain has taken all of Libya, is moving into Iraq, and the US is about to enter. Germans have secured the Riga-Minsk-Kiev-Odessa line and are preparing to hit my Smolensk-Kharkov line. It's not a done game yet, but with enhanced US entry and British successes in the Med the writing is on the wall.

I looked at the 1.1 mod and will provide some qualitative comments tomorrow sometime when I get a chance. With due respect to EB, I tend to agree that the basic balance in SC is already pretty good. The western allies may need a little something more to help them, but probably not as much as you propose. I do have some concerns.

[EB.]

Bill Macon: thank you for your support! Your comment that the basic balance of SC is correct makes me very happy. To where shall we send your medal? All the Best, EB.