SCW under RUS Engine

[Ironclad61]

I remember now the PzGII mod and another for the Win Panzer General... i dont remember this mods very well because in 1998 i need decide between PzGII/Win PzG or Steel Panthers ... i select second game... ummm the Win SP version has both sides and you can do scens and campaigns... and it has 2-3 scens of SCW.

But full SCW games exclusive for it are very few... SB SCW and now i remember "Sombras de Guerra"... LOL, when i buy AACW from AGEOD in the shop guy say that with the game is gifted a HE-51 figure... it was for the SCW title... damn why i was so "honrado" and dont take the plane

And talking about this mod... well, if it works fine maybe AGEOD can decide release it as official title with more variants, what if and improved engine.

[Leibst]

Nice screen.

A little question, how you are going to simulate the creation of the "Ejercito Popular"???

-By events all them... or made appear initial first units and when do it buying them as other units because are avaliable

-Using commanders with bad stats to fight BUT with trainer bonus (i refer to have some generals as trainers to improve militias to regular units)

or a mixture off all??? events to have first units, trainers to buff non anarchist militias and buying them as regular units.

Thanks.

The initial idea is to do by event, i have talked about this. There will be one option that you buy with EP and release the Creation of The Popular Army. Each following turn some militia bataillons evolve to regular army bataillons.
This will be the regular infantry bataillon of 36 year, later there is another more trained version of republican infantry bataillon, maybe around june 37 or later.
This events happens each turn until all the militia has dissapeared transforming into regular infantry.

about the PZG game it was a good game indeed, good work imo.

[ERISS]

one option that you buy with EP and release the Creation of The Popular Army. Each following turn some militia bataillons evolve to regular army bataillons.
until all the militia has dissapeared transforming into regular infantry.

It should cost many NM too, for people militia wanted to fight in a guerilla way, not using the organisation of the enemy and being line infantry easily butchered by machineguns. But socialists and bolsheviks, to make their State, wanted the control over people and so had to militarize them.
Guerilla is the way to not loosing, with morale we don't agree being owned and keep fighting against all odds. Anarchists fought decades after the loss, until very late, they were called terrorists and fought by spanish and french police alike.
Military want to win fast, and bring the peril of loosing.

[Leibst]

It should cost many NM too, for people militia wanted to fight in a guerilla way, not using the organisation of the enemy and being line infantry easily butchered by machineguns. But socialists and bolsheviks, to make their State, wanted the control over people and so had to militarize them.
Guerilla is the way to not loosing, with morale we don't agree being owned and keep fighting against all odds. Anarchists fought decades after the loss, until very late, they were called terrorists and fought by spanish and french police alike.
Military want to win fast, and bring the peril of loosing.

You are right, and also WS, maybe money.

[Ironclad61]

I see, then is controled by event until all militias (except anarchist??? and others for another event solution) be buffed to regular army battaillons... but a little thing, if to have this in an event you pass all cost in a single pay maybe the republican player cant do it if national player is more agresive than historical and suffer less problems in the advance, maybe is possible do it as other events in AGEOD games where you pay for activate event (here you pay NM points and human resources to simulate the training of officials etc etc and some money for military schools, training grounds...) and every turn the event is active you pay x money and resources acord with number of units improved (no more human resources because you are trading militia for regular infantry units).

Ummm guerrilla... maybe is possible add event that activate in national rear guerrila units (very small and like indians in WIA) or as strategic decision "raise guerrillas" using as base the destroyed units in republican army, something like destroy 10 republican battalions of all types and you can call 1 guerrilla unit for free in strategic decisions, deployment could be controlled or not by player.

[Leibst]

yes, i could be done as you do, at the moment i have one event just to test it works.
I have nothing done about guerrilla but maybe a regional decision could be useful.

[ERISS]

is controled by event until all militias (except anarchist??? and others for another event solution) be buffed to regular army battaillons...

Many anarchist units were compelled to obey, for weapons and ammo were borbidden for them if they didn't go military.
Guerilla was bad in attack (maybe not worst than military republicans?), but better in defense than military unit.
If socialist central command did let anarchists rush their way, they could have easily take and install to defend more front cities, and nationalists would have been in very bad situation from the start.

[Leibst]

yes, this war is full of IFs ERISS.

[Narwhal]

I believe the "multinational" (in reality multi-faction : Anarchist, POUM, "Republic", ...) stack should have hefty nationality penalties, even if leaders of all factions are there. Maybe a *2 command penalty should apply from the moment there are different nationalities, even if the leaders are there (which could even make things worse )

[Ironclad61]

Well, maybe he plan do as in other games where leaders have penalties when command special troops, i think in WIA indians, and leaders can have bonus like "militiaman" "anarchist" etc etc to simulate problems for regular officials to comand irregular units and the problems when you join in an unit regular units with anarchist for example... even for nacionales with the africa units like regulares because are special units.

[deguerra]

A nice dark purple would look good for the Republicans

Awesome screen, Leibstandarte, it's really coming along. Any ETA yet?

-deguerra

[Laruku]

A nice dark purple would look good for the Republicans

Awesome screen, Leibstandarte, it's really coming along. Any ETA yet?

-deguerra

Estimated Time of Arrival

[Leibst]

I believe the "multinational" (in reality multi-faction : Anarchist, POUM, "Republic", ...) stack should have hefty nationality penalties, even if leaders of all factions are there. Maybe a *2 command penalty should apply from the moment there are different nationalities, even if the leaders are there (which could even make things worse )

yes Narwhal, it should be reflected anyway, i havent studied it yet.

[Laruku]

There were just two factions: National and Republican. It is true that the Republican side had several subfactions, that sometimes fight against each other, like Anarchists, POUM and Communist Party. This might be represented by events or by having penalties making armies with heterogeneous elements without right leaders (e. g., Durruti could command just anarchists).

So, likely subfactions might be:

Republican side:
Anarchists
Communists
Gudaris
Regular Army
International Brigades
POUM
PSOE

National side:
Regular Army
Moors
Falange
Requetés
Italian Expeditionary Corps
Legión Condor

Related to Foreign Intervention, there was some possibility that British might help the National side, and France the Republican one. Soviet Union was helping with material and advicers. German and Italy were also involved, more or less.

[Leibst]

hi deguerra, atm im working with the excel file of the setup. And after that test of the firsts turns. I have to add some new models as Antitanks, AA and its units, new units as brigades and divisions, and test it works fine.
When i feel ok with the setup then i will work in events, options (the core of the game) and i hope this will be start in October.
There is work waiting in the map, with exmap and therefore testing in the game later of that changes.
I have to add most of the leaders, make its pictures (two for each), make the model, the unit, add it to the setup if the leader is at the start of the game or add the leader via event/option (for each leader). Test that events works fine.
And after all this play to see where are changes needed, how goes the game, how plays the AI, tunning.... (this for sure will be next year).

There will be a moment (i hope) i feel ok with the game, and a '38 scenary will be designed i suposse, also i have ideas for a what if scenary with different non historical options for the players.

[Leibst]

There were just two factions: National and Republican. It is true that the Republican side had several subfactions, that sometimes fight against each other, like Anarchists, POUM and Communist Party. This might be represented by events or by having penalties making armies with heterogeneous elements without right leaders (e. g., Durruti could command just anarchists).

So, likely subfactions might be:

Republican side:
Anarchists
Communists
Gudaris
Regular Army
International Brigades
POUM
PSOE

National side:
Regular Army
Moors
Falange
Requetés
Italian Expeditionary Corps
Legión Condor

Related to Foreign Intervention, there was some possibility that British might help the National side, and France the Republican one. Soviet Union was helping with material and advicers. German and Italy were also involved, more or less.

The actual subfactions are:
Republicans:
- Anarchists
- Vasque
- International Brigades

For Nationalist:
- Legion Condor
- C.T.V. (italians)
and still not developed Regulars, Mehal-la (moors)...

But is not my idea for communist, requetes, Falange...

[Leibst]

Ummm guerrilla... maybe is possible add event that activate in national rear guerrila units (very small and like indians in WIA) or as strategic decision "raise guerrillas" using as base the destroyed units in republican army, something like destroy 10 republican battalions of all types and you can call 1 guerrilla unit for free in strategic decisions, deployment could be controlled or not by player.

I have think about guerrilla, this could be represented with regional decisions, to blow up railways, make some WS damage....

[Ironclad61]

Nice, maybe is better dont have more units to reduce micro play and avoid coordinated use of guerrila units, maybe is possible add an event in nacional to waste resources in counterguerrilla units.

Other question... is possible that you release a only PBEM version of the mod??? no AI, only for human players, maybe this help to test full events and other balance things that could be used in the AI.

PD: then you are going to add an Africa units subfaction no???

[Leibst]

i think the AI will play well as in others AGEOD engine games, just need some events.
and i suposse some people will help in the beta version testing.

Africa units (regulars, Mehal-la etc) should be subfaction because of the reemplacements should be exclusive moors for their units.

[ERISS]

I have think about guerrilla, this could be represented with regional decisions, to blow up railways, make some WS damage....

I don't think so, as bolsheviks taking the lead wanted to control the fighters. Maybe the going away freedom should be shown with an EP cost (each turn) of the Russia help.
The more they control, the less guerilla could be possible as a strategy, or it should cost much EP (VP?). If guerilla when republic is controled by bolsheviks, guerilla should occure randomly without the player control (like the Green in RUS).
Or the 'republican' politics must change, and have to decide to fight with fewer 'help' from Russia. Trading WSU against EP?

[deguerra]

Related to Foreign Intervention, there was some possibility that British might help the National side, and France the Republican one. Soviet Union was helping with material and advicers. German and Italy were also involved, more or less.

I'll admit my knowledge of the Spanish civil war is not vast, but I have never heard that the British were at all close to the nationalists. Both the British and French adhered to the non-intervention pact, but if anything I would have said both were closer to the Republicans than the Nationalists.

That said, I'm happy to be proved wrong

hi deguerra, atm im working with the excel file of the setup. And after that test of the firsts turns. I have to add some new models as Antitanks, AA and its units, new units as brigades and divisions, and test it works fine.
When i feel ok with the setup then i will work in events, options (the core of the game) and i hope this will be start in October.
There is work waiting in the map, with exmap and therefore testing in the game later of that changes.
I have to add most of the leaders, make its pictures (two for each), make the model, the unit, add it to the setup if the leader is at the start of the game or add the leader via event/option (for each leader). Test that events works fine.
And after all this play to see where are changes needed, how goes the game, how plays the AI, tunning.... (this for sure will be next year).

There will be a moment (i hope) i feel ok with the game, and a '38 scenary will be designed i suposse, also i have ideas for a what if scenary with different non historical options for the players.

Sounds good. I have some limited experience editing the model and leader graphics - so if you need and want any help at that stage, let me know.

-deguerra

[Laruku]

Yes, the British thought about that, in case the Communists would have had any chance to win.

[Ironclad61]

British was "neutral" this is why when war finish they take economic advantages from Franco´s in mines and other economic sectors... British govern in 1936 play the "perro del hortelano" role... this is they dont help a democractic govern and they dont leave leave republic use and receive the resources they need to fight rebels... but apart this Italy and Germany help a lot nationals and dont do it specially hide.

The no intervention comite was a total farse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_in_the_Manger
There was a dog lying in a manger who did not eat the grain but who nevertheless prevented the horse from being able to eat anything either

[Leibst]

But in case that the invasion of zchech republic would have made the allies went into war with germany that will probably will made them ally with the republicans

[Ironclad61]

After feed the beast... and by 1938 they dont show a great fight spirit... i see more then as no agresive neutral with the Republica and leaving France helping she... maybe for the mod add the option to send UK to a true neutral position can improve the effects over other strategic decision about France intervention.

I explain, you can invest in reduce UK presure over non intervention comite and this affect positive over other option that try influence in France... republic can influence directly over France and URSS (nacionales over Italy and Germany) and other nations could be present indirect (for republic more war supplies from Cze for example and nacionales can have international reconigtion reducing republic support).

SCW was more than a civil war.

[deguerra]

I see I may have stirred a bit of a sore sport here. But then that is what fascinates me about history.

Ok so you are saying:

- The British adhered to the non-intervention pact, which as we know was a complete failure because it prevented neither Italian nor German intervention on the Nationalist side.
- The British, through their lack of support for intervention, effectively also forced France to adhere to the non-intervention pact, who would otherwise have aided the Republicans.

So far I agree entirely and this was my prior understanding.

Your interesting point is that:

- The reason (or in the interest of neutrality I shall say one of the reasons) Britain was so insintent on the non-intervention pact was because it was gaining (at the time? or only once Franco had won?) economic advantages from the Nationlist side.
- Furthermore, Britain was worried (as were others) over the Communist/Soviet influence on the Republican side - although ironically, IMO, this influence would have been lessened substanitally had Britain and France aided the Republcians. But that is the benefit of hindsight.

This I did not know. I think one does have to cut the UK some slack - this was, after all, in the middle of Chamberlain's Appeasement policy and Britain was desperately trying to avoid war (with even more dire consequences in 1939) - so I don't think economic interests were at the heart of Britain's reluctance. But that is not to say that they did not pay a role.

Interesting thoughts, thanks

-deguerra

[ERISS]

- The reason (or in the interest of neutrality I shall say one of the reasons) Britain was so insintent on the non-intervention pact was because it was gaining (at the time? or only once Franco had won?) economic advantages from the Nationlist side.
- Furthermore, Britain was worried (as were others) over the Communist/Soviet influence on the Republican side - although ironically, IMO, this influence would have been lessened substanitally had Britain and France aided the Republcians. But that is the benefit of hindsight.

That's what I think too:
The true Britain goal was to forbid spanish people from controlling their own economy, that's why Britain was for the non-intervention: to help nationalists protecting the spanish bourgeoisie.
Britain (against what they said) decided to risk the Russia threat for this goal, and so 'helped' Russia in controlling the republicans.

[Leibst]

Setup excel v01 almost finished.

Now time for some aerial graphics.

[ATTACH]20084[/ATTACH]

[Leibst]

Durruti takes command!!

[ATTACH]20106[/ATTACH]

[picaron]

Esto va tomando poco a poco forma.