Bromley

I was wondering if it'd be possible to increase the Air Defence of ground units with some Anti-Air tech advances. Not with every advance, just at say level 3. That sort of thing might just overcomplicate things though. It'd certainly need balance testing, but it's a way to give people spin-off incentives for researching the less used techs. @vveedd. Something to do with height & speed? Whether that was the case IRL or not, I suspect that'd be the justification here.

Mail them rather than posting on the board. If nothing else, no response after 2 months indicates that they don't monitor this thread for problems. sales@battlefront.com

The trouble I have is that I hit the core concept problem, namely that despite sinking enough cash into the program to fund 24,000 Tiger tanks (source: Wiki), the German strategic rocket program did effectively no damage to the UK ability to wage war. So, in game terms, whether its achieved via a unit or via a city upgrade, you still wouldn't bother doing it because it would never achieve anything of value. The only way that I can create a (sensible) scenario where a player researches Rockets would be if they were: (a) cheap/free upgrades for cities that automatically attacked enemy cities/ports in range doing only limited damage and ( if Rocket tech increases also affected other units. So range needs to be limited as IRL it was only 200-300km. Damage needs to be limited because they just didn't do much. Tech 1 No strategic effect Army/corps soft attack +1 (katyuska/nebelwerfer) Tech 2 Range 4 (Brussels - Chatham) 10% 1-2 strategic damage Tech 3 Range 5 (Brussels - London) 20% 1-2 strategic damage Airfleet air attack +1 (guided missiles) That way the spin-offs of Rocket research might make it worth a punt, even if the strategic effect is minimal.

I didn't know about the massed corps sized artillery, so I suppose that Rockets could represent that. However, it's obvious that they weren't designed with that in mind. The Rockets tech increases the range well beyond that associated with massed tactical artillery. Plus, at 300 MMPs, I suspect that a human will buy airfleets every time. Having had more of a think about it, I can't see how strategic rockets can sensibly be included in the game. Even if they were attached to cities as upgrades and auto-fired at nearby enemy cities, they couldn't be allowed to do much damage. Otherwise they could cripple southern Britain, which seems a bit much.

It's probably already been suggested, but perhaps rockets should be a city upgrade rather than a unit. After all, strategic level rockets were (AFAIK) only possessed by the Germans, making all those Russian ones a bit strange. That aside (alternate history etc.), the AI can't handle them at all. Finally, it seems a little unfair that a forward strategic unit takes up an entire hex/square.

Here's hoping SC3 will be WEGO.

In that case maybe airfleets should have a chance to damage the supply state of a fort/city? The opposite of shore bombardment, so 0 : 2(1) .

I don't know if this happens regularly, but I just had a situation where I declared war on Vichy after the US had joined. My Spaniards were taking their time closing with the defender and so weren't adjacent to the city at the end of T1. The Allied turn saw two US airfleets and a bomber operate in unsupported, which wasn't the best move they could have made.

What about Malta and direct assaults on fortification lines? Perhaps the airfleet effect on morale against prepared positions could be tied to the supply of the unit attacked. High supply, low effect & vv. That way there's a chance to hold the Siegfried line with crack troops unless the Allies reduce Frankfurt and Essen. Likewise with Malta (although I've a feeling that the ability to reinforce a Malta garrison is the determining factor in that case). EDIT: That'd also make the lack of German strategic bombers in Russia important.

I might be wrong, but I don't think they're taking Warsaw on turn 2 with that gambit. EDIT: Sorry, Just reread Jollyguy's post about Sombra, and it looks like he did it in T2. [ June 20, 2006, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

I used to think that, along with wishing that we could at least elite reinforce a 10 strength unit to it's maximum in just one go. It's probably best this way though. Otherwise you'd just end up with loads of uber units. Plus there'd be no real world logic for finding that many unattached experienced men.

Couldn't it just be a function of Advanced Aircraft (rather than a separate tech)?

Thanks Sombra, hadn't seen (or remembered) that bit. So if I'm used to using the calc to evaluate risk, I should always divide the bracketed number by 10-3.3 (depending on GLR). Effectively that confirms what I thought was the case - there's no point in bombarding a unit in a city if your only interest is efficiently killing that unit.

I've never had much luck bombarding units in fortifications/cities. So if it says 1 : 1 (1), I 95% of the time do not hurt the unit there. Am I missing something? Do I need to somehow target the unit and not the city/fort? Thanks.

hehe. I'm becoming confused about intel again. Blashy's post at the end of page one is the one that's throwing me. Per pzgnrd's post quoted below, intel only helps, it never hurts. That is, the intel bonus is separate to (a) the standard chance (5,4,3,2,1%) and ( the catchup bonus. A negative intel bonus will not reduce your chances (other than by setting your intel bonus to zero). Blashy seems to be saying that (a) both side researching at the same time affects the equation (as opposed to relative realised tech levels) and ( that a negative intel bonus does reduce your base chance. Who's right (or have I not understood something )?

Thanks guys. I wasn't garrisoning the mine in Norway and in the UK's case I suspect it was the NE Scotland port that was messing me up.

What's the effect of stationing troops in occupied countries? I think that stationing units near partisan spawning spots prevents them spawning there, like in SC1. Stationing troops in French/British/Norwegian cities doesn't seem to prevent supply disruption partisans though. Is there any reason to do so, other than to protect against invasion?

Signed up. I've never PBEM before (or even really played strategy games against a human). I take it that I shouldn't be moving my HQ's up to the front anymore . I don't know how the bid system works (i.e. how you actually implement it). I'll search the forum to see what I can see, but be prepared for things like that. I'll happily play anyone though. My email is in my profile.

As usual Terif, you're a star. Thanks. I did RTFM, but I missed the marsh=river point. One thing to add, in case someone searches for "marsh" later, is that the movement cost of marshes is 2. So there's a supply penalty to occupying a marsh vs. occupying an open square. Russia can use the Pripet to soak up German supply.

Logically, I can see why the two don't mix. However, what is it in the game formula that means that a Soviet tank can advance and score 1:2 from a plain hex at an enemy army on a plain hex, yet only 1:1 when attacking from a marsh? On a related note, how should I best use marsh hexes as the Russian defender?

Agreed. Either stay turn based or move to WEGO, but never pausable real time (looks for throwing-up-smilie-and-fails). I'm greatly in favour of WEGO, but then again I won't play Combat Mission because it doesn't have a proper campaign .

At what level would I have to be able to consistently beat the AI on to stand a chance against an average human player? I know that there are loads of variables, not least that even a stupid human player will do unexpected things and the different bidding systems, but there must be a level that you usually play at.

See if this one works. Sorry, called away mid post . [ February 18, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

I should have made it clearer in my first post that I was referring only to the Axis giving territory to Turkey and then only if it was Germany and not Italy that took Greece. Without being an expert in the field, I figured that Italy could not give away Greece, if only because of the Roman Empire and Mare Nostrum things. Likewise, I'd assume that any alliance that had America in it would not be able to give away territory. Just look at the way the US nearly helped the French colonies in their bid for independence after the war, before reality kicked in. So if the the US has joined the Allies, then all hope of giving away territory vanishes. From what JJ is saying, the only acceptable and realistic territory before the US joins is the Levant (we were quite happy to screw the Arabs over after WW1 and we'd already won the war then). I personally think that, given the timing (i.e. when Germany is rampant) and my perception of the relative importance of the two territories, that gifting the Levant to Turkey should just make it harder for the Axis to influence Turkey their way. As in, Turkey will not join the Axis without getting Greece (and the usual load of cash), but the Levant gift would not make them likely to join the Allies at that time (remember, it's probably only the UK and France atm.) That provides a negative effect to the Allies gifting territory, which is necessary from a game POV as it's territory that they might expect to lose anyway pretty quickly when France falls. On the up side, they make it harder for the Axis to sway Turkey. On the down side, if the Axis is willing to give up Greece then the effect is minimal and Turkey is bigger. Perhaps there also needs to be a hit to US war readiness? Either way, as JJ says, it'd at least need to look to an informed observer as if one side was beating the snot out of the other (whether with the benefit of hindsight that actually turns out to be the case ) before Turkey would join. Perhaps: Allies: 1. USSR is Allied. No way would Turkey join the Allies when the USSR appeared to be in bed with Germany. 2. The Levant was gifted (before US joins - not possible after). 3. Germany/Italy out of Africa. 4. Greece is Allied. Actually, I'm not sure how this would work in the real world of ~1940, but I'm thinking of projection of power. If the rivalry element was so important, maybe that should read Greece=Neutral? Axis: 1. UK/France out of Egypt, the Levant and Iraq. 2. Greece not Allied (either Neutral or Axis). 3. Either London taken or significant gains in USSR. Sevastopol should be given a high weighting. 4. Axis minor alliances (more=better). 5. Greece is gifted. No idea what the MPP costs should be, although it might be an idea to have those items above associated with costs rather than being prerequisites. That way you avoid gamey strategies where the UK has 1 Corps in Iraq cut off from supply that prevents the Axis from enlisting Turkey. Any of this sound reasonable? Or not .

Handing over Greece to Turkey would probably help too, although you probably shouldn't be able to do that if the Italians own it. That might be used to lower the initial investment cost? It'd mean that Turkey gets more MMPs, but of course they're lost from your nice, high-tech country.