ev

I like the idea of a supply unit...

I believe there is already a built in penalty. I remember reading an attack fom a prepared possition (without prior movement) is more effective than a blitz attack (attack after movement). However, I dont remember the exact penalty...

I could not find a way to create new unit types. Maybe Hubert can help us here. On the other hand, there may be ways to use the existing slots differently. Take for example partisans. The US, Germany, England... never use the partisan slot. Maybe partisans can become special forces. Also, we could collapse garrisons and dettachments into one single unit type with Max Str 5. This would free the Corps Slot for a new type of unit (e.g. Mountain Troops, Skii Troops, or, Light Infantry Corps).

You can always use the "garrison" template to get around this. Take a garrison, change its name, give it higher combat values and more action points... ...still, I remember seeing something. I will check when I get back home. A lot of people have objected to the idea of supply<5, so I probably would not touch this. What I might do is eliminate some towns all together. ...but, even that would come later down the line.

The editor looks much the same as the SC2 editor. In SC2, there was a table where you could tweak with the combat values and max strength of each unit. I dont have my computer with me, but I will get the name of the table later and post it. As for resources, I plan to leave them as they are, at least for know. But I remember seeing you could change those as well.

Combat strength in SC is a very peculiar thing. Combat strength is not the main element affecting a units lethality. A veteran unit will be more lethal and suffer reduced losses even if it has a combat strength of 10. You do not need a higher combat strength to draw upon the benefits of higher experience. The combat formulas for SC are quite peculiar. Losses are mainly the result of Combat Values, Entrenchment, Readiness, and Experience. Notice Combat Strength is not in the equation. Combat Strength tells you how many losses a unit can take before being eliminated. Also, a higher combat strength will help a unit recover morale faster, and, this will indirectly help obtain a higher readiness level. But Combat Strength does not make a unit more lethal. The combat formulas appear in page 35 of the SC2 Blitzkrieg manual. Experience will increase your opponent losses and reduce your own losses. But, of course, experience is one amongst several factors. Now, this begs the question, why should any one bother use elite reinforcements? First, it protects your units veteran level. Second, it allows your unit to recover morale faster and to reach higher morale levels. Third, it becomes that much harder to destroy your unit.

Egypt could be scripted as an allied country, with a capital. Thus allowing higher supply levels. ...and Libya could be scripted as an Axis players just the same. And the net effect is to balance each other out.

Yes. That is the idea.

I would keep Special Forces and Heavy Infantry appart. I have thought of creating a specially heavy infantry unit. This would be a lavishly equiped SS unit. It would only be faster if the player chooses to motorize it. But, without motorization, it should be no faster than regular infantry. But these SS units would not be Special Forces. Special Forces were very light. They carried little anti-tank, and mainly small arms. They were trained in infiltration and recon. They were meant to operate under conditions of little supply, behind enemy lines. There were instances of brigade level SF operations during wwii. So I guess, it would not be too much of a stretch to have detachment level Special Forces in a game.

From my readings of WWII, Germans in Russia lost depth as their line got over extended. Small units covering wide fronts were easier to break through. An army is three times the size of a corps +/-, hence it should be able to achieve a lot more depth when defending the same front. Furthermore, maybe SOE corps and armies should be replaced by detachments and corps. A dettachment would be something like a reinforced division. A tile seems to have around 40 miles. A dettachment would have around 16,000 men. That would make 400 men to a mile. From my readings of wwii that would seem enough to cover the whole front but not enough to organize a true defense in depth. But, i am no expert. Dettachments would be a bit stonger than a garrison. Relatively fast. But lacking staying power because they do not have sufficient numbers to provide a true defense in depth. Special forces would also have reduced strength, but much higher combat values. They would be faster, very good recon (higher spotting range), extremely good soft attack, but not so good against tank because they would not have heavy weapons. They should be vulnerable to a counter attack. You should have to be careful when and where you use them. You could use SF where there are no roads and terrain is rough, dessert, marsh, or woods. They should be able to move accross this type of terrain much faster than other units.

Thanks Hubert! This is a small heads up on what I am thinking... Corps in SOE and Detachments in CTA seem to last for ever. In fact, they seem to be able to survive just as many attacks as their larger brethren. They inflict less damage to the attacker, but they last just about as long. I think smaller units should die faster than larger units. ...so, my idea is to reduce the maximum strength of detachments (detachments in CTA or corps in SOE) while increasing their combat values... so that they die faster yet are still able to cause some damage to the attacker. Ultimately my goal is as follows: In SOE, on average (ex random factor), in a single turn: A defending Army should be able to stand the attack of 4 armies before they die, maybe 5, but not 6. A defending Corps should be able to stand the attack of 2 armies before they die, but not 3. (I assume (Defense Bonus + Entrenchment) = 2.) (I assume tech level 0 for both attacker and defender.) (and, I assume no experience, no artillery, equal supply for defender and attacker, etc.) Any thoughts or reactions out there?

Very good point.

Glabro, I dont think thats what he meant. I think he meant to say that the German Language might be the lingua franca today. There are people from all over the world participating in this forum. Many of us are not native English speakers. Yet, we are writting here in English. What events in recent history brought the English language to such a dominant possition? ...I am sure there are many factors, and many events that lead to our current reality. And, in all likelihood, the Allied victory in WWII was one important factor contributing to strengthen the possition of the English language in the international community. Consider, on the other hand, the prospect of an Allied defeat in WWII. Japan would have emerged as the dominant power in Asia. Germany would be the dominant power in Europe. Italy would have grabed big chunks of Africa. The US would still be the dominant power in North America... Today, German businessmen travelling to China probably conduct business in English. If the Axis had won, those very same German businesmen travelling to China might conduct their business in German or Japanese.

Thanks Hubert, I knew you would drop by sooner or later. Really appreciate it. I was thinking of doing a mod. I thought of having some units with max strength of 8 and others with max strength 5 (not garrisons). I guess these would be stuck at lower readiness as well, right? ...if so, I thought I would give them somewhat higher combat values to compensate. Any advise? What I am trying to do is to make units that fight well, but die quickly (lack depth).

We heard above that Entente players were sendin Italian troops to France while putting no preasure in the Trieste front. I have not seen post showing CP players taking all their units from the Serbian front and shippimg them elsewhere. Furthermore, AH is usually under direct attack from Russia since the start of the war, so it makes sense to shift some troops to defend AH territory from invading armies. But, who is invading Italy? An elegant penalty sistem could be developed along the following lines: Combat losses should cause a variable loss in NM. The loss in NM should be lower when the combat loss occurs within the national boundaries of the unit. They should be somewhat higher if they occur outside, yet reasonably near the national boundary. But, they should be much higher when they take place very far away. I propose combat losses inside your own country should have their effect halved when they take place inside national boundaries. So, Italian losses inside Italy would have a lower impact in their NM than Italian losses in France. But same thing would be true for Germans fighting in Italy, or Russians fighting For purposes of computing NM reductions, disputed territories like Tieste could be treated by the diputing countries as their own. So Italians would only suffer 50% NM reduction for combat losses in Trieste, and AH would also suffer 50% NM reduction for combat losses suffered in the Trieste area.