Jump to content

ev

Members
  • Content Count

    487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ev

  1. 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...
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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 en
  9. 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 g
  10. 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 lang
  11. 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).
  12. 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
  13. What about a special penalty for Italian losses suffered in places other than Italy or Austria-Hungary? So losses incurred in France, Turkey, etc. have a larger NM penalty than Italian losses suffered in the Trieste front.
  14. I agree with the 5 AP +/- but not with the 3 spotting. Allow me to explain: I agree smaller units should have a lower combat strength. Smaller units should die faster... By smaller units I mean garrisons and dettachments. Subject to play testing, I would give garrisons a combat strength of 3, and, I would give a dettachments combat strength of 5. I would give the same spotting range to all infantry units, except, maybe Special Forces, which could get a bit higher spotting range. (Note I mean infantry... Not talking about tanks, artillery, etc.) Finally, I would have motorization i
  15. Glabro, I agree. I would do as you say... I just meant to say, for arguments sake, if the CP player has any nostalgic feelings about surrendering Trieste to Italy, the CP player can always attack Italy after finishing off Russia. Yes, yes, yes, it makes no strategic sense. But, it is less stupid than getting into a war with Italy early in the war, when you are already fighting Russia, Serbian, and everyone else. Besides, a little bit of retribution is always fun, as long as it is only a game. Remember, it is not V for Victory, it is V for Vendetta, like the movie. ) Don't you thin
  16. Combat strength affects readiness and morale. However, garrisons have a maximum strength of 5, as opposed to 10, for pther units. Are garrisons therefore locked into lower readiness and morale levels? Or, does the game engine adjust for the fact that garrisons are smaller units when computing readiness and morale?
  17. ...and, after CP beats Russia, AH can always turn around and declare war on Italy.
  18. I really like this idea. Once I played a board game like this... I guess it would be hard for the AI... The AI would need to plan in advance how many depots it will need, and, where. This, of course, also means deciding, way in advance, where you will be advancing, or, retreating. Still, I think it is a great idea, and, Hubert should pursue it even if he cannot get the AI right at first.
  19. The problem behind the problem lies in the model for the road and rail network. A town should be required to connect via rail or road to either a port or capital city if it is to act as a supply source. Notice my focus is on the rail and road network. It should not be necessay to surround each tile arround a city to degrade its supply. If you effectively cut off all rail and road access, its supply level should be seriously impaired. How strong should this impairment be? At least half... so a level 10 city goes down to 5; a level 8 goes down to 4; and a level 5 goes down to 2 or 3.
  20. In real life, how does the cost of a research project go? I am no expert on this matter, but my guess is that you have a large initial cost as you recruit your rsearch team, build your facilities, etc. Then you have a monthly expense as you keep paying the salaries and expenses. Now this team does not suddenly dissapear because you reach a tech level. On the contrary, the team keeps working on solving the next set of problems to reach the next tech barrier. So, what I would do is... In every turn, for each tech chit invested, I would subtract a few mpps. Maybe as much as 5% of the
  21. I think we should distinguish between the level of randomness built in to the research model, and the progress report you get in the tech window. Maybe, if people could not see the research progress report they would feel different about the predictability of the research model. Perhapps, when fog of war is active, a much more limited report should appear.
×
×
  • Create New...