KDG

That would be a good idea to have it be a 50% chance for the AD bonus, or we could make the AD bonus .5 per tech level for those surrounding hexes as opposed the normal AD bonus of 1.

Edwin 4. Although many people complain about air power, I agree with the games restriction of AD benefits to cities and resources as one normally did not place AA guns outside of the cities. To do so would have limited the number of AA guns that could be concentrated in defending the city. If a unit wanted protection against air power it had to be within a city or under the protection of a nearby air fleet. - Remember this is WWII. I don't agree completely. We would only be talking about the hexes that surround the city. Think of them as outskirts of the main city. If an army was stationed there, they would gain most of the same benefits as the central hex when defending vs. air attacks. If they are protecting the city from attack, I would assume that they would have anti-aircraft(which we know they do since they have an air defense level) and any gains in tech for air defense should also be reflected in those units. Shaka Basically same idea. But here we have a problem. What you say is true, but is it a big enough increase to justify six (6) different steps? If I increase # units under control 1 per step, then at L5, that would be 10 units that HQ controls. 2. Increase number of units HQ can supply This is huge. I'd need 2-3 HQ's instead of 4-5, which saves me 1000 MPP's. 3. Increase distance HQ can supply Current distance is 5 (less over mountains, rivers, etc), this could go up with tech. 4. Improve the supply of HQ's. The farther away an HQ is from a city, the lower its supply goes down. This could improve with tech. HQ's also have a command number, this could be modified as well. I wouldn't do all of the above. Most likely I'd chose improving air defense, as well as number of units it can supply. Next choice would be distance an HQ can supply. [ May 14, 2003, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

Armies and Corps... thats 2-4 and 1-2, not 3-3 and 1-2. I knew that, I was trying to get you to change your mind and go with the 3-3 & 1-2 combo. I don't like the huge change from 4-2 to 2-4,while a move to 3-3 seems more in line with the corps move from 2-1 to 1-2 (only shifting by 1 from existing numbers). I hadn't thought about that, but you could use a house rule and require all units to be placed at the capital(I think unlimited is the way to go, but this could be tested) and see what actual effects this would have on the game(I'd add two corps units for Russia, or I think they would be wiped out too quickly).

My thinking on the movement was that you were only using the capital for new units, the capital was one space, thus you'd need to move a unit after placing it. My guess is that you intended the units to be able to be placed around the capitals hexes as well, yes? I also think you might be right in that this change affects Russia, thus allowing them to move on the first turn gets them closer to their objective, possibly into place after 1 or 2 turns, while Germany wouldn't have that same advantage. The deeper into Russia the war goes, the greater this helps Russia. We could also give Russia two additional Corps, which would slow down the German advance, as well as protect the Russian Armor, which would help them at the beginning of Barberossa(sp). What I meant with the tanks was what you are intending, just said differently. You want tanks to always attack with TA, which can be improved with Tank research. I just want to have SA advance for tanks with tank research. Pretty much the same thing. Which ever way programs best. By changing tank research, we develop a very nice, new offensive weapon, which can be countered by anti-tank. By adding a tech to help armies and corps., we end up with two more additional offensive weapons, but with no counter (i.e. defensive bonus additions). Now, if as you want, we change armies and corps to 3-3 & 1-2 (for att. and def.), then I understand the usage of this new tech, and wouldn't mind it.

Newly created ground/air units can only be created in your capitol. Except for Russia, which has three (3) locations. I like this idea, I'd let the units move on the first turn though(but not operate). No Amphib operations during Fall and Winter turns. Sounds good to me. Makes looking at the calender important. Air unit could be grounded during Fall, unless in a city. Sounds good. Gun Laying Radar at Tech Level 2 and Tech Level 4 can increase soft attack and defense factors by one (1). This makes this tech very powerful. Not in favor as is. I'd prefer just improveing heavy tank to include soft attack increase.

First I'd like to see some techs improved. I'd like to see anti-aircraft improved. Currently it only helps cities and resources. I'd make it also help the hexes immediately around the cities and resources as well. This would make a nice counter to jet tech. I'd like tank research to also improve the tanks soft attack. I'd like heavy bomber research to also improve the defense of bomber, and have a greater increase in strategic attack then it is currently. I'd remove sonar completely and combine it with gun laying radar research, which essentially does the same thing. New things I'd like: I'd like to see a HQ research. Ideas for this would be as follows: 1. Improve HQ defense 2. Increase number of units HQ can supply 3. Increase distance HQ can supply 4. Improve the supply of HQ's. Any combination of the above would work for me. I like a tech for partisons, allowing for greater pct. of occurance. The current problem with partisons now though is the Axis can station units in a couple places and keep partisons from happening. Axis should have to station more units then the game currently requires, or the partison tech would be a waste. Why spend 500-750 MPP's on this tech when Germany could use 4-5 units to stop the spread of partisons. Require Germany to use 8-9 units would be better(to offset the partison tech). I also like army intelligence tech, allowing knowledge of unit locations, as well as knowing opponents research levels. Lastly I'd like to see a 3 chit max per research. Currently, with 5 chits, you can gain 3 research levels in one year, and have level 5 by 1942/43. By using a 3 chit limit, research would be slowed, with a max of 15% chance per turn instead of 25% per turn. [ May 14, 2003, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

To help the AI, you could have bad random effects only hurt the human player(by toggle, of course). We also don't know how much programming this would take, if its even possible.

I also like random events, but put in a toggle to turn off and on.

Don't get me wrong, I want it fairly historical as well. This way I feel like I'm recreating the war. Most of my suggestions though are to work with the existing game engine. I'm also a believer in making minor tweaks to the system, and then seeing what we have achieved. This might be achieved for you by changing armies to 3 att. 3 def., with Corps at 1 att. 2 def., with tanks at 6 attack, planes being modified, etc. If changes can be made that satisfy the historical portion of the gamers, without dramatically changing the game mechanics, then I say go for it. We can all relearn game strategies, if required. The thing I don't want is for turns to take 50% more time. The pace, turn involvement, and amount of time to finish a war seem well developed.

I have a question for you... do you believe that the defense is stronger than the attack? If you say yes, then tell me how bumping the factors solves that? First, let me say that your knowledge of WWII is vastly greater than mine. While I want the game to be realistic, I also want it to be a good game. I'm more into the game mechanics. Now your question. Here is how I interpret what happens, and its based off entrechment levels for defenders. Since we don't have simultanous turns, the use of entrenchment helps define who is surprised and who is ready for the battle, in my opinion. I think of a unit that has just moved and then being attacked the following turn as a unit that is unprepared for the attack, thus they will garner more losses. Entrenchment 0: Defender has just moved into an area when it is surprised by an attacker, who does greater damage than the defender. Entrenchment 1: Defender moved into an area a week or two before, has set up a defense. When attacked, less damage is done (I would change this by also having the defender do a little more damage back to the attacker). Any additional attacks come from a different direction, surprising the defenders, thus doing the damage of a level 0 entrenchment. Entrenchment 2: Defender moved into an area 3-4 weeks before, has set up a substantial defense. When attacked, less damage is done (I would change this by also having the defender do a little more damage back to the attacker). Defender can also substain an additional attack with an entrechment level due to extra preparation. Currently each level of entrenchment reduces damage to the defender by approx. .9 I'd reduce this to .5, but also make the defender do additional damage of .5. I'd leave all other numbers alone (save for mildly correcting jets(less powerful) and tanks(slightly more powerful). [ May 07, 2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

Second, making ALL builds at either half strength or 5-factors would require at least two turns before you have a new full-strength unit. Bill Macon, I like the above idea. It would slow down instant builds, make it less worthwhile to pop a new unit into an important place, bring in new strategy on when to reinforce these units, etc.

We could make it possible to purchase a 1 strength Corps for 75, then allow it to be reinforced as normal. Thus you could end up at level 5 for total cost of 100, level 10 at cost of 132. Then again, instead of reinforcing corps all the time, just operate units below 5 with little to no experience to whereever you need, then buy a new, full strength unit. Keep a force of 4 or 5 lower strength units for the purpose of emergency operating movements(I've never done this, but I think I might start trying this).

The battle equation will not allow a unit to gain any experience if you changed the units like you would like. First, A unit gains .2 exp. per attack. If a army attacks (w/ 2 attack factor) vs. a corps (with 2 defense factor) the army will take 1.7 damage while gaining .2 exp. Do this attack 5 times, you end with a unit that has a strength of 1 or 2, with exp. level of 1. Reinforcing just removes all the exp. gained. Secondly, this same corps only takes .9 hits of damage from each army. So you would need to attack with 11 armies at once, or once again Jets are required(more than required, they would be the only way to win). With an editor you would be able to see this playout instead of just looking at equations and numbers. The main problem with experienced units is that they don't take any damage. A level 2 army currently takes no damage when attacking a level 0 corps. My suggestion of a 50-75% chance of taking 1 damage remedies this. Bumping up the soft defense of the corps achieves the same thing.

Thanks for the strategy guide. Very well done. These things are usually sold for $10, available here for free by the hard work of many. Thanks. Question for you Mr. Hubert Cater; You mention turns in the strategy guide, and gave the example of the current system compared to a 2 week system. Then gave a MPP comparison. The MPP comparison you gave was actually a bi-monthly system that ended up with 24 total turns, 12 for each player. If you had chosen a two week system, each side would still end up with 13 turns ( 52 / 2 wks = 26 total turns). Winter would be longer, & keeping partison pct the way it is would have resulted in a greater winter effect on supply, which is what most players seemed to have wanted based on these discussions. By the way, have you every thought of releasing a unit editor, as well as a tech editor as a possible add on for purchase ($10 maybe). Food for thought. Thanks for this great game, and this community, Ken [ May 05, 2003, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

The problem as I see it would be that France would never be taken with the units adjusted as you would like (where is that unit editor....). Secondly, units wouldn't gain exp. because with each attack they lose 2-3 strength points. After two or three attacks, they would be at unit strength 3 with a 1 exp. They would need to reinforce to survive, they would lose all exp. gain that came from their attacks. I see what your after. You want more damage done by the defender, correct? Maybe you just bump of soft defense of all units by 1, leaving all other factors alone. The other thing that could be done is have all units in combat have at least a 50-75% chance to lose 1 point of damage for all battles. This way the 2 and 3 exp. units will still have a chance to lose strength in battle.

But while we're waiting on that, why don't you ask me about the combat model "enhancements". Please, I am just dying to be able to explain why I am excitied about them. I'd like to know why you want to change armies and corps to 2 att. 4 def. & 1 att. 2 def. Every attack will see the attacker take more losses then the defender. This results in air being even more important then it is. On a seperate issue, if you want air to be less powerful, bump up air defense for all units by 1. If this makes air not powerful enough, don't bump up tanks air defense, thus air becomes tank busters(this would only be done if tanks soft attack was bumped up). Thus every unit has more purpose then what is currently in the game.

Just develope a unit with a soft defense factor of 0. HQ's have air defense of 0, why not a unit with soft defense of 0. Now to play devils advocate for what I just said. Having really cheap units would allow the coasts to be littered with them, making it next to impossible to invade with the current game system.

Winter turns 90% chance Air (fighter or bomber) unit is "grounded" (ie AP = 0, Spotting = 0) Reduce cities supply level by 50% Entrenchment stops Double effect of movement on readiness I like almost everything, but reducing supply will affect readiness and movement, so no need to try and double this effect. Technology Once achieve a level, remove research chit. Anti-Tank, remove strength point increase (retain cost increase). Heavy Tank, remove strength point increase (retain cost increase). To achieve Air Tech Level 4, you need Rocket Tech Level 4. To achieve Air Tech Level 5, you need Rocket Tech Level 5. At Air Tech Level 4, Air unit (Jet) "strike" is reset to 3. Upgrades to a Corp are half that of a Army. I'd reduce the association of Air tech to Rocket tech to 5-3, 4-2, 3-1. I like loss of chit. If programming this change is too difficult, then decrease the chance for advancements to level 3, 4, & 5 even more than as is in the current game. I'd leave strength point advancements as is. Think of strength as just making the unit more difficult to kill, not total units. Remember that the combat equations are set up in such a way that strength is the only way to keep a unit living longer. I agree that I would make corps gain tank defense at half level fo armies. Movement Transports can only "unload" in a Port (except for HQ). HQ transport, can unload next to a coast hex (ie "floats"). Can move only onto land and current hex counts as clear land hex for all other purposes. Amphibious option: Corp only, cost 3 times unit cost, range of 3, otherwise identical to current transport option. Reduce Army AP (action points) to 2, Corp AP to 3. Remove movement and attack ability from Army and Corp units. I'd make things simple and just have supply for a transport drop for each turn at sea after its first turn. Thus the U.S. would have to land in England first to get max supply for attack into France or Germany. I'd leave AP as is. Mountains and swamps would just kill armys. Combat Change the Soft Attack / Soft Defense values of the Army unit from 4/2 to 2/4. Change the Soft Attack / Soft Defense values of the Corp unit from 2/1 to 1/2. Tank Group attacking Army/Corp change from Soft Attack vs Tank Defense to Tank Attack vs Tank Defense. I wouldn't change any combat values except as follows: I would change tank tech to also include an increase in soft attack, thus achieving a 2nd breakthrough unit. I'd start soft attack at 5 instead of 4. I might also increase bombers ground attack by one so that the unit might be used more. I agree with some of your changes, and modified others. All my changes are simple programming modifications (Hubert Cater would know this best, and of course would only make the simple changes). Thanks for the topic Shaka

The problem is that a unit with 3 or higher exp. takes no damage during an attack, thus it makes it easier to get to level 4 or level 5 since no loss is taken. In world war two, would the most experienced unit, in open ground, be twice as effective as a unit with no experience fighting the same battle; as well as not take any damage? If we keep level 4 or level 5 units, there should always be a decent chance that the unit could lose at least 1 strength.

I agree, some units seem superhuman. Impossible to kill, dealing out inhuman amounts of damage. Maybe max out exp. at 3-4 instead of 5, which would lead to most units being in the 1 & 2 exp. catagory.

I am one of the big supporters of nerfing air just a bit, from increasing jets costs, increasing units air defence, improve the advantage for intercepters, etc. I've also thought that air and ships shouldn't be able to kill a unit, but this leads to a big problem. How would you take Brest? How would you amphib. invade? The axis could just line up corps along the coast, and this would make invasion impossible. If we didn't allow planes to destroy units, only knocking them down to 1, then we would neet to still allow ships the ability to destroy a unit so a coastal hex could be cleared. We have the following choices for adjusting air: Increase the area of effect of anti-air research. Increase advantage for air intercepts. Increase air defense of units. Increase jet costs. Remove destruction ability of jets. Increase cost of tech for improving jets. Reduce range of jets. It would also be possible to combine one of the above with an increase in the soft attack of tanks by 1, making them a more viable alternative for the destruction of ground units. [ May 01, 2003, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

I was posting elsewhere, and thought of this solution for air. Maybe instead of slightly nerfing jets, we just increase the AD of all units by one. Thus HQ's have a 1, Corps have a 2, etc. This still allows jets to attack and help eliminate units, but they will take back some additional damage(about .6 per attack - Thus 5 planes attacking incur 3 points additional loss = 60 MPP loss). This will reduce their experience gain. It will also be costlier to maintain an airforce as you will have to reinforce more often. This should lead to less air on the map, at a slightly lower experience. Everyones happy. If we don't want to modify air, we could increase the advantage for planes in intervention. I would think just increasing the attack, defend, or initiative values for the intervening jets would help.

Some additional HQ hints. I'm in a game where my opponent has level 5 tech in jets and longrange. After losing 3 HQ's, I realized they could be effective in some spots. Pop your HQ in a mountain. It still can command out with a range of 5, and if entrenched at level 1, only takes .5 points damage from a jet with level 2 experience. The same works at level 2 entrechment in forests and cities. This leads me to three thoughts on modifications, though. First, HQ's should have air defense of 1, the same as Corps. Second, maybe instead of slightly nerfing jets, we just increase the AD of all units by one. Thus HQ's have a 1, Corps have a 2, etc. This still allows jets to attack and help eliminate units, but they will take back some additional damage, thus reducing their experience gain. Third, how about a tech for HQ's? It could increase their supply range, or increase the number of units they govern, etc.

I wouldn't mind a delay in the purchase process of units. Allow reinforcements to be same turn, but have new units take until the following turn(or turns). Also agree w/ Shaka that tanks should be more effective in attacks vs. ground units(but only if planes were nerfed).

Bill Macon, pretty much agree with all your points. Range. I agree. Drop range by one at the beginning. Cost. Make tech increases increase the cost by 20%, instead of 10%. Or increment it. 1st tech increase gets a 10% increase, 2nd gets a 15% increase, 3rd gets a 20% increase, etc. Combat. Only allow ships and planes to knock down units to 1 strength.(although the worry would be that you could then line your coast with units and there would be no way to destroy them.) Escort/Interception. Leave as is. Units with strength 4 and under currently don't intercept, thus you can control what intercepts and what doesn't, without extra micromanaging.