Colin I

Love this - these should be add ons anyhow, not strategic units in their own right.

Looking for an opponent for a single game PBEM WaW. I win around 75% of games. Desite some of the premium players going a bit quiet, I'm finding depth to WaW, last game was really fascinating (Axis came through Turkey towards Egypt).

Posting for a single WaW PBEM game. I usually lose against people of Jollyguy/Minty/Hellraiser calibre and win against others. Either side.

The experience system lets you build units above strength 10. So, a combination of resources and experience can be used to create more powerful units that handle casualties better. Think this is enough.

I also miss low cost garrison. Think they should be placed in cities or other tiles with good supply but are immobile (they are local resources) and be weak but allowed to entrench a bit extra (they know their own terrain very well). This would let Germans fortify coast of France to historical levels (lots of poor troops in good bunkers), for example. They might also represent some minor countries and even early Russian. We might need to fix engineer capabilities at same time. We don't need SS or Guards - game handles elite units already.

Kuniworth raises something which, on the whole, WaW/SC2 doesn't do too well. The game fails to simulate the astonishing resilience of the German army when they were losing. This should be possible through the experience system of the HQ and ground units. In practice, this doesn't work, once the Germans start taking casualties the experience dilutes out too fast and their forces fall apart faster than they really did. The Germans consistently did surprisingly well when massively outnumbered. Any solutions? I'm inclined to suggest experience dilutes slower (but it needs to accumulate slower for TAC bombers and artillery too).

I find resistance stiffens a touch faster than seems right. I've never got near the historical german limit despite getting Armour 3 pretty fast. Germans should get bogged down - but maybe a bit later.

I still think streamline - have AA tech - make it not very powerful per level but units can upgrade to it in the same way as AT tech. AA works when it is rear area, but in a game with Baron I'm defending London with it just fine. This is silly, London would be defended by conventional ground forces plus AA. I don't think stacking works for this game, attachment seems to complex and given we have a simple and elegant system of unit upgrades lets stick with that. The specialised units are not appropriate strategically. However, they do currently give a greater degree of choice, esp is you don't have many MPP. In the same game with Baron, I had not many MPP to spend as UK, was expecting SeaLion, so choice of corps vs AT vs AA to defend with was an interesting one (more expensive unit types and long term tech planning not an option). Also, the WaW game now may be reduced in strategic surpises (guess that is the Terif view) but it plays much more like WWII - especially on the Russian front and 1944 Normandy and North Africa. In Russia higher unit density was needed over SC2, more continuous lines which may or may not degrade game play, but both sides did try to maintain for good reason. Definately heading off topic - but I would like to see the military side streamlined and the next increase in strategic options to come from an improved diplomacy model.

Angus, Question - are just the counters changed or are there other changes in this MOD. I only want to change counters.

Hubert, Thanks for looking at this - I don't have another example. My phrasing may not match your terms and lead to some confusion. I took move to be any change in tile for a unit. I know a sea transport is not classified like this. However, logically moving 1 tile on land is a smaller task than shipping your artillery by sea. I do feel the latter should inhibit immediate bombardment too. I'll send turns if I get more onb this issue.

To add, some of the historical pop-ups are also inappropriate. Meetings of Allied High Command in Casablanca and Yalta have been announced by an Allied AI when Axis forces hold thewse locations! Bit of a gift for the Axis to have Churchill drop in for tea and a chat

I had your unit spotted - no think this is a bug.

In a game against Baron I captured a UK port and lasnded an artillery unit, then moved it and it could STILL bombard. A bug I think.....

Beutiful work. Look forwards to this. Personally, I'd like these integrated as an option into WaW as a full option.

I've long proposed we alter this. Originally I proposed to make Italy surrender faster (a trigger when significant numbers of Allied units land, and give Axis play-balance compensation in other ways). We could also calculate national morale - eg the average of unit moral plus a fudge factor plus modifiers for success. The poor leadership of France and Italy would automatically lead to low national morale. As USSR gains HQ units its morale will rise in many games. This changes surrender rules.

Not sure. Axis had good reason to stay out of Sweden (they were getting passive assistance and materials). Switzerland had value to both sides and was probably harder to take than WaW suggests. Greece and Yugoslavia may or may not have been more trouble than they were worth. As this is a game of strategy it is valid for Axis player to try and tread more softly than historically. Additionally, as Santini has pointed out, the Allied spree of invasions after US entry makes little historical sense. We can campaign for a better diplomacy system and this is what this thread is about!

Just to add, if we can avoid using break points system becomes open to less manipulation. So, if we assume there will always be some trade and interchange of resources, you could have a country donate (% bias towards Axis or Allies) multiplied by the maximum MPP of that nation multiplied by 1/3 or another fraction. The net effect is that even minor shifts in public opinion, if they happen in lots of countries, will have an MPP impact that could add up.

We could use more subtle levels of commitment in the diplomacy system depending on the degree of sympathy: Strict neutral [less than 30%]: Country is not part of the war and makes no economic or military commitment to either side. Passive support [30% or greater]: Contributes some MPP to the side it supports (like Norway now). Active sympathy: [60% or greater] In addition to MPP neutral indirectly donates troops but does not enter the war. These become the nationality of the parent major and the type and location are scripted to suit the donating country (or add to build stack). An obvious opportunity for US lend lease destroyers to the UK for a start, or US tanks to Soviets. Most minor countries just contribute a corps at most, possibly a reduced one. Full All [As now]. Additional to this you need a diplomatic model so that invading a country has widespread and more subtle effects depending on the audience (whether the country invaded is near another, leans the same way) and less dependence on simple if X then Y scripting. There is a little of this already, for example Turkish-Greek rivalry is modelled to some extent, but it needs to go much further. For example, hitting US to UK convoys with U-boats is likely to impact US public opinion, US boats are bound to be sunk in the ensuing chaos. In WWI this was a critical factor in the US entering the war. And you definately need (as Santini says) the possibility that US stays out longer if its interests are not threatened. This will open up strategies that are currently possible but do not work well enough to use against a decent player; particularly Axis using minimal force in the West to keep US out and focus on Russia, albeit with less resources. Finally, a deterrent to invading countries when all majors are in. I've slightly mixed feelings here. Even the Allies did take over countries (albeit in the guise of liberating Vichy territories, for example). In some contexts, even a UK invasion of Eire is not impossible (if it swings to Axis I think this might have happened). But there has to be an underlying model to this so actions make some sense in a historical context. Here the donation of MPP might work, you invade Sweden and the Swiss edge to the other side and quietly start donating resources.

Really nice - love the way the unit icon is larger than a counter, the detail but simplicity of design. To my eye the counters are stanting up, can you change the perspective to make them appear to lie flat? If it doesn't mess up PBEM games (and I'm told it doesn't, I guess your opponent just loads his own counter set) I'll be using these.

I'm also for WaW over SC2. The higher density of units is better, especially in Russia. Also, now Axis can garrison more widely and fight under Allied air power with AA cover. Operational movement only down rail lines improves encirclements in this theatre too. I think Barbarossa plays much better, though why not put some extra Russian units on production line and reduce Siberian transfer. Like the Tac Air, AA, Special forces and destroyers. Like more ways of knocking down fortresses. Like bomber and armour double strike - if you are superior they become very effective but you take huge losses if not - this is accurate. I'm not convinced by strategic antitank and feel artillery should be factored into units. British can get some antitank capability or other specialised units fast so they can make a useful strategy with few MPP and battle of Atlantic better - hunting subs WAS frustrating. Italians can finally do interesting stuff if the UK doesn't hammer them too hard. The larger map is useful in North Africa and Scandanavia. The weather model gets better - and unpredictable weather giving opportunities or frustrating offensives was a fact of life in WWII. Would like to see even more subtlety here, hate that sharp line down the map, maybe make boundaries more uncertain. For me Axis have more options - two bombers early on adds a host of interesting tactics. Special forces too. Upgrading minors is excellent, more costly but possible. Its a strategic option that existed and was often used - one I find useful for Commonwealth forces. Not convinced by all the historical pop ups - some can be very inappropriate (such as Yalta when Axis are winning). Would like to see improved diplomacy model and there are still some rather strange triggers to events - naval asset transfer related with Spain can still lead to gamey tactics. I would prefer something a little less related to a single even that the player has unhistorical knowledge of. Intelligence is fantastic - the random spotting seems realistic when you consider leaked documents, Ultra/Enigma etc. I can imagine it makes it harder for Terif to pull big ambushes with certaintly though - but again that is like it was. WWII wasn't simply about the perfect plan.

Agreed it could get out of hand - but some changes with motorization would be great.

I'd like to see a few new unit icons. Obviously, each time you create a new graphic its lots of work (you need desert versions, winter versions, etc) but some would be informative and add a lot: 1) After upgrade of antitank unit with mobility replace with tank destroyer icon. 2) After upgrade of infantry with mobility keep truck or half track as part of unit picture - not just during movement. 3) If Naval Warfare Level greater than Antitank Level use a naval bomber for Tac bombers (we want Swordfish!) 4) Artillery - use strategic artillery icon - seems to be field artillery right now which doesn't suit strategic game.

The question is how effective was this. I'd think in Russia it was useful and was done and would be good to add to the game. I'd also like to see faster recovery of damaged infrastructure (eg ports) with Engineer support. The Kwai Bridge, as portrayed in the movie, was built under hellish conditions. Think engineer build rate should also be penalized for bad supply and weather and if the unit is below strength. Also, leadership by HQ should enhance the rate, some Generals were good at logistics and infrastructure.

Edwin, you are making tactical assumptions for a srtrategic game. Realistically, a battleship group is a number of big ships and escorts. If it engages an enemy surface fleet with lighter ships, other factors equal, it tends to win. This may be a single clash or a series of battles. So, 4 loss to the lighter force and 1 to the attacks is an OK outcome. Probably, much of this success it longer range guns. As Liam says, it is possible for other outcomes. But, the game covers surprise encounters (this is what I would consider the ambush with Torpedoes to be) so I think that's enough. Ship repair is another issue. I think you can imagine its not just repair but reinforcement. So, if your battleship group limps home at STR 1 it has lost ships and has a damaged core of capital ships. Part of its returnm to full strength is likely to be reassignment of ships in the same way that rebuilding an army involves new bodies, not just return of wounded troops. Its just these ships are below the resolution of the game until you spend the MPP - taking the time and effort to getting them operational. Some times I think we think too hard about this game

Isn't the obvious solutions to have false alarms, fewer the higher level of Intel is? It would take some scripting to make false Intel results plausible, but there really were panics and false alarms. So you spot an allied Amphib off spain. vanguard of an invasion force or a blip, a rumour that isn't true? I guess one false Intel report to 2 real ones at base level.