What is the most pressing change needed?

[Jeff Heidman]

I nominate two, and I am uncertain which is more important:

1. Fixing the "undo move" exploit.

2. Allowing each side to get a replay of the opponents PBEM turn.

Both of these are not really optional issues, as far as PBEM are concerned, which I think will be the biggest part of this game.

Jeff Heidman

[grimlord]

number one definitely....too easy to abuse the comp with it...takes away to much of chance and happenstance

[John DiFool]

I'm not really concerned with squashing 'gamey' loopholes as I am with certain aspects of gameplay. Most pressing in my mind is fixing strategic warfare (subs and bombers) so that they are cost-effective-which they are not, right now,

for various reasons, mainly that it costs more to repair or even replace the unit than it does the enemy to 'fix' or replace the resource bombed or 'sunk' by subs (since fixing of bombed resource hexes happens automatically with no need to pump MPPs into said task). Subs are also much too easily sunk.

John DiFool

[grimlord]

Originally posted by John DiFool:

I'm not really concerned with squashing 'gamey' loopholes as I am with certain aspects of gameplay. Most pressing in my mind is fixing strategic warfare (subs and bombers) so that they are cost-effective-which they are not, right now,

for various reasons, mainly that it costs more to repair or even replace the unit than it does the enemy to 'fix' or replace the resource bombed or 'sunk' by subs (since fixing of bombed resource hexes happens automatically with no need to pump MPPs into said task). Subs are also much too easily sunk.

John DiFool

very valid point there...still some of the loopholes can get in the way as it were....

the strategic warfare aspect is a bit soft...when i play the allies it is way more expensive to repair the planes than any effect they have against the germans...

the subs pay for themselves in that it costs a heck of a lot more to repair a crusier or cap ship than a sub..and they do economic damage as well....

[pzgndr]

Restrict partisans to their own country only.

Tweak the sub parameters some more. Reduce spotting, reduce ship-sub and sub-ship damage tables, increase dive chances. Just a little, maybe by 10%?

Add ZOC for tank units. ZOC should cut off supply, reinforcements, and operational movements. Should also add +1 or +2 action points to cost of moving out of a ZOC.

Allow German HQ units to control minor allies and Italian units.

Add retreats and advance after combat options.

Terrain modifiers. Still not sure if we get any by default, other than higher entrenchments which you have to wait for. Should get at least +1 in forests and behind rivers, +2 in fortresses and cities, etc. Either clarify or fix.

[grimlord]

i agree with all that you wrote except for the retreat option....this is a corps and army level game and the scale is too large i think for retreats at that level...

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by grimlord:

number one definitely....too easy to abuse the comp with it...takes away to much of chance and happenstance

I agree. I noticed this right away and wondered how long it would take for it to be abused in a PBEM. What makes it so bad is that you wouldn't even be able tell if someone had used it against you.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by grimlord:

i agree with all that you wrote except for the retreat option....this is a corps and army level game and the scale is too large i think for retreats at that level...

I disagree. Just look at Rommel's retreat across Africa, or the Wehrmacht's 2-year long retreat from Moscow for examples of armies retreating in the face of overwhelming attacks.

On a different note, someone earlier mentioned the problems with strategic bombing. Has anyone found rockets to be a useless as I have? They are certainly not worth the cost IMO, other than the fact that the AI becomes obsessed with bombing them. If one wanted to use them as bait for luring enemy a/c into combat, they work OK in that role.

[rleete]

Rockets are way too ineffective for the cost. Only gotten them once, and the Brit AI bought an extra bomber just to attack them. I think Germany even starts with a +1 to rockets, too.

Number one change? A toss up between cheaper/sneakier subs, and a more agressive AI.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by grimlord:

i agree with all that you wrote except for the retreat option....this is a corps and army level game and the scale is too large i think for retreats at that level...

I disagree. Just look at Rommel's retreat across Africa, or the Wehrmacht's 2-year long retreat from Moscow for examples of armies retreating in the face of overwhelming attacks.

On a different note, someone earlier mentioned the problems with strategic bombing. Has anyone found rockets to be a useless as I have? They are certainly not worth the cost IMO, other than the fact that the AI becomes obsessed with bombing them. If one wanted to use them as bait for luring enemy a/c into combat, they work OK in that role.</font>

[rleete]

With only one PBEM game going, it is fairly easy to figure out what's going on. Now, if I get 8 or more games going, like I do with CM, it may shoot to the top of the list.

For now, most of my concerns have to do with playing against the AI.

[grimlord]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by grimlord:

i agree with all that you wrote except for the retreat option....this is a corps and army level game and the scale is too large i think for retreats at that level...

I disagree. Just look at Rommel's retreat across Africa, or the Wehrmacht's 2-year long retreat from Moscow for examples of armies retreating in the face of overwhelming attacks.

On a different note, someone earlier mentioned the problems with strategic bombing. Has anyone found rockets to be a useless as I have? They are certainly not worth the cost IMO, other than the fact that the AI becomes obsessed with bombing them. If one wanted to use them as bait for luring enemy a/c into combat, they work OK in that role.</font>

[Mexicano]

The AI is too easy to lure into traps, and it keeps bombing/attacking the same targets even if it is rather pointless. So i would really like for this to be looked at.

Mexicano

[Mannheim Tanker]

Good point, Grimlord. There should be some mechanism, however, to allow a unit to retreat on its own accord when it is reduced to a certain level rather than just sitting there idly while being pounded to dust. Perhaps a "pinning" rule could come into play to give the attacker an option for preventing a unit from automatically retreating when it's getting pounded. It just seems too easy for the attacker to gang up on isolated or exposed units, when in reality a unit in that position would likely retreat on its own initiative.

Only gotten them (rockets) once, and the Brit AI bought an extra bomber just to attack them.

Hehe...they did that to me too. It was actually pretty funny to see how single (simple?) minded the AI was in its response to my useless rocket that was out of range of any targets!

[rleete]

Not only that, but it was more effective than bombing a city. It cost me more to reinforce my defending fighters and the rockets than bombing a city would have been. I guess the AI tricked me into that one.

[grimlord]

yea the ai is good but still an ai....the real test will come with pbmail...then the generals will be seperated from the colonels...

and a retreat rule wouldnt be out of the question but it would have to be looked at very carefully...

currently im playing the french and may 2 41 still holding out...sunk the entire german fleet without english loss...killed 3 pz corps and one army...on expert...the ai is a tad bit gullable

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

Terrain modifiers. Still not sure if we get any by default, other than higher entrenchments which you have to wait for. Should get at least +1 in forests and behind rivers, +2 in fortresses and cities, etc. Either clarify or fix.

Bill,

The differences in terrain are found in their maximum entrenchment values:

Fortification----------8

Capital City-----------6

City/Mountain/Forest---4

Open/Mine/Oil Field----2

River/Marsh------------0

That's it. Sorry.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks Ted, missed that one. Just to add there are also defensive bonuses against various types of attack when located on terrain. So that could be an air, soft, tank defence bonus etc. The full values will be available in the final documentation

[Stormbringer]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I am surprised nobody is as dissapointed with the lack of an opponents replay for PBEM as I am.

You are not alone. I think that without playback it will be much more difficult to learn your mistakes and find out what works. Also the interest factor drops greatly when you don't even know where you were attacked from or by who. I see this as the single issue which might prevent me from purchasing the game. The AI is fun but pbem is what must pass the test of time.

[willgamer]

THE most important change, of course, is for the status to change from Beta to Gone Gold!

Seems like the comments are getting repetitive lately and can't be evaluated within the context of the demo. So on the the real thing asap.....

[pzgndr]

Just to add there are also defensive bonuses against various types of attack when located on terrain.

Hubert, that clarifies it, thanks. It would be helpful if the terrain descriptions could define these bonuses, in addition to the final documentation.

[topgun922]

my suggestion on a suprised unit is if i am germs for example and a british unit is suprised i think that on the following turn that my unit should be able to attack and retreat . i feel this way for units that are also in place for the next combat phase moving and shooting and staying there is fine but if i am in place next turn i should be able to fire and pull back. also would be nice to see on the units abilty on bottom left of screen its los range. some units i see in the game can find you now matter what because you dont know how far the units los is.

[Mr. Clark]

As far as the RETREAT issue goes... I for one hope it is NOT added. I really do believe that the scale here is much too large for those kind of retreat rules. Keep in mind that for game mechanic controlled retreats, we are talking about panic. Retreats of the size we are dealing with here would be more of an ordered retreat... which we can do simply by moving the units away ourselves.

[Ron]

1- PBEM turn playback is sorely needed. There is something defintely missing when you open someone's file and are just presented with a report screen. Not a gripe, but I find it hard to believe that was overlooked for a game designed for PBEM.

2- Some form of PBEM security if possible. Never played any other turn-based games PBEM but I wonder how they do it?

3- Modify sub behaviour, reduce spotting, suprise, damage done to them etc.

4- Allow minor units to be influenced by the Major Power's HQ. I am not sure of the historical reality of some of the Axis minors but the Canadian Army should be allowed without question.

5- Restrict Partisans to their own country or "area of operations".

6- While open to debate, naval combat is extremely bloody. One of the more annoying things I have found though(opponents find it amusing) is watching Carriers and Battleships get ripped to shreds bombarding a port!

7- When transporting units from friendly port to friendly port on the same turn, enemy naval forces should have a 'chance' to sortie out if within range. A recent PBEM game I reinforced Sweden from Eastern Germany on the same turn, right through the besieging Brit Navy.

Just off the top of my head. After about 20 games versus the AI and now 4 ongoing PBEMs I think I like this game

Ron

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Ron:

2- Some form of PBEM security if possible. Never played any other turn-based games PBEM but I wonder how they do it?

beyond passwords, and indicating any save/load/undos in the pbem playback, IMO adding aditional security is a waste of time becuase anyone who is determined to cheat can simply start over with a clean slate by the simple expediant of resaving the file from email.