Suggestions for a future patch

[Dan Fenton]

1. Combine Canada with the United Kingdom (UK). Canadians were equipped, trained and had the same tech as the UK. Having the Canadians as a part of the UK solves the current Canadian tech issue. If London and Manchester are Axis controlled, have the UK capital move to Canada. This was actually a contingency plan during the war and is more logical than moving the capital to Cairo. It would be more unlikely that the UK would now surrender, but the UK MPP resources would at that point be so low as to make the UK almost irrelevant.

2. With the minor country slot freed up by combining Canada with the UK, create a new country called “Commonwealth”. This would reflect Australian and New Zealand units. The “capital” could be placed on some unconquerable half square in the Mediterranean, like 116, 37. The UK currently seems very MPP poor and could use the small boost. Destroyed Commonwealth units could only be rebuilt in the Med at their “capital”. This capital could also represent an Allied ability to move forces up from middle Africa. This would also eliminate issues with the Australian and New Zealand units being now considered Egyptian. These minor units for tech purposes should be considered UK.

3. Carriers now are basically very expensive Battleships with a longer range. One reason is because Carriers really represent two units, a ship and an air wing, while the game only uses one unit. That would explain the higher purchase expense, but badly warps the repair expense. Generally damage would only be to the ship or to the air wing. Yet the repair costs represent both. I propose that repair costs for Carriers be only that of a similar Air Fleet which is less expensive.

Second, I propose an increase in the Carrier Attack of Carriers. Currently, Carriers do no more damage than a Battleship would in naval combat. The UK either through repeated very good luck or very effective Carrier firepower did great damage with Carriers against Axis ships in the war. The wartime UK one Carrier success against the Bismarck during bad weather and at Taranto sinking whole Battleships in a port could never be repeated with the current Carrier Attack and Carrier Defense ratings.

4. From a playability point of view, I request that an option for convoy routes be shown on the map. As Allied, those convoys are mine and I should know where they are. Yet when I play against an Axis AI, the AI knows exactly where they are and I must guess. Frankly, even as Axis, I would like to be able to see them for playability reasons also. I want to know where to put my subs without having to play guessing games.

5. On Diplomacy, I would like to see an historic event occur that drops down the Axis values in Spain, like the Allied values can get dropped down in Iraq. Through a German diplomatic blunder, the Spanish drop occurred in real life and could go a long ways to neutralize the powerful potential addition of Spain as an Axis minor ally.

6. I appreciate how hard it is to improve the AI. One thing that I have noticed in playing the 1940 scenario as Allied, the German parachute unit drops into Norway and gets stuck there for the rest of the game. I suspect that the issue is because of supply. The unit is adjacent to Oslo at supply 4. That supply is too low to operate out the unit or to air drop it out. The Axis AI could sure use this unit back in the game.

7. The UK gets its MPP’s from overseas possessions by convoy routes. Why shouldn’t Italy get its Libyan MPP’s by a convoy route back to Italy?

8. The UK seems way too MPP poor. Perhaps the Allied Iraqi activation level could be raised to start the Iraqi convoys immediately.

9. The US seems a little MPP poor. Yes it can be tricked out with Level 5 Production Technology and Level 5 Industrial Technology. The prepaid units that Bill suggested also helps the MPP situation. Would it be a good idea to put in a prepaid Carrier? The US did have the Ranger and the Wasp for a while.

The US was also known for its firepower both on land and at sea. Perhaps it should begin with Level 1 Infantry Weapons and Level 1 Gun Laying Radar. This would also free up some MPP’s.

It seems odd that the US which historically built more tanks than Germany, yet only has two Tank Armies with no surrendered rebuilds compared to Germany’s six Tank Armies with one surrendered rebuild.

10. There should be some ports in Egypt and maybe in other parts of the Med that would permit the Allies to fully repair their ships.

I believe that the above suggestions would help improve the play balance which people feel is currently tipped toward the Axis and improve the playability of an already great game.

[JerseyJohn]

Terrific suggestions, Dan.

2. ... With the minor country slot freed up by combining Canada with the UK, create a new country called “Commonwealth”. This would reflect Australian and New Zealand units. The “capital” could be placed on some unconquerable half square in the Mediterranean, ...

Particularly interesting. I'm tempted to think in terms of Alexandria, with the loss of Egypt, New Zealand, Australian and South African troops would no longer be committed to the European theater.

-- Except, of course, it doesn't take the Middle East into consideration, so perhaps a second Commonwealth Capital on the Persian Gulf; if the Axis takes Alexandria, then the alternate(Kuwait), New Zealand, Australia and South Africa would be out of the game.

[R.J.]

One thing I'd like to see is an amphibious landing casualty system that's not so random. Basically it's just a die roll – you can lose half an army on a remote beach with no enemy forces within 500 miles, and at the other extreme take no losses landing a corps right next to several tank armies.

It would be nice if amphibious landing casualties reflected the number of ground units in the area. (perhaps even air and naval units as someone else suggested in another thread, but I'll stick to ground units for the time being)

Assuming an abstract representation of troop concentrations in the game, it's fair to assume that a single corps in western France would mean very low troop concentrations- its battalions spread throughout the adjacent tiles, up to a distance of perhaps 2 tiles (the ZOC- zone of control). And landing in an area of lower troop concentrations should cause lower landing casualties (and vice versa).

For example: a corps landing in an undefended area should have only a slight chance of taking (no more than) 1 strength point loss. Landing 2 tiles from 1 corps, a bit higher chance of taking one SP loss and a slight chance of two SP losses. And so on to the point that landing in the ZOC of several tank armies would have a strong chance of (at least) 5 SP losses.

[Blashy]

The Spanish "blunder" you speak off is the lack of diplomatic incentives by Germany to entice Spain into the war. In these games the German players put in enough and if they do not, then Spain does not join.

Plus should diplomatic chits always remain active in a futur patch, along with another feature (can't mention it since I do not know if it will be implemented) well Spain will be far from the only target that is attractive in Diplomacy.

Not too mention people are not being imaginative, the Allies can surprise the Axis with other investments, instead of continually going for Spain as well. I've done so in a few games.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by R.J.:

One thing I'd like to see is an amphibious landing casualty system that's not so random. Basically it's just a die roll – you can lose half an army on a remote beach with no enemy forces within 500 miles, and at the other extreme take no losses landing a corps right next to several tank armies.

It would be nice if amphibious landing casualties reflected the number of ground units in the area. (perhaps even air and naval units as someone else suggested in another thread, but I'll stick to ground units for the time being)

Assuming an abstract representation of troop concentrations in the game, it's fair to assume that a single corps in western France would mean very low troop concentrations- its battalions spread throughout the adjacent tiles, up to a distance of perhaps 2 tiles (the ZOC- zone of control). And landing in an area of lower troop concentrations should cause lower landing casualties (and vice versa).

For example: a corps landing in an undefended area should have only a slight chance of taking (no more than) 1 strength point loss. Landing 2 tiles from 1 corps, a bit higher chance of taking one SP loss and a slight chance of two SP losses. And so on to the point that landing in the ZOC of several tank armies would have a strong chance of (at least) 5 SP losses.

I have suggested something similar long time ago but with no effects. You have my vote for this.

[Dan Fenton]

Blashy, actually the German diplomatic blunder that I was referring to was the historic one mentioned by JerseyJohn in his posting of 5/29/06. In it he stated, "Hitler sent Canaris to smooth the way for him and, instead, he talked Franco out of joining the Axis."

My suggestion was to have a diplomatic event occur around the time of the historic meeting of Hitler and Franco on 10/23/40 that would move Spain towards the Allies.

[Guest Mike]

Franco put a price on joining the war - fuel for the Spanish army, the French colonies in Morocco, and 900,000 tons of grain.

Spain relied upon US oil - so the oil requirements were a "must have" - and Germany was already short of oil.

so another thing you can do is have a trigger for the Vichy French and French colonies to become pro-allied if spain does join the war, since the price is them!! This was one of the specific reasons why the Germans didn't press with the negotiations.

The apparent defeat of the Italians in Nth Africa was also happening about the time of the negotiations, and the RN had the freedom of the Med, amking Spain look a little vulnerable to naval attack.

One of the reasons why Hitler didn't push Spain was the Vichy reaction to the British bombardments of the French fleet - Vichy co-operation would have been a suitable substitute for Spain, but didn't come about.

So another even might be that bombardment driving the Vichy and Nth African regimes pro-Axis.

[Honch]

You cannot combine Canada with the UK as it would negate the Canada to UK convoy route and the whole point of Germany having U-Boats in the Atlantic. (Whether you like the current sysytem or not)

[JerseyJohn]

Dan and Stalin's Organist,

Interesting talk regarding Spain and Vichy entry into Axis. Neither Petain nor Franco wanted to go that route and Hitler tried dangling incentives that neither of them went for.

With Vicy, he sometimes hinted that all of the French POWs would be immediately returned, along with vague statements about returning French territory. In late 41 or early 42 Hitler told Petain about the vast mineral resources Germany had conquered in Russia and said he would soon be returning the French mines. He never did, of course.

His demands on Franco were along the lines of wanting one of the Canary Islands for a U-boat and air base. He thought Franco would jump at the idea of having Gibraltar back as part of Spain, but he only shruffed and pushed Hitler for French African territory, which he was unwilling to give as it would shut Petain off to his other offers.

With all the talk about Vichy being nothing more than an Axis tool, it's odd that they didn't join on the German side after British actions in Syria, Mirs el Kabir and Dakar.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussion, especially as Italy is added into the picture before and after it's various military fiascos.

-- Hitler's views on Vichy and the French colonies seems to have varied with time. At first he thought an independent France was a good safeguard against both the British and the Japanese. He made a remark about being careful that the Red Empire wasn't replaced by a much less desirable Yellow Empire.