New modern rule set

[jeep]

Just shared my modified rule set. This is a modification to the official 1900-2030 set.

These rules slow down ground combat to around 3-4 turns. They also add two new units, ASW aircraft and AWACS.

Played these through a few times and it seems pretty balanced. Let me know what you think

The changes are:

Ground combat changes

Terrain modifications for infantry increased (combat type soft)

Paratroopers use 0.8 food

Inf / tank / para --------------------------------------------------

HP are 5x original to slow down ground combat

Air => ground: Tact bombers to armor attack increased by 100%.

Ground => air: inf/tank/para air attack is almost zero. Don't need this since air does little damage

Ship => ground: No change, ship bombard takes much longer (but this is also desired)

Arty / AA remain unchanged: Note, this makes them very weak to ground attack, but this is ok

Increased missle damage vrs soft/armor

Naval combat changes

Added AWACS aircraft & surfaceship tag to all ships

Added ASW aircraft

Cruisers & BBs now weaker vrs subs (to offset ASW aircraft advantage) (sub attack *0.66)

Cruisers and batteships now have increased ship attack range at class X

This models change to guided missles from cannons

Still Need:

Heli and AWACs bitmaps

Missle animations for BBs & cruisers

[jeep]

Oh yeah, it is called:

Jeep 1900-2030 v4

[hoolaman]

Great minds think alike there jeep I made a simple x5 HP ruleset out of the official 1900-2030 ruleset too, but didn't do any of the other interesting stuff you have done. Similar to the x10HP 1940 ruleset, the combat works a lot better.

I think I'll keep mine back since yours seems to have a lot more to offer, I'll definitely give it a try.

Modding new graphics would be easy I guess if you had a trick like posing a 3D model, or batch processing a new layer over existing images eg adding an AWACs dome to the existing aircraft, or a new combat animation over an existing unit. Otherwise it would be really tedious to do them all by hand.

[jeep]

Yep

I liked the 10x set you did, but felt that sea and air combat should still be fast. Sea combat already felt about right, as it always goes quickly IRL anyway. Was on the fence with air craft, but decided if they just took damage you could never really destroy them without hitting their home base (which could have heavy AA).

In this set, they will do some attrition to ground combat units each turn without much risk of getting damaged (unless AA or fighters are around). Against everything else they are similar to before.

[aka_Hawk]

Nice! Is this best suited for playing human vs human or vs AI, or equally suited?

[hoolaman]

I'd say the AI plays this one pretty well, at least as well as the original official ruleset. The only problem is that it doesn't repair units, but this is not such a big deal really. It would be pretty cool H2H because the slow ground combat allows some real tactical movement.

A couple of observations:

Artillery units in a stack die pretty easily and require a bit of micromanagement. Best to engage the target with them at max range and then send the other front line troops from the stack forward to attack directly.

I kind of like the weak arty in theory, they should act more like a smaller attached battery rather than a massive division of pure arty. It is a bit hard to make it work that way in the game atm though.

Ship vs Ship still works pretty well, ships already had enough HP to absorb a bit of damage.

I didn't get too deep into the tech tree, my turns started taking 15 seconds to process and I gave up.

[jeep]

It would be nice if there was a setting to have your arty follow behind your combat units automatically. Or maybe change it so if they are in a group they are considered "out of range" to attackers as long as they are engaged on one side only.

I am also updating the rule set to make all arty and aa a new combat type (GroundSupport), so that I can balance the terrain bonus and attacks against them better.

[jeep]

I just uploaded a WW3 scenario which uses this ruleset.

Haven't fully playtested it since the AI doesn't seem to use the nukes well. Looking forward to some feedback on it.

[jeep]

Anyone want to try a HvH PBEM game on this scenario?

[Brit]

I just uploaded a WW3 scenario which uses this ruleset.

Haven't fully playtested it since the AI doesn't seem to use the nukes well. Looking forward to some feedback on it.

Someone recently said that the WW3 scenario crashes on the second or third turn. I took a look into it, and it does crash on me. I figured out that it crashes because of some missing data in the ruleset file (caused by the addition of the "GroundSupport" combat type). It's too easy to forget that data, so I'm fixing it on the code side. It'll be fixed in the next update.

[hoolaman]

I tried to play this scenario but there was way too much going on for my tastes. Dozens of cities to think about and very congested.

EoS plays best when there is plenty of room to move between cities and no more than about 10 cities per side. (IMHO) Despite the grand strategic look, it behaves much more like a smaller scale game, like the units are battalions rather than army groups.

[jeep]

I put it together mostly to see what it would be like to have two large nations with a significant nuke stockpile duke it out.

Haven't really had a chance to play it since the AI doesn't seem to handle the nukes well.

Also, it really needs an option to force a few turns of peace before war can be declared. With H<->H, this could always just be an agreement.