Page 5 of 12

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:09 am
by Craig64
Hi Guys

I wondered if able to have remaining troops of surrendered country try and make allies country. eg polish troops going to russia once warsaw is taken as I got blitzed and lost all troops but had moved some back which could have retreated to russia before they vanished as country surrended.

CraigM

Re: Random Thoughts & Suggestions

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:36 pm
by trulster
esde56 wrote: 2. Randomise the destination port for convoys at the time they are created on the map. The primary port would receive the highest % chance of being the target destination with the others % based upon their relative historical importance. Naturally, the Allied player would need to know which port a convoy was heading for, so perhaps a tag or code could be placed upon the convoy that only he could see.

3. Introduce a single waypoint for player controlled naval forces (including SS). As naval forces have similar movement ratings and move by the most direct path from A-B, it is very difficult to ‘lose/shake’ an attacking/perusing force. If a player could change direction (even just once) once outside his opponents spotting range, it would permit far more of the fox & hounds dynamic and should be more fun too, especially in vastness of the Atlantic.

4. Amend the sea spotting range for naval forces, based upon their general relative capabilities. Whilst appreciating that the fleets could theoretically enter most of the hexes within their sea spotting ranges within the time frame of a GT, it would further delineate the roles and abilities of the specific fleets.
On the assumption (possibly false!) that a:
CV fleet contains the usual gamut of ‘support’ ships: CA, CL, DD (& possibly BB), it should have the greatest range due to CV air recce by a distinct margin. {Perhaps 7?}
BB fleet contains the usual gamut of ‘support’ ships: CA, CL & DD, it should have a lower range. {Perhaps 5?}
DD fleet contains either purely DDs but possibly CL as flag ships, it should have a slightly lower range, as it will lack the better radar and limited aircraft recce afforded by BBs. {Perhaps 4?}
SS ‘fleet’ will represent a widely dispersed collection of subs on patrol lines, affording a moderate range. {Perhaps 5?}
Convoy would generally have minimal escorts (DE, FG, CT) to none at all and should have the lowest range by a distinct margin. {Perhaps 2?}

7. Degrade all naval abilities during Rough Seas. Any or all of the following should be considered:
Reduction in movement (including convoys); reduction in spotting ranges; reduction in combat abilities; increase in oil consumption for any fleet moving 51% or more of their movement allowance.

8. Reduce the effectiveness of units at sea in transports progressively. An additional reduction in effectiveness should be applied if they are at sea during Rough Seas. Overall, this would encourage players to perform shorter range invasions wherever possible and perhaps introduce a staging area for units to recover before transporting them again. E.g. USA units intending to invade France, should be best utilised by shipping them to the UK, recovering from their sea voyage and then attacking from the UK. Several weeks/GTs at sea prior to an invasion (or even arriving at a friendly port) would not see them at their best, even more so if the seas had been rough!

9. Link the general ASW research level to convoy survivability, to reflect that as the war progresses, additional minor ships (CT, FG, DE) would be attached to convoys in greater numbers, primarily those originating in the USA/Canada. Perhaps a +1 increase in survivability per 2 or 3 levels of ASW research achieved?

12. Allow units being transported via sea to instantly debark at a friendly port rather than waiting until the next GT. It should be easier/faster to do so at a friendly port than if unloading in a non-port hex.

15. Introduce a penalty to a unit defending in a city which is surrounded by enemy controlled hexes (&/or units) and thereby cut off from other friendly cities. This should be a progressive penalty, either by slowly reducing the supply value of the hex or (perhaps easier) the unit’s efficiency rating each GT after the 1st. If the encirclement is broken, the unit immediately regains the efficiency points lost for being isolated (or reset the supply status to its normal level). This would give the defending player an incentive to periodically launch an attack/movement to temporarily relieve the beleaguered city/unit (ala Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc) or have the unit break out before the unit becomes too weakened.

17. Permit StratB to target a friendly unit defending in an isolated city (ala #5 & 6), to offer a limited form of supply drop. However, this should not have the same effect as ground units breaking the encirclement. Perhaps, it should negate the efficiency rating which would have been lost for that GT, or perhaps regain just a little more. Naturally, this will be an expensive (in oil) way of resupplying the isolated unit.

Full stop!
Nice post, I agree with the ones above for one. IN particular, the one with random convoy destinations should be integrated, as it is now the route of the central convoys are far too easy to predict.

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:01 pm
by Clark
Craig64 wrote:Hi Guys

I wondered if able to have remaining troops of surrendered country try and make allies country. eg polish troops going to russia once warsaw is taken as I got blitzed and lost all troops but had moved some back which could have retreated to russia before they vanished as country surrended.

CraigM
That would be ahistorical indeed. Poland was also invaded from the East by the Soviets before the Poles surrendered to the Germans.

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:30 pm
by Craig64
Even if it isnt historical to have remaining troops join there allies, have them classed as resistance fighters but they need to make it to there allies to get supplies. As this game doesnt have supply drops or paratroopers, well the second may be part of a whole group.

CraigM

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:05 pm
by trulster
The interaction of the weather zones sometimes give some unlogical results. Fex, due to the fact that the adjacent sea hexes to the Northern weather zone (Nordic countries+Russia) are actually in the Temperate zone. In a recent game thus one could land units on friendly winter hexes (and not only in a port as it should be) cause the central weather zone was fair. Easy fix to this is to change all adjacent sea hexes mentioned to central weather zone, so that the northern zone "extends" one hex from land.

Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:25 am
by Peter Stauffenberg
This is not ahistorical at all. E. g. the German invasion of Norway (Weserübüng) took place April 9th 1940 when it was still winter in Norway. If you look at the pictures from the invasion you see that there was snow on the ground both in southern and northern Norway when the invasion took place.

What's important for determining sea invasion is how rough the sea was and not the weather in the hex you land the unit in. You an invade into mud or winter terrrain, but not if there is rough sea.

Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:35 am
by trulster
Well, the Norwegian operation was more like a "friendly landing" than an invasion, so that example is not really indicative even if the Norwegian spring had some snowflakes still around:)

Anyway, the point is surely that the sea hex should have the same weather as the adjacent land hex. For instance, you can have severe winter in Russia and as long as the central zone is fine fex Germany can invade Tallin or the Russians Helsinki - weird to say the least...

Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:27 pm
by rkr1958
trulster wrote:Well, the Norwegian operation was more like a "friendly landing" than an invasion, so that example is not really indicative even if the Norwegian spring had some snowflakes still around:).
It was more than just a few snow flakes. The British and French force that landed in Narvik had to keep to the roads because they didn't bring skis. Well some units did but they left the straps for the skis at home. My source for all this is the 1974 BBC series, "The World at War." The Military Channel is running it (and I also own the DVDs) and just ran the episode on the Phony war and the Norwegian Campaign.

This episode included an interview with Chamberlain's private secretary. It was interesting listening to his perspective. Basically, in April 1940 the war for France and Britain was still distance. The hope was that it would stay distance and be fought out in places like Norway and Finland. The British were planning on using Norway to provide assistance to the Finns against the Soviets. They were saved the disaster of being at war with German and the USSR at the same time when Finland surrender to Russia in 1940 and gave them pretty much everything they wanted.

And, as we know the Norwegian Campaign was a disaster for the British. They did learn a valuable lesson in that naval power alone is not sufficient for support an invasion force. You also need air power.

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:09 pm
by Craig64
Hi guys

Just wanted to know whether a group of french resistance could form once france falls. I would like to see them work like subs where they are invisible to opposition until they run into them and if they stay and fight once found they get wiped quickly. So they have to be used as a surprise. Only 1 group would do the size of your 3 soldier icon. they cant recover by payment more by not being found so they cant be used all the time otherwise they get wiped. say 2 turn or 3 turns they get full strength back to be used again.
They appear once france falls like you have partisans appear except axis cant see them. I dont know if this is possible but thought would ask. As the french resistance did play a part in the second world war.

CraigM

Iraq and Iran Axis North Africa Supply limit

Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:42 am
by foost
As I have argued in another thread, I would suggest to NOT count Axis units in Iraq IF the Axis holds Turkey or has a land connection via former USSR territory. On the other hand, Iran does not seem to be included (reported by another player). I think it should be, under the same conditions as Iraq.

The North African Supply Limit was meant to simulate the problems of shipping supplies over the Mediterranean while the RN and RAF were operating in the theatre. However, if supplies can be provided via Turkey or the Caucasus, this does not make sense. The problems of longs distance supplies are well represented by the other game mechanisms.

Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:15 pm
by Peter Stauffenberg
I've made some changes to the GS code so it's possible to set in general.txt which countries in Africa and the Middle East will be affected by Axis Med supply.

I made 3 states you can set for each country.
0: Country never affected
1: Country always affected
2: Country affected, but not if Ankara (capital of Turkey) is Axis controlled

Then I set the following values for each country:
0: Turkey
1: Free France, Vichy France, Libya and Egypt
2: Syria, Iraq and Persia

So with these changes you don't pay Med supply cost for units in Syria, Iraq or Persia if you control Turkey as the Axis. This simulates that the Axis send rail supply using the Turkish rail network to supply countries bordering Turkey.

These changes are now being tested in the GS developer group and will be added to the next GS version. I think this should take care of what was described above.

Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:10 pm
by thommo
I have an idea. What about bring major and minor countries back to war if their capitol has liberated?
Like if Paris free again they get back all free French cities and will be able to make troops again. Also about minors they should receive reinforcement in every January again.

Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:24 pm
by Clark
Another idea for future updates. I used to have a computer wargame in the early '90s that was unremarkable. But one thing that I did like about it was that units lost strength proportionally faster if they were flanked or hit from the rear. What about increasing the shock value of attacks when the defending unit is already in contact with another opposing unit on the other side from where they are getting attacked?

Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:28 pm
by massina_nz
Him, I thought that is handled quite well at the moment with the shock attack reducing the defending units effectiveness. Thus the more units that attack a unit in a turn, the greater the greater the chance of favourable results for the attacker.

Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:18 am
by Peter Stauffenberg
I agree with Massina_nz about cumulative attacks upon a hex. If you can hit a unit from several hexes then the enemy unit efficiency will often be so low when the third or fourth unit attacks so you can destroy the unit. So I think the current combat system works well.

Allowing liberated countries to regain their production capability (major powers) and getting reinforcements each year is maybe not needed. Historically it took quite some time for a liberated country to function well again. The country would have suffered substantial damage to the infrastructure while it was conquered. Liberating it would mean more battles, bombardment, scorched earth from Germans when retreating etc. It would take some time for the new government to function fully. New units would require training of recruits, building weapons, vehicles, ships etc. That would also take some time.

The only major powers that would most likely be captured and liberated is France. Free France is already implemented in the game and once can imagine that the Free French units would become the regular French units once Paris is liberated, now under control of General de Gaulle. When you liberate a country you get full production back so that should take care of rebuilding the country's infrastructure so it can contribute to the war against the Axis.

Most minor countries would be liberated in 1943-1944 so there wouldn't have been many units they could contribute with if they were allowed to get one unit back at the beginning of each year. Those units would be inferior to the US and UK units and probably function as garrisons only. They would contribute little to marching on to Berlin.

Several free minor country units are incorporated in the British units (Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians etc.). You can just name the unit as e. g. the Polish corps or something.

So I wonder what GS would gain from allowing liberated countries to operate as normal countries? With the latest changes to GS you would rarely see an Axis conquest of Washington or Ottawa so USA and Britain will almost never be liberated. Russia would probably never be liberated too if Omsk falls. Italy should NOT be allowed to be liberated because they surrendered even before Rome was captured. It's unlikely that Italian units would be able to liberate Berlin if Germany surrenders.

Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:07 am
by foost
Stauffenberg wrote:I've made some changes to the GS code so it's possible to set in general.txt which countries in Africa and the Middle East will be affected by Axis Med supply.

I made 3 states you can set for each country.
0: Country never affected
1: Country always affected
2: Country affected, but not if Ankara (capital of Turkey) is Axis controlled

Then I set the following values for each country:
0: Turkey
1: Free France, Vichy France, Libya and Egypt
2: Syria, Iraq and Persia

So with these changes you don't pay Med supply cost for units in Syria, Iraq or Persia if you control Turkey as the Axis. This simulates that the Axis send rail supply using the Turkish rail network to supply countries bordering Turkey.

These changes are now being tested in the GS developer group and will be added to the next GS version. I think this should take care of what was described above.
Excellent!

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:24 pm
by Pattonv2
I think the GS game could have "surprise" attacks and defensive opposition in the ground campaign. This would also include random intelligence gathering.

Here is my concept:

Surprise  Ground Attacks and Intelligence Gathering

CEAW does a good job with surprise attacks in the naval campaign of the game in regards to subs. Wouldn't it be great to have that in the ground campaign of the game. These are just ideas and concepts.


• Each side would have the ability to make any ground unit invisible to the other side. Just like a submarine unit with a blue dot. 

• Each of the major powers would be allowed up to 3 units at any given time or in 1941:1 unit, 1942: 2 units, 1943-45: 3 units.

Or each side Allies and Axis would each be allowed up to 3 units at any given time or in 1941:1 unit, 1942: 2 units, 1943-45: 3 units.

• These units would be placed in invisible mode similar to sentry mode for fighter aircraft.

•  Invisible units can only be invisible in forest, rough, mountain or city hexes.

• 1 armour unit at a time can be invisible. 2 mech units at a time can be invisible and the third unit has to be an infantry corps. 3 infantry corps units may be invisible at one time.

• These units become visible when an opposing ground unit tries to enter the hex the invisible units is in. An attack occurs just like a sub that was invisible.

Allied Intelligence

• Intelligence gathering during the course of the game would be random similar to partisan spawning.

• This would be linked to the UK only and or US Industry organization levels. The higher the level the better chance they will see an invisible unit or units become visible. This unit would have the familiar blue dot attached to it. 

• When the Allied player starts a turn the game would flash a message: "Ultra has deciphered Axis codes" The Allied player would then look for the unit or units with the blue dot. These units have to be outside the fog of war hexes. Hexes that would be open or able to be spotted by the Allied player if the unit was not hidden.

• If the Axis player decides to move the ground unit then the ground unit would become invisible once again. As long as it is placed in the appropriate hex and that hex is visible to the Allied player. They can be railed.

Axis Intelligence

• Intelligence gathering during the course of the game would be random similar to partisan spawning.

• This would be linked to the German Industry organization levels. The higher the level the better chance they will see an invisible unit or units become visible. This unit would have the familiar blue dot attached to it. 

• When the Axis player starts a turn the game would flash a message: "Abwehr has deciphered Allied codes" The Axis player would then look for the unit or units with the blue dot. These units have to be outside the fog of war hexes. Hexes that would be open or able to be spotted by the Allied player if the unit was not hidden.  

• If the Allied player decides to move the ground unit then the ground unit would become invisible once again. As long as it is placed in the appropriate hex and that hex is visible to the Allied player. They can be railed.

Now how much does one side see vs the other. Does the Allied player have the advantage later in the game? Not sure on this.

Historical Reference

Surprise Ground Attacks:  The Ardennes Offensive (Battle of the Bulge) 

Ex. The Axis player could rail 3 invisible forces in an area were the Allied player has just a few units. The Allied player may only see 3 Axis units but there would really be 6 total 3 would be invisible. The Allied player may not reinforce the area thus giving the Axis player the advantage. So on the Axis players turn the 3 units become visible due to the fact they attack with the 3 original visible units. Before the Axis player finishes the turn they may rail in more units into the battle.

Surprise Ground defense: The Battle of Kursk

Ex. The Allied player may show an area that has just 3 or 4 units defending when in fact they would have 3 more. The Axis player may attack and try to out flank them thinking that the area is weak but in fact has more units defending then originally thought. 

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:17 am
by JimR
This "surprise" suggestion would add a new element of fun and stealth to the game -- enhancing FoW capabilities, in effect. But given CEAW's strategic scale, would having up to three "hidden" units strain the admittedly elastic bounds of realism? Worth an experiment, I think.

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:44 pm
by leridano
JimR wrote:This "surprise" suggestion would add a new element of fun and stealth to the game -- enhancing FoW capabilities, in effect. But given CEAW's strategic scale, would having up to three "hidden" units strain the admittedly elastic bounds of realism? Worth an experiment, I think.
About the excessive CEAW units spotting range for the CEAW map scale has been discussed yet in this forum. But the surprise feature for land units sounds really good!!

    Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:49 pm
    by joerock22
    It does sound interesting. If it's a relatively easy thing to implement I think it's definitely worth an experiment. But I can't speak for the modding team, so I don't know how much work would be required.