New Ideas for CEaW Grand Strategy

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think it would be too much work to make a system where you can have up to 3 units as invisible at any time.

A more generic system is better to use. One way to do this is check units at the end of the turn and the unit must follow these criteria:

* The unit is not adjacent to an enemy unit
* The unit has not moved
* The unit has not fought

Then we could flag the unit as invisible. This means it's possible to build a reserve behind enemy lines. But this also means that it's much harder to bombard units in the second line because they're not visible.

In order to not make this too powerful it's possible to let units become invisible only in non clear hexes.

But if the big problem is that the enemy can spot too far into enemy terrain then we could instead lower the spotting ranges for all units.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Spotting ranges are now (with no tech bonuses): L = Land spotting. S = Sea spotting

Garrison: L2, S2
Corps: L2, S2
Mech: L3, S2
Armor: L3, S2
Fighter: L4, S6
Tac bomber: L4, S6
Strategic bomber: L4, S6
Sub: L1, S6
DD: L2, S6
BB: L2, S6
CV: L3, S7

Radar tech increases will increase the sea spotting ranges for surface naval units like this: T1 +1 (BB, CV, DD), T3 +1 (BB, DD) and T5 +1 (BB, DD)
Strategic operation tech increases will increase the land spotting ranges for air units like this: T1 +2 (F, S, T), T3 +2 (S, T) , T5 +1 (F, S, T)
Strategic operation tech increases will increase the sea spotting ranges like this: T1 +2 (F, S, T) , T3 +2 (S, T), T5 +2 (F, S, T)

[Peter Stauffenberg]

This could be changed to e. g.
Garrison: L2, S2
Corps: L2, S2
Mech: L3, S2
Armor: L3, S2
Fighter: L3, S4 (L -1, S -2)
Tac bomber: L3, S5 (L -1, S -1)
Strategic bomber: L4, S6
Sub: L1, S4 (S -2)
DD: L2, S5 ( S -1)
BB: L2, S5 (S -1)
CV: L3, S6 (S -1)

Radar tech increases will increase the sea spotting ranges for surface naval units like this: T1 +1 (BB, CV, sub), T3 +1 (CV, DD) and T5 +1 (BB, DD, sub)
Strategic operation tech increases will increase the land spotting ranges for air units like this: T1 +1 (F, S, T), T3 +2 (S, T) , T5 +1 (F, S, T) . T1 +1 instead of +2.
Strategic operation tech increases will increase the sea spotting ranges like this: T1 +1 (F, S, T) , T3 +2 (S), T5 +2 (F, S, T). T1 +1 instead of +2. T3 only S instead of S, T.

[shawkhan]

The original purpose of airplanes was simply observation and as of WWII, they were still the only means whereby any unit could see farther than one hex(50 miles) away. Capital ships(catapult aircraft), CVs, fighters and bombers are the only units where a/c are integral, hence they should be the only units having a search range beyond one hex. Four hexes should be about the maximum range for most spotting in the game, w/o tech upgrades. This, of course, is if we want to make CEAW more of a simulation. On the whole, I am quite happy with spotting in the game as it is.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Remember that spotting ranges shown includes the hex the unit is in. So a spotting range of 2 means you can see your own hex and all adjacent hexes to the unit.

Allowing subs to have sea spotting range is because the Germans sent their subs to cover an area with some distance apart. The subs communcated with OKW via radio about locating convoys. Then the OKW sent radio messages to the other subs with the coordinates of where the convoy was spotted. That allowed the different subs in the area to rally to the area where the convoy was spotted waiting foe all subs to gather before attacking the convoy. Each sub unit contains 10+ individual subs and these could cover an area. So spotting range for subs means the individual subs are spread out.

Spotting ranges for CVs indicates that their air units scouted the area around the task force with the CV. Spotting range for BB's and DD's means the individual ships are spread out in the area. A BB unit contains many support vessels like CA, CL, DD's, CVE's and smaller ships. The purpose of the BB unit is naval firepower against enemy naval task forces. A DD unit contains ships like CVE's with air support to scout for subs. The primary task of the DD unit is to escort convoys and transport and hunt for subs.

Spotting range for air units simulates air patrol scouting missions.

Land unit spotting range simulates recon missions by units of the corps. Some units even fought behind enemy lines (sabotage etc.) like the German Brandenburgers. So it's normal that you're alware of the location of enemy units adjacent to your own hex. Mech and armor units can spot 2 hexes around its hex while corps and garrison units can only spot 1 hex around its hex. I don't know why there is such a difference. Is it because armored units had armored recon units who were used to scout ahead

[Clark]

Remember that spotting ranges shown includes the hex the unit is in. So a spotting range of 2 means you can see your own hex and all adjacent hexes to the unit.

Allowing subs to have sea spotting range is because the Germans sent their subs to cover an area with some distance apart. The subs communcated with OKW via radio about locating convoys. Then the OKW sent radio messages to the other subs with the coordinates of where the convoy was spotted. That allowed the different subs in the area to rally to the area where the convoy was spotted waiting foe all subs to gather before attacking the convoy. Each sub unit contains 10+ individual subs and these could cover an area. So spotting range for subs means the individual subs are spread out.

Spotting ranges for CVs indicates that their air units scouted the area around the task force with the CV. Spotting range for BB's and DD's means the individual ships are spread out in the area. A BB unit contains many support vessels like CA, CL, DD's, CVE's and smaller ships. The purpose of the BB unit is naval firepower against enemy naval task forces. A DD unit contains ships like CVE's with air support to scout for subs. The primary task of the DD unit is to escort convoys and transport and hunt for subs.

Spotting range for air units simulates air patrol scouting missions.

Land unit spotting range simulates recon missions by units of the corps. Some units even fought behind enemy lines (sabotage etc.) like the German Brandenburgers. So it's normal that you're alware of the location of enemy units adjacent to your own hex. Mech and armor units can spot 2 hexes around its hex while corps and garrison units can only spot 1 hex around its hex. I don't know why there is such a difference. Is it because armored units had armored recon units who were used to scout ahead

Also worth making explicit what is implicit in your post, which is that we're talking about 3 weeks worth of action. It's possible that a BB could see only one hex at a given point in time, but over 3 weeks, there would be a lot of movement and thus a greater range of spotting.

[pk867]

Hi,

IMO the spotting ranges are fine, but it comes down to timing, you can not see all of the hexes at sea at once all of the time.

I would like to see a randomized search result of the sea areas in spotting range. You may be able to see the enemy, but he may not see you.

This would be needed if a Pacific version was created to simulate carrier battles.

[BuddyGrant]

Here are some suggestions for CEAW Grand Strategy:

1. Re-organize units: Combining two depleted units into 1 stronger unit. Example: Two '4' strength corps units into one '8' strength corps unit.
Several war games have this functionality, including Advanced Tactics. For CEAW-GS the units would need to start the turn beside each other, and re-organizing would count as the turn move for each unit. I would imagine there would be a large effectiveness hit after this was done. Combining two garrisons into a single corps unit might be worth looking into as well.
Complexity: This is likely a very difficult change, possibly beyond the capabilities of the GS programmers, but worthy of a suggestion I think.

2. Changes to the map tile graphics based on current weather. This would greatly add to the immersion factor in the game, as one glance at the map would show you current conditions. It would also make following the AAR reports more interesting for the community (and people on the fence about buying the game).
Complexity: Currently CEAW uses one single map image, not individual terrain tiles as some games do, so this would likely be a very complex change. That being said, what if we created a number of 'master' map images, with all possible weather combinations displayed. Could the game reload a different map image in between turns to change the map display based on the games weather changes?

3. Unit stats. I think it would be fun to see how many actions/attacks a unit has been involved in. Maybe how many steps of damage it has taken and dished out during the war. I guess medals would be too much like Panzer General, but basic unit stats are pretty common in war games, and again, this would IMO increase the immersion factor for the user.
Complexity: Obviously pretty complex, as there is very little unit info stored in the game now - just numeric unit type (1=garrison, 2= corps, 3 = mech, 4 = armor, 6 = fighter, etc.), country, and name.

4. User notification when a new lab is available.
If this is in the game now I can't see it, but it sure would be useful. As it is now it is my understanding that you have to check the tech screen every turn to see if you can purchase a new lab.
Complexity: Probably a lot less complex than the other suggestions here:).

5. Politics! Based on the scen files it appears like this was originally going to be built into the game, with numbers representing how close each country was to joining the Allied or Axis side. It would be fun if the user could attempt to influence these numbers in rising or dropping, and allow some additional minor countries to join the fray and mix things up a bit. Perhaps political options could even make current satellite countries join up sooner.
Complexity: This would be an extremely difficult change, likely beyond the capabilities of the GS programmers.

6. Options for retaining more unit quality when adding replacements.
This has been discussed frequently under 'elite units' and other descriptions on these forums, just including it here as it is an interesting thing to look at and I hope there is more discussion about the idea. Currently any CEAW-GS unit's elite status is as fleeting as a single bad dice roll turn, but at the same time there should be an effectiveness/quality hit when taking on replacements.

[rkr1958]

Hi,

IMO the spotting ranges are fine, but it comes down to timing, you can not see all of the hexes at sea at once all of the time.

I would like to see a randomized search result of the sea areas in spotting range. You may be able to see the enemy, but he may not see you.

This would be needed if a Pacific version was created to simulate carrier battles.

I was watching a Commander's at War episode (on the Military Channel) on the battle of Midway and in it it was discussed the difference in priority that the IJN and USN placed on reconnaissance and sending out scout planes. The IJN priority was on attacking and employed far fewer scout planes than the USN. The USN and Admiral Fletcher place very high importance on reconnaissance and used significantly more scout planes than the IJN. In fact, when Fletcher was forced to transfer his flag from the Yorktown, because it was badly damaged, the last air operation he ordered from that ship was to send out 9 scout planes to look for the remaining Japanese carrier (Hiryu), whose planes had inflicted the damage. An interesting fact was that damage crews aboard the Yorktown were so successful that air crews from the Hiryu on a subsequent attack mistook the Yorktown for one of the other two undamaged American carries (i.e., Enterprise or Hornet) and attacked it again. Even after that it looked like the Yorktown damage crews would be able to save the ship except for a Japanese I-boat (submarine) that popped up and mortally wounded it.

As I write this it occurs to me that this battle occurred over 5-days, which is 1/4 of a turn in CEaW - GS. Just kicking this around it seems that the level of spotting modeled in CEaW - GS is at the operation level (i.e., we know CVs and other ships are operating in this area) versus the level that I discussed above, which is at the tactical level (i.e., what are the coordinates of enemy ships so we can send out planes to attack them). It almost seems to me that the tactical level spotting is embedded in the CEaW - GS combat system itself; especially now that defending CV air wings will intercept when attacked by enemy CVs (or other air units). And damage inflicted on the attacking CV (actually a CV with escorts) could be considered as damage to its air wings, damage to the carrier itself and / or damage to it's escorts.

With that said I really don't know what point I was making or whether or not I was agreeing or disagreeing with any of the posters on this. Oh well ...

[Clark]

I agree with BuddyGrant's number 5. It would be a nice guessing game trying to balance out your opponent's political efforts while advancing your own.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Could you say yes or no to my suggestions in the message above about changing the spotting ranges? If I get enough yes votes I might update it for the next patch.

[BuddyGrant]

Could you say yes or no to my suggestions in the message above about changing the spotting ranges? If I get enough yes votes I might update it for the next patch.
....
Garrison: L2, S2
Corps: L2, S2
Mech: L3, S2
Armor: L3, S2
Fighter: L3, S4 (L -1, S -2)
Tac bomber: L3, S5 (L -1, S -1)
Strategic bomber: L4, S6
Sub: L1, S4 (S -2)
DD: L2, S5 ( S -1)
BB: L2, S5 (S -1)
CV: L3, S6 (S -1)

My $0.02 FWIW... The suggestions make some real world sense, but in terms of game balance I think the sub spotting change proposal is too extreme. The -2 change to fighter spotting range probably impacts the Allies and Axis about equally but submarines are almost exclusively an Axis unit, and your suggestion would dramatically change the effectiveness of submarines for the Axis side. The change is twice as much as the proposed changes to surface vessels, and it seems to me that a -1 spotting range change for subs should at least be play tested first before the -2 change to ensure that producing subs is still a viable strategy for an Axis player.

Radar tech increases will increase the sea spotting ranges for surface naval units like this: T1 +1 (BB, CV, sub), T3 +1 (CV, DD) and T5 +1 (BB, DD, sub)
Strategic operation tech increases will increase the land spotting ranges for air units like this: T1 +1 (F, S, T), T3 +2 (S, T) , T5 +1 (F, S, T) . T1 +1 instead of +2.
Strategic operation tech increases will increase the sea spotting ranges like this: T1 +1 (F, S, T) , T3 +2 (S), T5 +2 (F, S, T). T1 +1 instead of +2. T3 only S instead of S, T.

This seems fair.

[leridano]

This could be changed to e. g.
Garrison: L2, S2
Corps: L2, S2
Mech: L3, S2
Armor: L3, S2
Fighter: L3, S4 (L -1, S -2)
Tac bomber: L3, S5 (L -1, S -1)
Strategic bomber: L4, S6
Sub: L1, S4 (S -2)
DD: L2, S5 ( S -1)
BB: L2, S5 (S -1)
CV: L3, S6 (S -1)

Radar tech increases will increase the sea spotting ranges for surface naval units like this: T1 +1 (BB, CV, sub), T3 +1 (CV, DD) and T5 +1 (BB, DD, sub)
Strategic operation tech increases will increase the land spotting ranges for air units like this: T1 +1 (F, S, T), T3 +2 (S, T) , T5 +1 (F, S, T) . T1 +1 instead of +2.
Strategic operation tech increases will increase the sea spotting ranges like this: T1 +1 (F, S, T) , T3 +2 (S), T5 +2 (F, S, T). T1 +1 instead of +2. T3 only S instead of S, T.

Could you say yes or no to my suggestions in the message above about changing the spotting ranges? If I get enough yes votes I might update it for the next patch.

I vote YES to those changes in spotting range.

[trulster]

Personally I vote for keeping spotting ranges as they are.

[Clark]

Personally I vote for keeping spotting ranges as they are.

I agree. I vote No to any changes to the spotting ranges.

[schwerpunkt]

I vote that we leave things as they are for the time being so that we can assess the current play balance. I dont have any issues currently as either side with the current situation. As I see it, the current spotting distances favour the attacker (ie the side with air superiority) which allows helps the axis early on and the allies later on.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The responses coming in seems to indicate people are happy with the current values.

[foost]

Yes, I'm also happy with the current values. And I'm also against making units non-spottable ("invisible"). After all, we're talking about Corps-sized units.

However, I've wondered whether it would be possible to simulate the effect that air reconnaissance in particular happened over enemy territory. In effect, the strategic bombers providing the long-range recon would have to fly deeply within enemy territory to spot units there, and could be intercepted by fighters. Is there a way to simulate this in the code?

[timhicks]

I don't think that Sub spotting ranges should be changed. I can see the reasons for changing the other spotting ranges, and there is a point to it, but I don't think there's a problem with the current settings.

[schwerpunkt]

Just wondering, rather than a yes/no decision for changes in the spotting rules, would it be possible to create another option (like FOW, Oil Consumption, etc) that players could choose at game start? (ie call it "Enhanced FOW")

That would allow those who like the current rules to play as they like it, whilst those who dont can simply choose to activate it.