Want suggestions to possible future BJR-mod changes

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Even tech surface ships level +1= max. number of amphibious landings per turn is a fairly appropriate house rule, this way we don´t keep in mind you could have reached 4 or 5 tech surface ships level with only 1 BB. That would means that you could land 5 or 6 units with such a short navy... There should be a relationship between having a large navy and amphibious capability...

Will you actually see a country with high tech in surface ships without building any surface ships at all? The number of surface ships on the map doesn't necessarily indicate the amph capability. E. g. BB's in the Med won't affect the amph capability used against western France. DD's sailing as convoy escorts won't affect invasions either.

The only time you will see that the number of surface ships could affect the number of amphs would be a German invasion of Britain. But it would happen so early in the game so there is no chance they would have tech level 3-4 at that time. Tech 2 is possible if the Germans build 2 naval labs. With the formula then the Germans would have 3 amphs. I also think the Germans would purchase a BB to increase the chances for Sealion to succeed.

The big problem with linking the amph capability to the number of surface naval units is that the Allies would then have a too large capability in amphs. It means they can start big invasions even in 1941-1942. The truth was that they could barely muster enough amphs to launch Torch late in 1942.

The best thing would be to have separate amphs you purchase, but there is a limit to how big changes we can make to CeaW.

So we need a simple rule that would ensure all countries experience the challenges they faced in the real war. Launching an invasion should not be easy and something you do on impulse.

The good thing about linking the number of amphs to the tech level in surface ships is that you then have a chance to influence how many amphs you can use. If it's a function of the game year then you can't do anything to speed-up the amph production.

It's not possible to have a separate cost for embarking units as amphs than embarking them as transports because the game will only deal with transports. But maybe it's possible to deduct e. g. 24 PP's for each transport landing in an enemy occupied hex. That means you pay for the amph when you use it as an amph. I'm not sure if it's possible to do, but would it be a solution if it's possible? Maybe it's possible to make the landing increase for each unit landed. E. g. the first unit landed will cost 10, the second 20, the third 30, the fourth 40 etc. That means you have to pay a lot of PP's for landing many units at once. This way you in a way limit the amph capability because you need to have the PP's saved up in order to pay for the amph landing. This way we don't need a specific amph limit. It's simply governed by the PP's you have available for paying for the landing.

How the cost increments is not set in stone. I just suggested one way of doing it. Is this a good alternative to the number of amphs being dependent upon the game year or tech level in surface ships?

[raffo80]

some suggestiongs about changes (if possible):

1) why not lifting the rule of max 2 air attacks towards naval targets (not subs) not in port? while it's true that no air attack completely destroyed a land unit, there were plenty of cases of ships sunk by air.

2) is it possible to have a defensive bonus when winter is "on"?

3) africa loop: is it possible to make it that units choosing to reach cairo through the safe south africa route instead of going straight through mediterranen sea spent 4-5 turns to get there? the travel time to go straight in med or circumnavigating africa shouldn't be the same (as it is, your units get faster in cairo choosing the safe route rather than going thorugh the med)

[rkr1958]

some suggestiongs about changes (if possible):

1) why not lifting the rule of max 2 air attacks towards naval targets (not subs) not in port? while it's true that no air attack completely destroyed a land unit, there were plenty of cases of ships sunk by air.

A 10-step fleet in CEaW represents 50 ships. In 1942 and 1943 two German tactical bombers will typically inflict 4 to 6 steps of loss on an Allied BB and 7 or 8 steps on an Allied DD. A number of times they're even able to sink the DD with two air strikes. This translates into 20 to 30 ships in the BB fleet sunk and 35 to 40 ships in the DD fleet sunk. Now if depleted fleets wander out they can easily be finished off by two air strikes.

By the way the two air attacks per hex seems reasonable as is easy to remember and there is only one exception (which is one air attack per airbase).

2) is it possible to have a defensive bonus when winter is "on"?

Of course the Russians do because German efficiency is reduced the first turn. Elsewhere that's something we certainly can consider if we decide to and Timothy can implement this effect into the CEaW game engine.

3) africa loop: is it possible to make it that units choosing to reach cairo through the safe south africa route instead of going straight through mediterranen sea spent 4-5 turns to get there? the travel time to go straight in med or circumnavigating africa shouldn't be the same (as it is, your units get faster in cairo choosing the safe route rather than going thorugh the med)

I personally don't have any views on this one way or the other. I'll defer to others on this.

[pk867]

Hi I would suggest a way to get a refund or dismantle units in the game.
Proposal 1 would be this- Allow the refund of a unit that was purchased and still in the queue. (has not been placed on the map) You could have a penalty of 1 to 2 PP just for having a Homer moment. I have done this myself, purchased a unit either by not thinking everything through or by a mis-click of the mouse. You could have a proportional payback for units that take time to build. (ie. all of it the turn you bought and then a percentage the longer it sits in the queue before being placed) Commanders would be return all except for penalty.

Proposal 2 would be, if the unit is on the Map have a way to eliminate the unit to put PP back into the bank. You would receive half for ground units and 1/3 for naval units.

Proposal 3 concerns garrisons I like the idea of not allowing garrisons to naval transport, but how about this idea you can transport a garrison but not amphib the garrison. I know this had to be considered, so how about some way to upgrade a garrison to a full corps? either combine two garrisons by movement or using the upgrade path spend PP to change the unit, remove the unit and place in the queue or have to sit still for 1 or 2 turns. You could do this for regular infantry upgraded to motorized infantry.
just some ideas.

Regards,

Paul

[fiskog]

So we need a simple rule that would ensure all countries experience the challenges they faced in the real war. Launching an invasion should not be easy and something you do on impulse.

The good thing about linking the number of amphs to the tech level in surface ships is that you then have a chance to influence how many amphs you can use. If it's a function of the game year then you can't do anything to speed-up the amph production.

The problem with tech levels is that it does not fit with capacity. In 1941 Germany probably had the highest tech BB afloat. However, they had next to nothing in amphib capacity. The "planning" for Sealion was a joke. They were going to tow river barges across open ocean! They would be swamped and sink in the first big wave. The RN need not fire a shot, just steam past at flank speed and let the wake sink them. Germany to do a Sealion would have had to build something.

The link below is for an LST that was launched 1n 1945. Note that over 1,000 were launched of this class alone. That requires more than tech, it needs building capacity. Only a large Navy will have a large building capacity.

Do how about this? The number of embarked ground units at sea , so port to port is "free", cannot exceed one (or maybe two) plus 1.5 (FRU) times the number of DD's a country has. This would let Germany do a Sealion with three (or maybe 4) units having built a single DD.



http://www.lst1126.com/


IMHO, the cleanest solution would to buy AMPH capacity when embarking. This would mean a third button or a question after embarking. Cost would be something like 50% of the unit's build cost.

[rkr1958]

CEaW Bug (Vanilla game & w/BJR mod). A French leader remains in the Allied build que well after the fall of France. Is this something worth fixing? Is this something that's even possible to fix at our level of being able to change CEaW? It should only be an irritant; but I'll know for sure in 11 turns. In terms of the game it's 6/27/1940 and France fell on 4/28/1940.

I just realized that the French Leader who was in the Allied production Queue after the Fall of France is no longer there. Let's see ... it's been 15 turns since the Fall of France and the leader was "knocked" out for 11 turns. I don't recall the last time seeing him in the queue. I just happen to notice him not there this turn. Therefore; this "glitch" appears to be self correcting. It appears that the French leader goes away when his recoup time is up.

[raffo80]

Another thought talking to 2 players i play with in BJR mod: why there is no restriction rule to allies in africa? in some games you see the allies having in 'late '40 and '41 6-8 infantry, 2 armors, 4 planes...i don't think that historically was that easy for UK to supply such army (at least before Torch) in north africa.

[pk867]

Hi
I have an idea, if more transportation loops can not be made can we change the movement cost in the bottom sea zone (that connects the Kuwait port with the atlantic)
to be equal to one third or one fourth so the ships can traverse the distance in one move the same as the transport loop?

Regards,

PK

[Amicofritz]

I'd love to
a) be able to decide how many replacement steps to allocate to a unit, rebuilding it over time.
b) have separate replacement steps pools for minor countries. Since Hungarian, Rumanian, Finnish, Bulgarian forces are much weaker than German forces, they don't get replacements. Avalon Hill's great "Russian Front" game got it right.
I do see the code problems here, though.