New Ideas for CEaW Grand Strategy

[rkr1958]

Just one point from someone who hasn't even played the game...

No 5 Paratroops - In reality, Airborne operations in WW2 had strictly limited objectives and in many cases even eventually successful operations such as the Battle of Crete and Operation Varsity saw relatively heavy casualties for the attacking forces. In many simulations Airborne Units can take and hold entire enemy cities in a single turn, making a mockery of the historical accuracy of such sims. Airborne divisions should only be used for small scale operations such as attacking fortresses or establishing bridgeheads on the flanks or slightly behind enemy lines, not as 'H -Bombs' that can capture heavily populated cities and cripple the supply lines of entire fronts.

Their designation as 'elite' forces also causes ridiculous situations like single Airborne Divisions being able to defeat large Armoured formations whereas in real life they had little anti tank capability and only off-screen artlllery or airborne tankbusting support should allow them to hold out for long in such a situation.

Steve, Thanks. Good points. I tend to agree. What functionality would you suggest would be appropriate for CEaW at the corps level. One thing is that airborne could remove entrenchment and / or reduce the effectiveness of a unit. It could be a functionality as opposed to an actual unit.

[gerones]

One thing about free rail moves: I think it should be allowed free rail moves even when adjacent to enemy units but it would have to limit this a little. I mean that the rail moves are strategic movements and no tactical movements. When in WW2 the units were railed to the front they were railed to the locations near to the front and not to the front itself. What I mean is that we can allow rail moves from the front line if the unit that it´s gonna be railed is at 10 steps, full of health and to join a strategic offensive in another front of the war. But it shouldn´t be allowed rail movements from the front line owing to a tactical movement because we want to save a armour unit with only 2 steps of strength that is in the front line and, e.g., we are at the East Front in severe winter with only 2 hexes movement for the armour units and with a great risk to be destroyed in the next turn . It would be a little unrealistic that a halved armour unit could be saved from destroying it this way, railing it away from the front line to repair it.

[Vease101]

Just one point from someone who hasn't even played the game...

No 5 Paratroops - In reality, Airborne operations in WW2 had strictly limited objectives and in many cases even eventually successful operations such as the Battle of Crete and Operation Varsity saw relatively heavy casualties for the attacking forces. In many simulations Airborne Units can take and hold entire enemy cities in a single turn, making a mockery of the historical accuracy of such sims. Airborne divisions should only be used for small scale operations such as attacking fortresses or establishing bridgeheads on the flanks or slightly behind enemy lines, not as 'H -Bombs' that can capture heavily populated cities and cripple the supply lines of entire fronts.

Their designation as 'elite' forces also causes ridiculous situations like single Airborne Divisions being able to defeat large Armoured formations whereas in real life they had little anti tank capability and only off-screen artlllery or airborne tankbusting support should allow them to hold out for long in such a situation.

Steve, Thanks. Good points. I tend to agree. What functionality would you suggest would be appropriate for CEaW at the corps level. One thing is that airborne could remove entrenchment and / or reduce the effectiveness of a unit. It could be a functionality as opposed to an actual unit.

How about Airborne units operating as 'super partisans' dropped behind enemy lines? Whatever way the game currently handles partisan units you could simply upgrade the Effectiveness levels to make them harder to deal with. Of course the deeper into enemy territory they are dropped, the less chance they have of surviving for any length of time due to supply considerations so there is a danger that they could only have 'nuisance value', especially as they will cost more than regular infantry. Maybe they could be used to 'assasinate' leaders attached to enemy units?

The main problem is if they are not integrated into an overall attacking operation (e.g seizing bridges in advance of a planned landing a la Overlord) they are just going to be kamikaze units used to inflict as much disruption as possible before their inevitable destruction..tricky, I can see why they weren't incorporated into the original game!

[Clark]

Just one point from someone who hasn't even played the game...

No 5 Paratroops - In reality, Airborne operations in WW2 had strictly limited objectives and in many cases even eventually successful operations such as the Battle of Crete and Operation Varsity saw relatively heavy casualties for the attacking forces. In many simulations Airborne Units can take and hold entire enemy cities in a single turn, making a mockery of the historical accuracy of such sims. Airborne divisions should only be used for small scale operations such as attacking fortresses or establishing bridgeheads on the flanks or slightly behind enemy lines, not as 'H -Bombs' that can capture heavily populated cities and cripple the supply lines of entire fronts.

Their designation as 'elite' forces also causes ridiculous situations like single Airborne Divisions being able to defeat large Armoured formations whereas in real life they had little anti tank capability and only off-screen artlllery or airborne tankbusting support should allow them to hold out for long in such a situation.

Steve, Thanks. Good points. I tend to agree. What functionality would you suggest would be appropriate for CEaW at the corps level. One thing is that airborne could remove entrenchment and / or reduce the effectiveness of a unit. It could be a functionality as opposed to an actual unit.

How about Airborne units operating as 'super partisans' dropped behind enemy lines? Whatever way the game currently handles partisan units you could simply upgrade the Effectiveness levels to make them harder to deal with. Of course the deeper into enemy territory they are dropped, the less chance they have of surviving for any length of time due to supply considerations so there is a danger that they could only have 'nuisance value', especially as they will cost more than regular infantry. Maybe they could be used to 'assasinate' leaders attached to enemy units?

The main problem is if they are not integrated into an overall attacking operation (e.g seizing bridges in advance of a planned landing a la Overlord) they are just going to be kamikaze units used to inflict as much disruption as possible before their inevitable destruction..tricky, I can see why they weren't incorporated into the original game!

If airborne units were included in CEAW, they'd have to either be limited at much less than full strength (say, a few steps) or at a much lower effectiveness. Airborne units even in the largest scale used in WWII were not very large compared to a full corps represented on the CEAW map. I tend to think of airborne in CEAW like I do artillery, commando raids, etc. - it's there, but already incorporated at a level below what we'd see on the map.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The biggest problem with airborne units in CeaW is that they can be exploited unless the cost of using them is very high. E. g. the Germans can send hordes of airborne units behind the Dnepr to attack the Russians from the rear. Sealion would be much easier with airborne units because you can't protect both the coastal and inland units. Many wargames use paratrooper units as smaller units to shift combat odds, e. g. for a seaborne operation or river crossing. That means you drop the paratrooper unit on the hex you want to attack and get some combat bonus. If the hex is not captured then the para unit is destroyed.

If we implement paratrooper units then we can let the unit have a max strength of e. g. 4 and cost maybe 50 PP's. The paratrooper unit could be made so they must be located inside or adjacent to a friendly city to be able to paradrop with a drop range of half the attack range of fighters. That means 3 hexes early in the game and 5 hexes after you get strategic operations tech 1. Paras can only be dropped into empty enemy controlled hexes. This way you can use paras to grab some territory behind enemy lines to make sure the enemy can't reinforce the front line or retreat there. Since the para is so weak it will often be attacked by enemy units and destroyed. But paras can be used to grab e. g. Crete without risking sending a transport to the island through the Royal Navy blockade.

So if we introduce weak para units at high cost and short attack range then I think they might work and add some variety to the game. One good thing about the paras is that they can capture enemy hexes without spending seaborne invasion points.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I have a suggestion for having elite units in CeaW. What if we let the units keep their XP achieved after combat even when they repair? Now a level 4 XP unit will quickly drop to a less experienced unit if it becomes depleted. So now the units become elite units only temporarily.

If the XP sticks it means you have to destroy the unit to remove the elite status.

We could easily make the game is such a way so units with XP level of 3 or 4 are marked as Elite and can even have separate unit graphics so they can easily be located. The bonuses from XP are quality and survivability if I recall correctly, but we can tweak this if we want to.

E. g. land units could get +1 defense at XP level 3 and +1 attack at XP level 4.

By doing this we don't need to have separate units you can purchase to get the elite units. You get elite units by fighting with them and accumulating XP. Soviet units started as regular units and if they fought well they became guards units.

Is this a good way of having elite units? Do you want to have separate graphics for the units when they have higher XP levels (e. g. level 3 or 4).

Letting XP stick means the Axis will get some benefits earlier in the war, but also the British will benefit from committing the Royal Airforce to support France. You get XP that won't disappear even if you repair losses.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

One way we can implement amphibious capabilities is to have a chance to purchase amph capability to existing corps units located in or adjacent to a friendly port. You attach it similarly to attaching a leader to a unit. The unit graphics change from corps to amph, e. g. by adding an anchor symbol to the unit.

The amph capability could cost e. g. 30 PP's and it's spent when you make an attack. If a unit has the amph capability it means it can attack even when at sea onboard a transport. You can then first bombard the land unit you want to attack and then attack with the amph unit. If you force a retreat or kill the unit then you can advance after combat. When you land the amph capability is lost. If you attack and you fail to dislodge the enemy unit from the hex then the amph capability is also lost and you must return to a friendly port to get the amph capability back. This simulates a failed landing and the amph unit being evacuated from the beach.

By having such a system you make sure you won't have amph units attacking enemy coastal units just to attack with no intention of invading. Since you lose the amph capability after the attack it means it's not a good idea to waste it unless you really want to make a landing.

This could be a simple way of adding amph functionality without introducing new units. If we limit the amph capability to corps units only then we won't have super strong armor units making amphibious landings.

The max number of amph units you can have at the same time could be the same as your sea invasion max capacity.

What do you think about such an idea?

[Clark]

I have a suggestion for having elite units in CeaW. What if we let the units keep their XP achieved after combat even when they repair? Now a level 4 XP unit will quickly drop to a less experienced unit if it becomes depleted. So now the units become elite units only temporarily.

If the XP sticks it means you have to destroy the unit to remove the elite status.

We could easily make the game is such a way so units with XP level of 3 or 4 are marked as Elite and can even have separate unit graphics so they can easily be located. The bonuses from XP are quality and survivability if I recall correctly, but we can tweak this if we want to.

E. g. land units could get +1 defense at XP level 3 and +1 attack at XP level 4.

By doing this we don't need to have separate units you can purchase to get the elite units. You get elite units by fighting with them and accumulating XP. Soviet units started as regular units and if they fought well they became guards units.

Is this a good way of having elite units? Do you want to have separate graphics for the units when they have higher XP levels (e. g. level 3 or 4).

Letting XP stick means the Axis will get some benefits earlier in the war, but also the British will benefit from committing the Royal Airforce to support France. You get XP that won't disappear even if you repair losses.

I think that's a really good idea, perhaps with the caveat that if a unit drops below a certain level, like 4 steps, the unit would start losing XP. This would reflect the fact that a unit is improved by having experienced veterans on hand, even with some green replacements added back in, but if the unit is depleted and mostly green, it shouldn't really retain that same strength. I have no idea how hard this would be to code, though.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Another way to deal with this is to let the repair cost be a function of XP level meaning that repairing highly experienced units will be more expensive. This means that you reinforce the units with veteran units instead of fresh troops. This way you retain the XP level of the unit.

[ncali]

Another way to deal with this is to let the repair cost be a function of XP level meaning that repairing highly experienced units will be more expensive. This means that you reinforce the units with veteran units instead of fresh troops. This way you retain the XP level of the unit.

If you do go with the approach that units don't lose their experience, then I think making replacements more costly is the only fair way to do it. Either that, or the approach suggested (which is better) that a unit does lose its experience if it is reduced below a certain strength (such as 4) and accepts replacements.

That said, I am strongly opposed to the the idea of allowing units to replace losses without losing experience! The game's original approach makes a lot of sense - the Germans (as historically) do build up a cadre of elite units in the basic game due to their engagement in combat over a long period of time with light-moderate losses. I think the designers were very thoughtful in whatever formula they adopted for degrading the experience of units for accepting replacements. Units can still accept substantial replacements and stay fairly experienced. And experienced German air and land forces can be a nuisance as it is for the Allies. To allow units to continue to grow in experience while accepting replacements will lead to a super-Luftwaffe that is nearly invincible as well as many German super-units. This historically makes little sense.

I want to add that I think the current Grand Strategy mod is great and interesting, but I would caution against making changes for the sake of making changes. I know the temptation is always to "add, add, change, change" - but I would let the current mod stew for a while and let people play several games out to conclusion (while fixing actual bugs) before thinking about any significant overhauls.

[pk867]

The Paratroop leader idea was so that you could limit the number of paratroop units. The leader could be purchased at a high cost.
The leader rating would be low so as to not create a real powerful unit. So for the game they can only be attached to Garrison units.
If you lose the leader through combat you can not have a Paratroop unit until the leader returns and is assigned again.
The Para-leader could add one to attack and defense to the unit. This system could work with the current game system. The same we could add the Para symbol (wings) to denote a paratroop unit. The issue airmobile attack and movement. If attacking an occuppied hex if the attacked unit is not retreated or eliminated then the leader is lost (injured) and the unit becomes a regular Garrison.
Even if you do not use the Paratroop movement capabilities the unit could be used in situations where paratroops where used historically being able to defend areas well. If we could have the unit keep supply for one turn after they become surrounded it would simulate the behind lines survivability that paratroop units had.

[ncali]

One way we can implement amphibious capabilities is to have a chance to purchase amph capability to existing corps units located in or adjacent to a friendly port. You attach it similarly to attaching a leader to a unit. The unit graphics change from corps to amph, e. g. by adding an anchor symbol to the unit.

The amph capability could cost e. g. 30 PP's and it's spent when you make an attack. If a unit has the amph capability it means it can attack even when at sea onboard a transport. You can then first bombard the land unit you want to attack and then attack with the amph unit. If you force a retreat or kill the unit then you can advance after combat. When you land the amph capability is lost. If you attack and you fail to dislodge the enemy unit from the hex then the amph capability is also lost and you must return to a friendly port to get the amph capability back. This simulates a failed landing and the amph unit being evacuated from the beach.

By having such a system you make sure you won't have amph units attacking enemy coastal units just to attack with no intention of invading. Since you lose the amph capability after the attack it means it's not a good idea to waste it unless you really want to make a landing.

This could be a simple way of adding amph functionality without introducing new units. If we limit the amph capability to corps units only then we won't have super strong armor units making amphibious landings.

The max number of amph units you can have at the same time could be the same as your sea invasion max capacity.

What do you think about such an idea?

This idea I kind of like, actually. I think the current system is a little crazy. One thing that I would want to see is a way for the opponent to see which units are amphibious-capable units and which are not. Otherwise, you could have the worst of both world - where the opponent spends a lot of PP's to do a swarm feint invasion and you can't tell which units you actually need to target with your air and naval forces. Also, I think there should be a substantial penalty for an opposed landing (attacking an actual ground unit from the ocean). Perhaps the defender gets to fire twice or something (maybe one special attack before the attacker's "shock attack" and then their normal defense attack) before the attacker gets to attack.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

That said, I am strongly opposed to the the idea of allowing units to replace losses without losing experience!

I want to add that I think the current Grand Strategy mod is great and interesting, but I would caution against making changes for the sake of making changes. I know the temptation is always to "add, add, change, change" - but I would let the current mod stew for a while and let people play several games out to conclusion (while fixing actual bugs) before thinking about any significant overhauls.

Don't worry about changes coming up very soon. The things we discuss will take months to develop, but it''s always good to discuss such things PRIOR to actually making the code. It's not fun to spend a lot of time for something only to see that it's not working. So it's better to make sure the things you want to change will improve the game and you do that by discussing the changes. The things we discuss now on the list might be released by the Summer or Fall so we have plenty of time to use the existing GS to learn how that works. But that doesn't stop us from discussing improvements.

There are many ways to implement elite units. One way is to have a combination of XP loss and keeping some elite status. E. g. we can have 3 statuses. Regular, veteran and elite. XP level 0-1 = regular, 2-3 = veteran, 4-6 = elite.
Level 5 = new with +1 defense. Level 6 = new with +1 attack.

We could implement it so you lose XP by repairing just as now, but you won't fall below the threshold you accomplished. E. g. if you got to veteral level 3 then you can fall down to level 2, but not further. If you got to elite level 6 then you can fall to level 4, but not further.

The repair cost can be linked to unit type. Regular = 100%, Veteran = 110%, Elite = 125%.

I agree that losing steps should have some reduction in XP level, but going from XP level 4 to 0 just because you were unlucky and lost 5 -6 steps is not fun. E. g. the Germans used the veteran cadres as a base to form new units, thus having them more experienced than making rookie units like the Americans did.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I just wanted to clarify that adding amph capability to corps units will NOT increase the available number of hexes you can invade and the possibility of invading during rough seas. The amph capability will only give you a chance to ATTACK occupied enemy hexes from a transport. Once the attack is finished then the amph point is spent and the transport becomes a regular transport. If the hex is empty then it can invade if sea invasion points are available and it's not rough sea. This is just as in the existing GS version.

So amph units will only give you a chance to destroy a coastal unit or force it to retreat so the hex becomes vacated. THEN you can invade just as in the existing version. If you fail to kill or force a retreat then your amph (that has become a regular transport) can't invade.

The reason I link the max number of amphs you can have at any time to the sea invasion limit is to prevent e. g. Germany from purchasing amph capability to all the transports they send at sea. In 1940 they can max have 2 amph units. The rest will be regular transports that can onlyl land in empty hexes.

If this is too much then we can have the number of amphs you can have be half the number of sea invasion points (rounded up). This means Germany can have only 1 amph in 1940 and the Allies 3 amphs in 1944 (when they have 5 sea invasion points).

It's important that the amphs are possible to see so transports with amphs will look differently (maybe an anchor symbol instead of the regular transport or infantry icon). This way the enemy can see where the biggest threat will come from.

[rkr1958]

We have a set of changes that Borger just made and which are in beta testing for GSv1.02. These changes are not critical but were fairly straight forward to implement. Note, that the official installer release for GSv1.01 won't happen (probably) until next week and will NOT include these changes, which we need to put through their paces. Again, for 99%+ of the folks playing the expansion these changes will NOT have any impact and are NOT needed.

10. Monroe doctrine. The USA mobilizes on any axis invasion of North America. & 15. Immediately activate USA if the Axis player controls a hex in Canada.

11. Add Canada to Northern European weather zone.

13. British convoys are rerouted to Halifax if London falls. Reroute these convoys to New York if Halifax falls. That means the UK convoys will be sent to a US port instead.

14. Let UK convoys go to USA (Washington) and be added to the US production if Britain surrenders. The point is that the Commonwealth (India, Australia, South Africa etc.) would send the resources to the remaining ally (USA) if the British were knocked out of the war. It doesn't seem logical that the Axis would get control of all the Commonwealth just because the Axis would occupy Canada.

To make the whole GS future enhancements process more manageable, I propose that we discuss no more than three proposed enhancements at a time and resolve them. This resolution can either be: (1) rejected outright, (2) accepted for the next update (e.g., v1.02) or (3) accepted for a future update.

I'd propose we discuss and resolve: (4) amphibious units (or opposed landings), (5) Paratroopers and (28) Elite Units.


Below are all the discussions that I've collected so far on the three proposed items. By the way, I think (4) & (5) are critical for a Pacific expansion.

4. Amphibious units that can attack occupied beaches (i.e., opposed landings).
a. The method that was discussed a long time ago in a previous thread may work, or if an invasion against an occupied hex (Clear or Forest only). A message with a check box Asks do you want to proceed ? (you can show an appropriate cost similar to overcost of invasion capacity) It could cost 50 PP's or what we deem fitting. So it could get expensive if there was an invasion limit overcost and an occupied invasion cost. If the hex is not cleared and the landing does not take place the unit should suffer damage. Also we could have only INF could make an opposed landing.
b. One way we can implement amphibious capabilities is to have a chance to purchase amph capability to existing corps units located in or adjacent to a friendly port. You attach it similarly to attaching a leader to a unit. The unit graphics change from corps to amph, e. g. by adding an anchor symbol to the unit.
c. The amph capability could cost e. g. 30 PP's and it's spent when you make an attack. If a unit has the amph capability it means it can attack even when at sea onboard a transport. You can then first bombard the land unit you want to attack and then attack with the amph unit. If you force a retreat or kill the unit then you can advance after combat. When you land the amph capability is lost. If you attack and you fail to dislodge the enemy unit from the hex then the amph capability is also lost and you must return to a friendly port to get the amph capability back. This simulates a failed landing and the amph unit being evacuated from the beach.
d. By having such a system you make sure you won't have amph units attacking enemy coastal units just to attack with no intention of invading. Since you lose the amph capability after the attack it means it's not a good idea to waste it unless you really want to make a landing. This could be a simple way of adding amph functionality without introducing new units. If we limit the amph capability to corps units only then we won't have super strong armor units making amphibious landings. The max number of amph units you can have at the same time could be the same as your sea invasion max capacity.
e. This idea I kind of like, actually. I think the current system is a little crazy. One thing that I would want to see is a way for the opponent to see which units are amphibious-capable units and which are not. Otherwise, you could have the worst of both world - where the opponent spends a lot of PP's to do a swarm feint invasion and you can't tell which units you actually need to target with your air and naval forces. Also, I think there should be a substantial penalty for an opposed landing (attacking an actual ground unit from the ocean). Perhaps the defender gets to fire twice or something (maybe one special attack before the attacker's "shock attack" and then their normal defense attack) before the attacker gets to attack.

5. Paratroops.
a. I think this can work, but the caveat is the implementation. To limit the number per country we have special leaders for Paratroops. So when the leader is purchased (high PP's) and assigned to either a INF or Garrison the unit now has the ability to fly to a hex and land the unit. So this would be like subs in the air. Of course the range needs to be reduced. We could have fighter intercept or AA fire against the unit. The other point is if we can allow an occupied hex attack. Where the procedure would be TAC attacks, land combat and if occupied the Para attacks. If the hex is not cleared then the Leader is injured and the unit is destroyed. Or we only allow unoccupied landings. The Para unit would have +1 on the attack and defense, higher Quality, Survivability, and full supply for 1 turn after landing, medium supply the next turn, no supply. (if no source available). We could then limit the number of Paratroops by the number of Leaders 1 for Germany, 1 For Russia, 1 For Britain, and either 1 or 2 for the US. We could just have Garrisons be the only unit for Paratroops. The Paratroop leader could have a low leadership rating so as to not be used for 2 purposes. (ie replace Patton).
b. How about Airborne units operating as 'super partisans' dropped behind enemy lines? Whatever way the game currently handles partisan units you could simply upgrade the Effectiveness levels to make them harder to deal with. Of course the deeper into enemy territory they are dropped, the less chance they have of surviving for any length of time due to supply considerations so there is a danger that they could only have 'nuisance value', especially as they will cost more than regular infantry. Maybe they could be used to 'assasinate' leaders attached to enemy units?
c. The main problem is if they are not integrated into an overall attacking operation (e.g seizing bridges in advance of a planned landing a la Overlord) they are just going to be kamikaze units used to inflict as much disruption as possible before their inevitable destruction..tricky, I can see why they weren't incorporated into the original game!
d. If airborne units were included in CEAW, they'd have to either be limited at much less than full strength (say, a few steps) or at a much lower effectiveness. Airborne units even in the largest scale used in WWII were not very large compared to a full corps represented on the CEAW map. I tend to think of airborne in CEAW like I do artillery, commando raids, etc. - it's there, but already incorporated at a level below what we'd see on the map.
e. The biggest problem with airborne units in CeaW is that they can be exploited unless the cost of using them is very high. E. g. the Germans can send hordes of airborne units behind the Dnepr to attack the Russians from the rear. Sealion would be much easier with airborne units because you can't protect both the coastal and inland units. Many wargames use paratrooper units as smaller units to shift combat odds, e. g. for a seaborne operation or river crossing. That means you drop the paratrooper unit on the hex you want to attack and get some combat bonus. If the hex is not captured then the para unit is destroyed.
f. If we implement paratrooper units then we can let the unit have a max strength of e. g. 4 and cost maybe 50 PP's. The paratrooper unit could be made so they must be located inside or adjacent to a friendly city to be able to paradrop with a drop range of half the attack range of fighters. That means 3 hexes early in the game and 5 hexes after you get strategic operations tech 1. Paras can only be dropped into empty enemy controlled hexes. This way you can use paras to grab some territory behind enemy lines to make sure the enemy can't reinforce the front line or retreat there. Since the para is so weak it will often be attacked by enemy units and destroyed. But paras can be used to grab e. g. Crete without risking sending a transport to the island through the Royal Navy blockade.
g. So if we introduce weak para units at high cost and short attack range then I think they might work and add some variety to the game. One good thing about the paras is that they can capture enemy hexes without spending seaborne invasion points.
h. The Paratroop leader idea was so that you could limit the number of paratroop units. The leader could be purchased at a high cost.
The leader rating would be low so as to not create a real powerful unit. So for the game they can only be attached to Garrison units.
If you lose the leader through combat you can not have a Paratroop unit until the leader returns and is assigned again.
The Para-leader could add one to attack and defense to the unit. This system could work with the current game system. The same we could add the Para symbol (wings) to denote a paratroop unit. The issue airmobile attack and movement. If attacking an occuppied hex if the attacked unit is not retreated or eliminated then the leader is lost (injured) and the unit becomes a regular Garrison.
Even if you do not use the Paratroop movement capabilities the unit could be used in situations where paratroops where used historically being able to defend areas well. If we could have the unit keep supply for one turn after they become surrounded it would simulate the behind lines survivability that paratroop units had.

28. Elite Units.
a. What if we let the units keep their XP achieved after combat even when they repair? Now a level 4 XP unit will quickly drop to a less experienced unit if it becomes depleted. So now the units become elite units only temporarily.
b. If the XP sticks it means you have to destroy the unit to remove the elite status.
c. We could easily make the game is such a way so units with XP level of 3 or 4 are marked as Elite and can even have separate unit graphics so they can easily be located. The bonuses from XP are quality and survivability if I recall correctly, but we can tweak this if we want to. E. g. land units could get +1 defense at XP level 3 and +1 attack at XP level 4. By doing this we don't need to have separate units you can purchase to get the elite units. You get elite units by fighting with them and accumulating XP. Soviet units started as regular units and if they fought well they became guards units. Is this a good way of having elite units? Do you want to have separate graphics for the units when they have higher XP levels (e. g. level 3 or 4). Letting XP stick means the Axis will get some benefits earlier in the war, but also the British will benefit from committing the Royal Airforce to support France. You get XP that won't disappear even if you repair losses.
d. I think that's a really good idea, perhaps with the caveat that if a unit drops below a certain level, like 4 steps, the unit would start losing XP. This would reflect the fact that a unit is improved by having experienced veterans on hand, even with some green replacements added back in, but if the unit is depleted and mostly green, it shouldn't really retain that same strength. I have no idea how hard this would be to code, though.
e. Another way to deal with this is to let the repair cost be a function of XP level meaning that repairing highly experienced units will be more expensive. This means that you reinforce the units with veteran units instead of fresh troops. This way you retain the XP level of the unit.
f. If you do go with the approach that units don't lose their experience, then I think making replacements more costly is the only fair way to do it. Either that, or the approach suggested (which is better) that a unit does lose its experience if it is reduced below a certain strength (such as 4) and accepts replacements.
g. That said, I am strongly opposed to the the idea of allowing units to replace losses without losing experience! The game's original approach makes a lot of sense - the Germans (as historically) do build up a cadre of elite units in the basic game due to their engagement in combat over a long period of time with light-moderate losses. I think the designers were very thoughtful in whatever formula they adopted for degrading the experience of units for accepting replacements. Units can still accept substantial replacements and stay fairly experienced. And experienced German air and land forces can be a nuisance as it is for the Allies. To allow units to continue to grow in experience while accepting replacements will lead to a super-Luftwaffe that is nearly invincible as well as many German super-units. This historically makes little sense.

[rkr1958]

All, we you discuss a given item I propose that you only quote the header and any necessary parts for you discussion in order to keep the posts more streamlined.

5. Paratroops.

Allied paratrooper formations in WW-II were division size (82nd, 101st and British AB division) or smaller. The German paratroopers that attacked the Belgium forts were Battalion size (I believe). Paratroopers were used to secure bridges or disrupt enemy reinforcements (e.g., D-day) except for Market-Garden (which was a disaster). Even in Market-Garden their objectives were to secure a series of bridges. I don't believe paratroopers should be represented as an individual unit. I believe that we should represent the impact of paratroopers by reducing the cross river effects a ground attacks, removing entrenchment of defenders in forts or towns, reducing the effectiveness of an enemy unit and / or reinforcing and or increasing the effectiveness of a defending ground (e.g., Bastogne). For example, In this last one we could allow a paratrooper unit to add 3-steps to an existing infantry corps (up to a maximum of 13-steps) and/or increase the effectiveness of the unit by 20 to 30%. Once the paratrooper function is used it is used up and must be repurchased. The cost could be 35 PPs or more. Also, their capabilities could be a function of technology level. Details of their purchase, deployment and range would have to be worked out.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I just wanted to clarify that the convoys will go to New York and not Washington if they'rererouted to USA. The reason is that if the convoy spaws adjacent to the Washington port then it won't move the port to be collected. It remains there forever. So I had to use a different port to make sure all convoys can move. But it won't matter if the US convoys go to Washington or New York.

One thing I noticed during testing was that the northern convoy has problems getting past Canada to USA. The Nova Scotia peninsula seems to block the convoys. They want to get straight to New York and can't find waypoints around Nova Scotia. But usually the northern convoy will go to Russia so it's not a problem.

[rkr1958]

b. One way we can implement amphibious capabilities is to have a chance to purchase amph capability to existing corps units located in or adjacent to a friendly port. You attach it similarly to attaching a leader to a unit. The unit graphics change from corps to amph, e. g. by adding an anchor symbol to the unit.
c. The amph capability could cost e. g. 30 PP's and it's spent when you make an attack. If a unit has the amph capability it means it can attack even when at sea onboard a transport. You can then first bombard the land unit you want to attack and then attack with the amph unit. If you force a retreat or kill the unit then you can advance after combat. When you land the amph capability is lost. If you attack and you fail to dislodge the enemy unit from the hex then the amph capability is also lost and you must return to a friendly port to get the amph capability back. This simulates a failed landing and the amph unit being evacuated from the beach.

I like the idea too. I do think we need to consider the case of what to do if we have two amphibious units attacking the same hex and the second one forces a retreat. In this case the first one would still be at sea; however, the invasion was successful. An interesting thought is to allow the first unit still at sea to transfer steps to the second unit that landed. The second unit would have to be of the same type and nationality and could only be reinforced up to a maximum strength of 10-steps. This first unit could continue to add steps to the second unit as long as either unit hasn't moved. Of course, this might be a bit too complicated but I thought I'd just throw it out for consideration.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The Germans used paratroopers to occupy Crete (Operation Merkur) and they had plans to use paratroopers to take Malta (Operation Hercules). Paratroopers were used to take Stavanger in Norway. So paras were used to secure some areas that weren't accessible by land.

One important reason to use paratroopers is not just to secure bridges etc., but to prevent enemy forces from attacking units landing at a beachhead. E. g. in Overlord the Allies used paras to make sure no Axis units could attack the units at Omaha and Utah in the first critical days after the landings. Paras often got the hard job of absorbing enemy counter attacks until the other forces arrive to relieve them.

The paras landing near Arnhem were supposed to be relieved by the main force attacking from Belgium, but were destroyed (or rather evacuated) before they main fore arrived. That's why Market Garden failed. The paras actually managed to hold the key bridge across the Rhine for awhile. They withstood heavy attacks from the SS armor unit station near Arnhem, but eventually they had to evacuate.

What we need to discuss is if the para operations belong to mainly operational wargames or if they can improve strategic wargames like CeaW.

[rkr1958]

28. Elite Units.

I propose that if we implement this that reinforcements to elite units cost at the build price or more. For example, repairs to existing units cost 60% of the build price. In the case of a fighter unit that's repaired 4-steps the repair cost is 4 x 10 PPs / step x 60% or 24 PPs. I propose that if you want to maintain the same experience level that the cost should be at least 40 PPs. This, for me, raises two questions. What about quality and survivability. Would they be reduced based on the current level and formula used?

Also, while I proposed that we only discuss a maximum of three items at once I did want to make a point of railing units that are adjacent to enemy units (#27). I propose we reject this for the reason that someone stated that this could be used to save a badly depleted unit. For example, a 10-step armor corps on the Russian front is reduced to 1 or 2-steps. This unit could be railed away to safety. As it is now it has to be withdrawn and has to survive enemy air attacks to save it. I feel being able to rail units adjacent to enemy units allows for this big exploit and; therefore, I propose rejection of this suggestion.