New Ideas for CEaW Grand Strategy

[OberGeneral]

trulster wrote:

I know, but that wont stop the Axis from moving and attacking three times as much with their superior forces in the first years of the war = significant change of balance.

Remember, this is a turn based game. Every turn the Axis get the Allies get also.

[gchristie]

Tongue firmly planted in cheek, add Slovenia so the USA can attack them, since we did not do so nearly enough at the net today

[gerones]

I would like to see the number of days per turn changed. Whyw was the 20 day turn concept implemented in the first place?
I mod the game so that the days per turn is 7 days(one week)! This in my mind is much more historical in that it allows you
to defeat Poland in three weeks (historical) as opposed to mid October. Lets you take Denmark and Norway in April (historical)
declare war on Low Countries and France on exactly May 10 (again historical). Get my point yet?

Of course I tweak the production times, production costs and winter duration accordingly (Three times).

This have been discussed before in the forums. We have to keep in mind that in CEAW what matters is playability over other considerations. A game with 7 days per turn will be long, really long. And, believe me, when you gain some experience as a CEAW player you will see that defeating Poland in the second turn (21 september 1939) is something normal. And doing this, you will see that the current 20 days per turn system is historical.

Anyway, you can modify the current 20 days per turn in the general.txt file.

[trulster]

trulster wrote:

I know, but that wont stop the Axis from moving and attacking three times as much with their superior forces in the first years of the war = significant change of balance.

Remember, this is a turn based game. Every turn the Axis get the Allies get also.

Well I can only say that under this system I will happily play the Axis against your Allies - ultimate victory, any time!

Early on Allies are largely defending, and when Axis get three times as much time to attack, well...

[ncali]

Yes, you'd have to change a lot of things to rebalance the game at 7-day turns. These include combat (less lethal), reinforcements (reduce the amount that can be given), movement and ZOC (probably), and oil consumption / production. It would really be a different game and I don't think it would work well with the current map scale.

[patton]

Here's an idea that I think would make sense. As it is, if you cut off a city or fortress from its capitol, supply for the unit inside and those in all connected hexes drops to 3, which seems reasonable. But I don't think it should stay at 3 forever. It should slowly decline to simulate the effect of a siege. Very slowly, to be sure, but there should be some effect. Also, upgrades and reinforcements should be impossible. And the unit should get no benefit from a leader, even if one is within 8 hexes--UNLESS the leader is inside the pocket with the surrounded city or fortress.

[OberGeneral]

leridano wrote:

This have been discussed before in the forums. We have to keep in mind that in CEAW what matters is playability over other considerations. A game with 7 days per turn will be long, really long. And, believe me, when you gain some experience as a CEAW player you will see that defeating Poland in the second turn (21 september 1939) is something normal. And doing this, you will see that the current 20 days per turn system is historical.

Anyway, you can modify the current 20 days per turn in the general.txt file.

I have been playing CEAW for years. I have never been able to take Warsaw in more than three turns(60 days in currnet turn setup)!
I don't know what version you are playing but I am currently playing v1.12 and GS v1.05.

As I mentioned in my first and second posts I have modified general.txt and unit.txt. I have tripled production time and cost to account for the almost triple (3x7= 21 not 20) number of days for three turns as opposed to one. I have not modified movement because I think the current move distance seems to be tied to WW1 movement instead of WW2 movement! Remember the German armour went from the Belgian border to the Canal du Nord in 7 days (while advancing through the Ardennes and crossing the Meuse
and against resistance!!! Did it really take 60 days for a WW2 battleship to cross the Atlantic? I think not.

If you want to make this game as historically accurate as possible then this change must be made![/quote]

[patton]

Hmmm, I am not such a great player but I can easily take Warsaw on turn 2 playing GS 1.05.

I agree with you about the time scale with respect to naval crossings, it's out of whack. As for game playability, 20 days seems to work well.

[gchristie]

Reading John Keegan's "Second World War" and I found that Petain granted Germany military access to Vichy France in November 1942 (maybe 1943, don't have it in front of me). Would the game engine allow Germany access to the French portion of Vichy after the appropriate date without Vichy allying with Germany, and if so what do people think of this little idea?

I've wondered about the rationale for the current need for Germany to declare war on Vichy simply to defend against a possible Allied landing in the French Riviera?

Regards

[Plaid]

Reading John Keegan's "Second World War" and I found that Petain granted Germany military access to Vichy France in November 1942 (maybe 1943, don't have it in front of me). Would the game engine allow Germany access to the French portion of Vichy after the appropriate date without Vichy allying with Germany, and if so what do people think of this little idea?

I've wondered about the rationale for the current need for Germany to declare war on Vichy simply to defend against a possible Allied landing in the French Riviera?

Regards

I can guess, that this military access was caused by operation Torch, happened exactly same time (Americans invaded french colonies in Africa, and France wanted some german help against them). And it is modelled in the game in fact.

[ncali]

From the AAR thread, the modders appear hard at work on some new developments. I copied the relevant part of rkr's post for comment (so as not to hijack the thread):

Tension in the Balkans. Because of the tension in Balkans between German axis minors and Yugoslavia or Greece these axis minors will defend their borders against these countries unless they are pacified (i.e., invaded) by Germany or Italy. Also, axis minors will activate earlier than expected if the axis invades the Balkans prior to their normal activation times.

1. Romania and Hungary will join the Axis the turn Yugoslavia is DoW'ed and Bulgaria will join the turn Greece is DoW'ed. So it's possible to speed up the activation of these countries by an earlier DoW. This means an axis player might declare war on Yugoslavia from Austria and Italy and rail reinforcements to Hungary and Romania on that turn (e. g. in August 1940). Remember that the countries joining will NOT move on the turn they join. So the player will probably need two turns to take out Belgrade. It also becomes more attractive to take out Greece from the north since a player can take out Yugoslavia in August / September and move adjacent to Greece to march to Athens in maybe September / October. Weather is always nice down there. A seaborne invasion of Greece was the only way to secure Greece early enough because a player never got through Yugoslavia in time.

2. One Hungarian and two Romania infantry corps are removed from their initial countries setup and will be spawned on the turn that the axis player declares war on Yugoslavia. If this never happens then these three infantry corps are assumed to be assigned to home defense until released in July 1943 (see 4).

3. Two Bulgarian infantry corps are removed for Bulgaria’s initial setup and will be spawned on the turn that the axis player declares war on Greece. If this never happens then these two infantry corps are assumed to be assigned to home defense until release in July 1943 (see 4).

4. The Axis minor units that were kept for protection against Yugoslavia and Greece will be released on July 1943 if they weren't released before from activating Yugoslavia and Greece. This simulates that the threat from Russia increases so these units might do more good protecting their borders against Russia than the borders against Yugoslavia and Greece. So a player won't permanently lose these units if they decide to never DoW Yugoslavia and Greece. Also remember that the units will spawn if the ALLIES DoW Yugoslavia and Greece.

5. Greek setup. A 4-step DD is added.

6. Romania setup. The 5-step fighter was increased to 6-steps. The 10-step DD was reduced to 5-steps. A 4-step tactical bomber was added.

Allied Aggression. Because of the isolationist attitude in the USA before entry in the war certain acts of UK or French aggression have an adverse impact on USA mobilization prior to their entry in the war. Also, an allied attack on Portugal at any time has an adverse impact on their neighbor Spain. Basically, an attack on Portugal would signal danger to Spain and move them close to Germany for their own protection.

7. Every declaration of war by Britain or France on a minor neutral country (e.g., Ireland, Portugal) prior to USA entry reduces the USA war effort by 5. Since, the USA is at industry level 2 the impact of this reduction is 6 (i.e., 1.2 x 5). After US entry, Allied DoW's on neutrals won't have any effect on the US war effort. The US will mobilize because they're at war. The US will regain any lost war effort immediately when they join the Allies. The reason is that they mobilize and the US public would forget about reluctance to enter the war since they're already at war.

8. An allied declaration of war against Portugal results in the transfer of 5 PPs per turn from Spain to Germany. These are from the Spanish lead mine traded to Germany for military equipment and training. This training and equipment is represented by Spanish units immediately getting the same as German tech level -2 or keeping their current tech if it's higher. Please notice that if the Germans get more tech later then the Spanish will NOT get that until the Allies DoW Spain as well and then only if the Germans pay for an upgrade of the Spanish units. So the tech received from Germany upon an allied declaration war against Portugal is a one time FREE upgrade to the German tech -2.

German Volunteers. There was a history of units composed of foreign volunteers that fought for Germany during WW-II.

9. Germany will get 1 free garrison in 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1944 and a mechanized corps in 1943. The mechanized corps consists of the SS Wiking panzergrenadier division, SS Nordland panzergrenadier division, the Estonian infantry division and some support troops from the Nordic countries. The corps was actually called III Germanic panzer corps, but mechanized corps is a better unit since the divisions were mechanized and not pure armor.

Port Damage. Ports that were captured were often damaged and had to be repaired before they became usable.

10. Captured ports are reduced to 0-stength, which means that they won’t be able to repair naval units until they regenerate strength.

Scorched Earth. The fighting in the east was brutal and without mercy. Both the Germans and Russians in retreat destroyed as much usable materials as they could over leaving them behind for the enemy to use.

11. Any Russian core city captured, or recaptured, will lose an additional 5-steps if above 5-steps or be reduced to 0-steps if at 5-steps or less. Damaged cities and ports regenerate at the rate of 1-step per turn.

Initial Setups

12. Spain. Changed the 10-step Spanish fighter to 6-steps. Added a 4-step tactical bomber. Reduced the two 10-step DDs to 5-steps. One is deployed in the Atlantic and the other is in the Med.

13. USA. Added the leader Devers.

14. France. Included the ability to add a tactical bomber to France’s initial setup. However; this is NOT currently implemented in GS v1.10e.

[ncali]

And now for a comment. I like most of these changes. As for the penalty to US war readiness for Allied attacks on neutrals, I would be happy if this were to continue to apply after the US was at war to subsequent attacks or to the effect of past attacks. I think that attacks on some of these neutrals would have diminished US support for the war, particularly an attack on Ireland. It would also have made other countries less likely to support the Allies in material terms. I also think that Ireland should generate a lot of partisans, somewhat like Yugoslavia does now.

As for the German volunteers, I'm not sure I agree with this change. The British also got a lot of volunteers, in the form of troops from the various conquered countries such as Poland, Holland, and Belgium (and US volunteers before the US joined the war). The issue for both sides was equipping these troops - otherwise, they were mainly manpower. So it would seem that the better way to address issues like volunteers is to adjust the manpower totals but not give free troops. Not that I feel too strongly about this.

[rkr1958]

There's also another change that's in the works and close to be included in v1.10. A very exciting change indeed.

The ability of invasion transports to attack coastal units. If an invasion transport attack forces a unit to retreat then it can either land (i.e., unload) in the vacated hex or another invasion transport can. An attack by an invasion transport uses one invasion point regardless of whether or not it lands or forces a retreat.

[ferokapo]

There's also another change that's in the works and close to be included in v1.10. A very exciting change indeed.

The ability of invasion transports to attack coastal units. If an invasion transport attack forces a unit to retreat then it can either land (i.e., unload) in the vacated hex or another invasion transport can. An attack by an invasion transport uses one invasion point regardless of whether or not it lands or forces a retreat.

Indeed, that is exciting!

As for the other changes, I wonder whether recucing a captured port to 0 steps is realistic IF it regains only one per turn. That would mean that it takes 200 days to repair a port fully. I think that's too long. Consider the immense damage wrought by allied bombing, yet the most of the infrastructure could be repaired much faster! At least the parts important for the war effort, never mind the scenery... So why not do the same as for the scorched earth in Russia, i.e. reducing it by five steps?

Finally, is there any way at all to implement changes to the convoy system? Some posters (me included) have argued that it would be more realistic if the convoys would move at the end of the Allied turn, enabling the escorts to sweep the path.

[Plaid]

As for the other changes, I wonder whether recucing a captured port to 0 steps is realistic IF it regains only one per turn. That would mean that it takes 200 days to repair a port fully. I think that's too long. Consider the immense damage wrought by allied bombing, yet the most of the infrastructure could be repaired much faster! At least the parts important for the war effort, never mind the scenery... So why not do the same as for the scorched earth in Russia, i.e. reducing it by five steps?

I think that port with more then 0 steps still works, you don't need to regain it to full steps, no?

[rkr1958]

As for the other changes, I wonder whether recucing a captured port to 0 steps is realistic IF it regains only one per turn. That would mean that it takes 200 days to repair a port fully. I think that's too long. Consider the immense damage wrought by allied bombing, yet the most of the infrastructure could be repaired much faster! At least the parts important for the war effort, never mind the scenery... So why not do the same as for the scorched earth in Russia, i.e. reducing it by five steps?

I think that port with more then 0 steps still works, you don't need to regain it to full steps, no?

Yes, the port still works.

[pk867]

Hi,
Just to add, only the repair capacity is damaged, supply, load and unload of units still function.

[_Augustus_]

Hi all,

First off the new features seem very promising.

I'm 99.9% sure this actually an old idea, but... Statistical screen with number of more precise unit types would be nice. Gar/Inf/Mec/Arm etc. But probably hard-coded into the game code and can't be changed, right?

_augustus_

[trulster]

There's also another change that's in the works and close to be included in v1.10. A very exciting change indeed.

The ability of invasion transports to attack coastal units. If an invasion transport attack forces a unit to retreat then it can either land (i.e., unload) in the vacated hex or another invasion transport can. An attack by an invasion transport uses one invasion point regardless of whether or not it lands or forces a retreat.

Indeed, that is exciting!

As for the other changes, I wonder whether recucing a captured port to 0 steps is realistic IF it regains only one per turn. That would mean that it takes 200 days to repair a port fully. I think that's too long. Consider the immense damage wrought by allied bombing, yet the most of the infrastructure could be repaired much faster! At least the parts important for the war effort, never mind the scenery... So why not do the same as for the scorched earth in Russia, i.e. reducing it by five steps?

Finally, is there any way at all to implement changes to the convoy system? Some posters (me included) have argued that it would be more realistic if the convoys would move at the end of the Allied turn, enabling the escorts to sweep the path.

Or just a simple randomisation of convoy movement, like first hex moved can be either one hex north or one south, or just continue east - then the rest of movement towards port. Stops the gamey "1-sub-stopping-entire-convoy-in-its-tracks" trick, well the sub has a 33% chance of getting lucky but that is fine. Also, in later war with more subs commited they can still be sure of interdicting convoys.

The other changes listed seem fine!

[Peter Stauffenberg]

As for the other changes, I wonder whether recucing a captured port to 0 steps is realistic IF it regains only one per turn. That would mean that it takes 200 days to repair a port fully. I think that's too long. Consider the immense damage wrought by allied bombing, yet the most of the infrastructure could be repaired much faster! At least the parts important for the war effort, never mind the scenery... So why not do the same as for the scorched earth in Russia, i.e. reducing it by five steps?

I think that port with more then 0 steps still works, you don't need to regain it to full steps, no?

True.

Strength 0-1 = no repair or upgrade capability
Strength 2-3 = repair 1 per turn and normal upgrade
Strength 3-4 = repair 2 per turn and normal upgrade
Strength 5+ = repair 3 per turn and normal upgrade

So it means ports can quickly start repairing again. Captured ports will drop to 0 on the turn they were captured and be on strength 1 in your first turn afterwards. So you will only suffer no repair for one turn unless the enemy will bombard the port. It will take some turns to get back to full repair, but that's historical.