New Ideas for CEaW Grand Strategy

[gerones]

I'm still confused so I'll ask one more time. Will units receive the average of the leaders' ratings within range or use the best leader? I located the old thread that explained the average was used =

viewtopic.php?t=15019

Things are as it is explained in that old thread: if two commander´s ranges are overlapped then it will prevail the value of the minor quality commander.

So this new feature in GS will be useful for the players to better organize their units so they can fairly see the units that are within range of a concrete commander and, in case that there are units within range of two commanders, the different colour will show the ones that are affected by a minor quality commander no matter they also are in range of a better quality commander. Knowing this, you will have to move your lower quality commander to the place in which no "harm" is done to those units.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Ronnie found a bug in the original CEAW code. It was intended to give the bonus of the best leader, but it seems it didn't always do that. Ronnie has rewritten the code so the best leader in range will command the unit.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

This is how the leadership range can be shown.

Yellow color along the hex side means the unit is within the range of the selected leader and NOT within range of another leader
Magenta color along the hex side means the unit is within range of the selected leader and ALSO within range of another leader

Leaders in its own hex will only be commanded by the leader itself and not from a ranged better leader.

So now you can see the leader range and also the overlapping hexes.

This is how it looks like now:

[TotalerKrieg]

How about adding Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov to the commander list for the USSR? As I am sure most of you know, he was commander of the 62nd army in Stalingrad which became the 8th Guards army. It just seems wrong to not have him on the list when he played such an important role in one of the defining battles on the eastern front. Here is a link to read about him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Chuikov

Maybe leadership of 6, +2 on defense?

[BuddyGrant]

FWIW I love the new leader impact design and the expanded list of leaders. I hope that proposed list can even be expanded even further to allow for complete large front commander coverage if a player prefers that style of play.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We finally completed the first version of the para functionality and will start betatesting it this weekend. This is a sneak peak of how it looks:

This one shows para divisions just before Overlord and the new target image


This one shows a para corps and that it can even drop to friendly hexes on another continent (e. g. to an island)


This one shows the result after interceptions, flak damage to the paras and their landing in Normandy

[ncali]

Hmmm, that para corps is mighty powerful. I wish I could say I was excited about this feature, but unfortunately I'm not. I have doubts as to whether it's well suited to this game engine and scale.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We will see how it looks after we've beta tested. We might stick with just divisions. A unit won't be that powerful after landing. A para is mostly used to block enemy units from attacking the land units at the beachheads etc. We can easily tweak the bonuses the paras get.

[afk_nero]

I think there should be a limit as to how many can be built by each nation and once built no more can be purchased - this prevents UK/USA from building more than was historically possible.

[StevenCarleton]

Seems like the number of para units that could be airdropped would be limited by available air transport (transport units anyone?).

How much would they cost? What would the range be? Landings only on empty hexes?
Do we assume level 1 supply from air?

I can see them being VERY expensive due the manpower quality/training and very specialized equipment.
Range could be similar to TAC (Ju-52, C-47) with the same oil usage.

But if you just want elite infantry you could build as much as you can afford.
I'm thinking of the many Fallschirmjager units deployed as front line defensive troops in Italy and France '44 that were never airdropped anywhere.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We can set the number of divisions in general.txt so if they turn out to be very powerful we can limit them to 1-2 per country. We can make paradrops expensive too if needed. I can't answer the end result yet. That's what beta testers are for.

[StevenCarleton]

Well I love the fact that you're trying it!
Is it difficult to add new unit types?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

They're actually not new. The partisans, guards, SS, paras, amphs etc. are just variants of the existing types. We can detect the unit name and then give the units other stats etc. Para divisions are garrisons and para corps are corps.

[StevenCarleton]

I would suggest that all airdropped units be treated as Garrison-like units, but with high quality & org (sounds a bit weird).

As you know, airdropped units, and paras generally, didn't have heavy weapons (AT & ART).
Seems like an Airborne Div could have a step level of 5 and an Airborne Corps would be at 10?
The historical accounts tell us Corps sized airborne units weren't dropped together until '45 when the Allies encircled the Ruhr.
But strangely, like at Bastogne, division size units could have strategic effects.
Perhaps it was the terrain or weather, and/or the Panzer divisions weren't well supplied?

So glad you ended the silly deployment of Partisans as INF corps!

[xriz]

Boy you guys Rock! Adding paras and amphibian is great.

I guess you are still working the details of the Paras but I assume you can only launch a para drop from your home territory? I hope are considering constraints so they are not abused, like they can only be dropped if they originate from in a full supply or 5 supply city hex. I hope you are going to tie the para's in on the research trees, like a limited range till you advance along the strategic operations tree and bumping up defense or attack in the infantry tree. And yes, the cost to make a jump should be kind of expensive, maybe 15-20 pp

[Peter Stauffenberg]

In order to make it easier to move units across straits (Messina, Kerch, Istanbul, Copenhagen etc.) we've decided to add ferry crossings in GS v2.00.



I this example you see a unit in Messina that can ferry cross over to the Italian mainland. The black ferry icon indicates that. The good thing about ferry crossings is that they're free and work both ways as long as hexes on both sides are friendly. So you can reinforce Sicily via the ferry crossing and you can e. g. evacuate the Germans near Caucasus via the Kerch ferry crossing.

Now Axis players can probably gain more from attacking Turkey because they don't have to pay 8 PP's per unit to get them to Turkey. You rail them to Istanbul first and the ferry cross they across the Bosporus. At the other side you can rail the units further.

[ferokapo]

In order to make it easier to move units across straits (Messina, Kerch, Istanbul, Copenhagen etc.) we've decided to add ferry crossings in GS v2.00.


I this example you see a unit in Messina that can ferry cross over to the Italian mainland. The black ferry icon indicates that. The good thing about ferry crossings is that they're free and work both ways as long as hexes on both sides are friendly. So you can reinforce Sicily via the ferry crossing and you can e. g. evacuate the Germans near Caucasus via the Kerch ferry crossing.

Now Axis players can probably gain more from attacking Turkey because they don't have to pay 8 PP's per unit to get them to Turkey. You rail them to Istanbul first and the ferry cross they across the Bosporus. At the other side you can rail the units further.

Excellent idea!

[ncali]

I think allowing ferry crossings is a great solutation and will be a nice improvement to the game!

[trulster]

Great fix which again shows does help to post ideas in forum:)

Also, this makes it more viable to defend Sicily so landing there will be less of a walk in the park for the Allies.

[Kuz]

This proposed rule should be looked at very closely. In my opinion the Mod team is creating a non-historical situation to create historical choices for the Axis. The historical situation was by March of 1941 Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary were all members of the Tripartite Pact. However, in Yugoslavia, a coup occurred in March of 1941 placed pro-allied King Peter II in charge of the country. Without waiting for the new Yugoslavian government to declare either for or against the treaty Hitler ordered the invasion. Hitler technically invaded a member of his own alliance. In addition, while the German’s used Romania as a staging ground for the attack, no Romanian units took part in the invasion. I believe it was the same with Bulgaria. The only troops who attacked were German, Hungarian and Italian. Therefore not having German minor allies join unless Germany attacks Yugoslavia is not historically accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Yugoslavia

If you wish to have the German’s launch Operation 25 I propose you simply have Yugoslavia come in as an allied minor power in March of 1941. Additionally I suggest you have the Italians automatically declare war on the Greeks in October of 1940. This move will more accurately recreate the historical situation you wish to create in the game. The German’s will want to support the Italians because a British presence in Greece would have exposed Ploesti to bombing. If you want a bit of randomness then I suggest you have Yugoslavia either stay neutral, come in as an allied minor, or as an axis minor