Artillery?

[GaryChildress]

OK. I know it's been brought up before, however, I think it would be neat to see some artillery assets in CEAW. However, I would NOT like to see artillery a la Commander: Napoleon at War, where cannons can fire several hundred miles. Basically I would like to see Corps level artillery assets and ONLY as SUPPORT for defenders and attackers. Artillery should have no stand alone attack ability. I should NOT be able to target enemy units with artillery and fire at them.

So for instance, if an artillery unit is directly adjacent to a friendly unit, then that friendly unit should receive a bonus when it is attacked or when it attacks an adjacent enemy unit. Artillery should NOT affect anything beyond directly adjacent units. NOR should a player be able to move artillery and have it support an attack in the same turn.

I actually think it would add an interesting new dimension to the game. Basically armor is still able to rule the battlefield but if a player is able to have enough time to set up artillery to support an attack or hold a defensive line, then it would be an added reward for having the extra time to prepare. Granted, artillery should be relatively restricted in numbers. So for instance, say you would not be able to have more than 1 artillery unit per every 4 tank or infantry corps (NOT including garrison units) or something along those lines.

What do others think?

[GaryChildress]

I see two "nay" votes but no explanations posted. How about elaborating on your votes a little. Why exactly would you not like independent artillery units?

Thanks.

[massina_nz]

I've always assumed given the scale of the game, units already have their own intrinsic artillery. If you want to improve the defense or offense of your units then focus your research resources on the labs that provide that.

[joerock22]

It's another complication in a game that I don't think needs any more complications. Artillery was designed from the very beginning to be part of infantry tech, and I think that's where it should stay. Historically, I don't think massed artillery barrages were as important in WWII was they were in WWI. That's the reason you have artillery units in Commander: Great War and not in CEAW.

[JyriErik]

You could say that artillery is already included in the game as the shock rating (and not simply because of the use of an artillery piece as the icon). At the scale the game is at, the shock rating is a very good way to show how artillery was used in WW II. Except for the Russians, no army in WW II one really used traditional WW I style massive bombardments, so having it as tech work better in this game. In a divisional level game, then seperate artillery units would make some sense.

Jyri

[jlopez]

Except for the Russians, no army in WW II one really used traditional WW I style massive bombardments, so having it as tech work better in this game. Jyri

I suspect the Axis troops at El Alamein might disagree with you on that one.

Given most units in the game are corps level, there might be a case for army level artillery assets but as already pointed out, it's a complication that brings little benefits.

[Plaid]

I don't think that any artillery should be showed at this game scale as entire unit. Even more wierd will be if this artillery units will have range more them 1.

What can make sence is system of separate attachable subunits, when you can attach to every corps various brigade-division sized units (combat engineers for better fighting in cyties, bridge engineers for lowering cross-river and amph penalty, anti-tank artillery for anti-tank, field artillery for shock, AA for air attack, heavy tanks for ground attack and anti-tank, recon for spotting and so on as long as you wish). This idea of detachable troops will be historically accurate, but I think its very hard to do(on other hand since commander can modify unit's stats, maybe subunits can be modelled same was as "sommander" with 0 leadership and some stats, don't know) in CEAW and it will add some unneeded complexity.

[BuddyGrant]

What can make sence is system of separate attachable subunits, when you can attach to every corps various brigade-division sized units (combat engineers for better fighting in cyties, bridge engineers for lowering cross-river and amph penalty, anti-tank artillery for anti-tank, field artillery for shock, AA for air attack, heavy tanks for ground attack and anti-tank, recon for spotting and so on as long as you wish). This idea of detachable troops will be historically accurate, but I think its very hard to do(on other hand since commander can modify unit's stats, maybe subunits can be modelled same was as "sommander" with 0 leadership and some stats, don't know) in CEAW and it will add some unneeded complexity.

That is basically what 'Advanced Tactics WW2' tries to do, right? I think that's a very clever & enjoyable game, but I also appreciate the simplicity of CEAW in the way it represents multiple unit types in large formations. The current unit mix is a good fit IMO for the CEAW game scale.

[GaryChildress]

What can make sence is system of separate attachable subunits, when you can attach to every corps various brigade-division sized units (combat engineers for better fighting in cyties, bridge engineers for lowering cross-river and amph penalty, anti-tank artillery for anti-tank, field artillery for shock, AA for air attack, heavy tanks for ground attack and anti-tank, recon for spotting and so on as long as you wish). This idea of detachable troops will be historically accurate, but I think its very hard to do(on other hand since commander can modify unit's stats, maybe subunits can be modelled same was as "sommander" with 0 leadership and some stats, don't know) in CEAW and it will add some unneeded complexity.

This is an interesting idea! Instead of leaders, add a limited number of "attachments" to the game which can be added to units to give them a higher attack or defense rating. I like it!

Maybe name the attachments after elite divisions that existed during the war. Grossdeutschland for instance.

[GaryChildress]

A couple questions about commanders:

1. Can you give a commander a rating of more than 1 for attack and defense?

2. Is it possible to disable certain commanders from appearing in the game? Do you simple delete their line from the Leader.txt file?

3. Is there a limit to how expensive a commander can be?

[GaryChildress]

Here's an idea for GS 1.06 you can make "elite" units by adding a commander icon with leadership of 1 or 0 and attack 1, defense 1.

[Plaid]

Where can I get this german emblems, by the way?

[GaryChildress]

Where can I get this german emblems, by the way?

E-mail me at grchildress(at)earthlink(dot)net and I will send you a zip file with the German emblems modded. Put "Commander: Europe at War" in the header so I can spot it easily.

This is just a mod which replaces the black and white cross with a red and black swastika for the German unit emblems.

DISCLAIMER: I am not espousing Nazism of any kind. I realize swastikas are offensive to some people and apologize. However, to me the modded emblems are more colorful and standout more than the vanilla ones and they do reflect closer to the true nature of a war between good and evil IMO. CEAW is only a game. I don't think having a swastika in the game, even playing as Germans, should denote any kind of true malice on the part of players. At heart I am a pacifist, however, I do find computer games of conquest more fun and entertaining than I would a game about feeding the homeless. What can I say?

[BuddyGrant]

1. Can you give a commander a rating of more than 1 for attack and defense?

You can give a commander attack and/or defense ratings of at least 10, maybe more.

2. Is it possible to disable certain commanders from appearing in the game? Do you simple delete their line from the Leader.txt file?

It may be as simple as that. Not sure why you would want to remove leaders, but it's easy and fast to test.

3. Is there a limit to how expensive a commander can be?

The highest I have tested is 10 ability, 10 attack, and 10 defense, and the cost was over 500 PP's. I'm pretty sure the developer did not apply a max cost logic to leaders, so unless there is some kind of byte limit I would guess the game just follows the hard coded formula based on the 3 leader abilities.

[shawkhan]

I have always thought that more leaders should appear at gamestart than are currently present. If there was some way to only allow a leader to appear at a more historically accurate time, I would greatly appreciate the improvement. Having Montgomery for the British or Rommel for the Axis in 1939 I find disturbingly ahistorical. I think players should be stuck with the historical leaders they actually had in 1939, 1940 or so on. What Soviet player wouldn't just love to have Stalin's old crony Budenny leading the Russian effort at Kiev?(hoho)