How reform of the product quantity limited

[mamahuhu]

The report regarding to the reform of the product quantity limited of the specify units which need engine & fuel


Recently , there is a great disagreement regarding to the production limited to the specify units( German’s armor & USSR’s mech). The way which be issued in the patch 2.01.05 is to punish the over limit unit’s additional fuel cost & PP ., sothat to control the scale of the blob. But this method is really lack of evidence in history ,physics ,& military logistics . It will break the player’s understanding of history & realize . It is not fit for the aim of the Ceaw GS .

So ,we provide a big reform suggestion to this topic as follows ;

We want to introduce a new concept into the game which named Engine Exponential (EE), & use this to solve the Bloc problem .

EE is represent for a country’s industry power to manufacture & keep in good repair the engine & relative machine used by all auto, plane, ships & warships.

EE is an independent concept from the PP . To build any unit should cost this EE points except INF, GAR & General .

EE data is similar with rail transport point, is related to the special industrial cities such as Ruhr ,Kharkiv, stalingrad & many US cites like New york & Boston. But the cities like Brest ,Copenhagen should have no EE or less EE.

EE is similar to PP & Fuel . it could be accumulate .

Axis & Allies get EE each turn , they have three method to increase the EE

1 conquer the city which have EE ability , so that to increase the total output of EE.

Ip : if axis conquer London, GB will lose the EE from London ,& Axis get it step by step from 0


2 The EE will grow up with war efficience

3 To develop the industry in the tac reserch of general war . it will provide a fix number of EE whenever the industry upgrade .


We use EE in three field :

1 bulid new tac unit . eg : Mech need 5 point ,Armor need 8 point , fighter need 10 point,

tac need 11 point , DD need 6 point ,BB need 8 point ,sub need 6 point ,CV need 10 point ..etc




2 maintain the tac unit’s move & fight .

whenever the unit move or attack , it should cost 1-2 point of EE for the replacement of the damage engine . It will cost one more point when it is happened in Russia & Africa .

3 when supply it would cost the same percentage of EE as the percentage of supply

ip : if a full supply 5 steps armor ,it will cost 50%* 8 =4 EE after supply to 10 steps



When the player run out of the EE , we have 2 choices :

1 similar to the landing & sea transportation rules ,it will be punished by PP .

2 same as the fuel , player could not build any new tac unit , can not supply any tac unit .

To supply the minor country’s tac unit also cost EE .



Finally , we believe the introdution of EE concept ,will play a better role to simulate the tac troop’s manufacture & operation in WW2 .It will also sucessfully solve the problems cause by the Armor & Mech blob .





China GS Group

Morris & Mamahuhu

[zechi]

Sorry, but I do not see how the introduction of EE would be any better then the PP/Oil reduction. You substitute one abstract concept with another abstract concept. I also fail to see how your proposal would be more realistic in terms of " history ,physics ,& military logistics"?

Furthermore, such a new concept would complicate the game even more and would need extensive playtesting. Therefore I do not think that such a system would be worth a try.

[mamahuhu]

Let me give an example,
In the patch 2.01.05, in 1940, I have five armor , and no Mech.
If I want to produce the 6th armor, I will be an additional loss of oil
But if I want to produce five Mech, I will not fuel additional losses.
I ask ,Why an armor is more costly than five Mech?

If my tank in the warehouse rather than the battlefield,
Why consumption oil?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Such a concept will invalidate all save games since we need to store new variables for each country. That's something we try to avoid.

You don't pay oil for the armor units if you don't use them. The oil consumption is increased if you go over the limit, but you only pay oil if you move or fight. If you rail move you don't pay oil.

The limit cost is when you purchase the unit and paid only once. You don't pay an maintenance penalty as in the first version.

If you get 6 armor in 1940 then the oil consumption increases from 3 to 3.1. That's a very slight increase. The extra build cost for the 6th armor is 4 (84 instead of 80). I don't see that a slight overuse will prevent people from doing it if they really like to.

But if you e. g. build 10 armor units in 1940 then you will notice a significant change.

Armor units use different ammo, spare parts etc. that mech units. So there are separate limits for armor and mech, and each air type for that matter.

I just can't see how a new concept (EE) would improve game play. It will surely complicate the game and affect all players. The change we made will only affect people using the armor blob or mech blob. People with normal strategies won't see a difference at all. Therefore we won't have to re-test because of the change.

Isn't it better to just abandon the blob strategy and try a normal game for a change.

[zechi]

Let me give an example,
In the patch 2.01.05, in 1940, I have five armor , and no Mech.
If I want to produce the 6th armor, I will be an additional loss of oil
But if I want to produce five Mech, I will not fuel additional losses.
I ask ,Why an armor is more costly than five Mech?

If my tank in the warehouse rather than the battlefield,
Why consumption oil?

I do not see a problem with this, as we are speaking about a game which has an very abstract game system concerning its economy and its unit organisation. You could find any reason you want justifying the extra costs for the sixth Tank Corps, be it that the Tank Corps cannot be formed as easily as personnel, equipment, tanks etc. needed to create the corps need additional expenses to concentrate it in one location. MECH Corps can be created less costly as the logistics to create and support such a corps are easier (less costly) to concentrate in one location to form the corps.

[Morris]

Hi Borger :
The only reason we provide this suggestion , is trying to make this game better . I know it is too complicated for the change at present , so we do accept your decision to deny this proposal . But I have to say that , since we are beta testers , we never put the victory or not to our first goal ! That's why I restarted one pbem 6 times to test the changes regarding to the armor bloc with Neil (finally,that pbem was halt before finish).

Regarding to the Armor bloc & Mech Bloc , we only use it when the situation is suitable . We don't use it everywhere , we don't use it all the time . The reason why it always be mentioned is that until now, after so many changes regarding to the bloc strategys,there is still no one has an experience to defeat it . To be a ordinary game player , I will agree to give up these two strategy if my oppoent ask for it . But being a beta tester for the GS , I don't think it is necessary to give up the bloc strategy until we find the right way to defeat it ! We are the Top Gun , Come on & defeat me ! You will be the hero if you defeat me when I play bloc strategys ! It will be a great Kudo to you !

[Plaid]

Noone interested to play with blob, its silly and unrealistic.
There were blobs before you (e.g. old soviet armour) and they all were just made impossible because blob is something, what is simple unneeded in game, and it shall and will be banned in any form.

[Morris]

If you say the blob strategy is unrealistic ,I agree . But GS is a game ,not a history book . You could not make everything realistic in a game .
If you say the blob strategy is silly , I think it is because you have no way to defeat it . If someone always consider the problem which he could not solve is silly , How silly he is !!!!

[Morris]

If you say the blob strategy is unrealistic ,I agree . But GS is a game ,not a history book . You could not make everything realistic in a game .
If you say the blob strategy is silly , I think it is because you have no way to defeat it . If someone always consider the problem which he could not solve is silly , How silly he is !!!!

[Plaid]

All changes done to the game from vanilla are in the direction of increase realism, not reduce it. GS is not only a game, its simulation game.
You can't say that I can't defeat "blob" because I never played with it and never will.
Its "silly" in same way, as flying elephant is "silly". Something what can't exist.

[zechi]

If you say the blob strategy is silly , I think it is because you have no way to defeat it .

I think you fail to see the point. Exactly because there is no way to defeat the strategy the new changes were implemented. The "blob" is not only unrealistic (which is from my point of view not the main problem), but according to the developers (I never encountered it in my games yet) unbalancing the game. An unbalanced game is a bad game and therefore any gamebreaking blob strategies should not be possible in a game, like any other game breaking strategies befopre.

Its not like its the first time the game has been changed because of game balance reasons. In fact most of the latest changes were implemented for game balance reasons. Especially a game like CEAW GS must be balanced or it will not be interesting to play it. I trust the developers in this matter as they have the best understanding of the play balance.

If you want to convince the beta tester otherwise I woul suggest that you demonstrate through an Hot Seat AAR your armor blob strategy and perhaps also how to counter it. This would at least make it easier for us to understand your arguments.

[Morris]

But I wonder there should be some different from the original blobs . since there are so many adjustment during the last several patches . I Have never played hot seat AAR , How to make it ? Play with whom ?

[zechi]

But I wonder there should be some different from the original blobs . since there are so many adjustment during the last several patches . I Have never played hot seat AAR , How to make it ? Play with whom ?

Of course you play against yourself to demonstrate firstly how the "blob" works and secondly how to "counter" it. I think then we all would have a better understanding of the problem and we would be in a better position to assess if the current changes are justified or not. Right now I completely trust the judgement of the developers. Therefore, you would need to demonstrate your point and this can only be done if you have very convincing arguments. A first step would be a demonstration of the blob strategy in the forum through an AAR.

[pk867]

Hi Morris,

The AAR's are screen shots of the game. Then they are posted by using a photo upload site. The others can probably help

better than I can. Most of the AAR's are from PBEM games. of course posted way after the turn has been played.

[Morris]

Thanks for your explaination . But I am too busy to do that . Maybe I can play a pbem with someone who have time to do the AAR . I can be either side . If I play Axis ,I will show how is the bloc work now , If I am allies ,I will show how to counter the bloc .

[PinkPanzer]

Thanks for your explaination . But I am too busy to do that . Maybe I can play a pbem with someone who have time to do the AAR . I can be either side . If I play Axis ,I will show how is the bloc work now , If I am allies ,I will show how to counter the bloc .

Can't wait to see your aar moris.

The obvious counter to an axis armour blob is to give it some airpower loving.
So I guess your allied counterblob strategy involves transporting british and american fighters and tacs to russia to counter it.

What happens in games of axis armour vs russian mech blobs?

[Morris]

Actually , it won't happened . Because Armor bloc only happened in summer of 1941 ,& Mech bloc happened in summer of 1942 caused by late Babarosa or no babarosa .