Discussion on CEAW-GS v2.10

[Peter Stauffenberg]

England:


Added some forests based upon maps of vegetation in England and Wales. Terrain won't hinder infantry movement, but will hinder armor movement slightly.

Also added Calais in France as a rail depot. The main reason is that a fortress spawns in the hex in 1944 and now this fortress is named for the city that's there, i. e. Calais. The rail depot won't give a defensive bonus to the French so it shouldn't affect Case Yellow in 1940.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Libya and Tunisia:


Added a swamp hex adjacent to the Mareth fortress in Tunisia. This simulates that it's possible to bypass the fortress ans the real Allies did in 1942.

In Libya there are some minor changes near Tobruk where some desert hexes are changed into clear to simulate the roads moving south of the hills west of Tobruk.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Turkey:


Moved the location of Erzurum and Diyarbakir. Added some forest terrain some places as well.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Persia north:


Added some forest and clear terrain in Persia because Persia is not a big cluster of rough or mountain terrain, but has valleys with roads and railroads etc. In the far north Persia had forests. Those were added.

Tbilisi was moved as well.

The border between Russia, Persia and Iraq was changed to reduce the big distortion in this area. The map is still a bit distorted here, but probably less so now.

One result of the border changes is that 3 hexes were given to Russia. That made room to add the capital of Armenia on the map as a rail depot. This city is Yerevan. The city has always been an important border city between Russia and Turkey.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Persia south:


Some minor terrain and border changes in Persia.

The river of Karus was added in Persia near Ahwaz. It's the largest river in Persia.

[Vokt]

There are much more irritating "features", such as blocking units with transports or using air units as roadblocks early on.

Yes - those two are the two at the top of my list too!

Could this be because naval transport units represent too less powerful escorting vessels (frigates, etc) and not only naval transport ships? Your air units or even your destroyer units can lose 1 or 2 steps when attacking naval transport units meaning that the latter still have some firepower and are not completely disarmed.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

There are much more irritating "features", such as blocking units with transports or using air units as roadblocks early on.

Yes - those two are the two at the top of my list too!

I don't see this much in my games. Air units are way too valuable to squander as front line units. On the other hand the air unit doesn't solely consist of airplanes, but also the ground troops defending the airbase. E. g. the Germans had considerable Luftwaffe ground units. Part of the high price you pay for the air units is the garrison power of the air unit's airbase. Still enemy ground units can inflict 5+ damage per attack on an air unit without receiving any damage back. That really hurts.

There aren't many minor powers with air units who can sacrifice them before the minor power surrenders. Poland is one of them. Some people move the Polish air unit into Warsaw. I've seen it several times myself. I don't mind because it means that 2 armor attacks will ensure the city and without losing any steps in the attacks. I prefer that to having a Polish corps unit as a defender. The Polish air unit used adjacent to Warsaw won't help because you attack it with ground troops and don't advance afterwards. After 2-3 attacks the air unit is destroyed and you can overrun Warsaw. I almost always take Poland in 2 turns regardless of how the air unit is used.

Transport units aren't just troops ships, but also quite a bit of smaller support ships like frigates, corvettes etc. protecting the actual troop transports. You pay 8 PP's every time you put a transport at sea and even more if you overuse your capacity. It's very simply for naval units and air units to sink transports sailing. If the transports contain only a garrison unit the the defense value of the transport is quite low. So 2 naval units can sink the transport completely.

If players use transports to screen invaders or their own landing ships then it's similar to having lots of minor ships protecting the important big ships. It doesn't take long to get rid of that nuisance.

I've seen players placing 3-4 German subs near Gibraltar to prevent the Allies from sailing into the Mediterranean in 1942 as part of Operation Torch. I expect such a move so I send my destroyers first to bump into these subs. With strategic bombers placed on the 2 Gibraltar hexes you can follow up with air assaults on the subs you detect.

If you send your destroyers through Gibraltar a few turns before the Torch forces arrive then you can clean up and not lose valuable time. The same applies to transports being used to cover the coastal hexes to prevent against invasions.

Even if you're caught off guard with such a strategy you will eventually prevail and maybe lose 1-2 turns compared to not being opposed. That shouldn't ruin your strategic plans. The defender sacrifices something too with such a strategy.

Especially if he uses air units as front line units. He can't repair losses on such units so they die soon. I often see the Germans use air units in the second line on the east front to prevent front line units from retreating. I have no problem with that. Late in the war these air units are overrun because the Axis don't have oil to use them or repair their losses.

[GogTheMild]

Air bases could be very tough to overrun. Eg the Tatsinskaya Raid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatsinskaya_Raid .

24th Tank Corps claimed the destruction of over 300 planes on the airfield, while German estimates were 72 were actually destroyed or almost 10% of the transport capacity of the Luftwaffe. The airfield defenses were quickly overrun, and while over 100 transport planes managed to escape, German losses were heavy.

It was successful, but took a full scale operation by a large unit and even then destroyed perhaps 40% of the operational aircraft present. (Source for the last: personal conversation with German pilot who had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of the raid.)

That said Russian losses were heavy too. 24th Tank Corps was wiped out, losing some 200 tanks, although only a minority was directly caused by the airfield defences.

My preference would be to leave things just as they are, except that air units attacked by ground units would automatically retreat after combat. Including, if possible, when they are in cities or fortresses.

[jimwinsor]

Has there been any thought towards making Calais a port? I've noticed that Commander Great War does this.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Has there been any thought towards making Calais a port? I've noticed that Commander Great War does this.

We decided to use Cherbourg and Le Havre as ports instead. One reason is that Calais is too close to England. If it's placed NW of the city then it borders England and will control the access to the English Channel. So it has to be placed SW of the city and that is close to the Le Havre port.
Another issue is that if the port is placed SW of Calais then several land hexes are not possible to invade because the port is blocking them.

I think 3 French ports bordering the English Channel (Brest, Cherbourg and Le Havre) is enough.

[Kragdob]

Borger,

Air units:
1. Why did you make the rule that cites/occupied by air units switch to enemy when you leave them. So air unit has ground power or not? If you attribute some ground strenght to air units then same rule (city changing ownership when emptied) should be applied e.g. when INF corps leaves a city, shoudn't it?

2. Air units having defensive capabilities now has great impact. Look at Sealion where FTRs are much better than GARs when defending coasts (the are mobile, can be attacked only once, and usually bombing has little effect), taking remote fortresses: Malta, Mersa Mareth and even Zigfried line - air units especially STRATs with high survivability are great to hold of enemy for 1-2 critical turns. Before you manage to send ground units there.

So right now air units have ground capabilities but it is inconsistent with rules for object ownership and seems a little bit unhistorical.

Transports:
Ok, if they are treatted like "ad-hoc navy" then to be consistent they should have firing power as well. And you say that some frigates and corvettes are able to hold off Battleships and destroyers (as it happens now)?

The only argument that convinces me in this topis is that it requires serious changes in game engine to change that.

[Vokt]

Transports:
Ok, if they are treatted like "ad-hoc navy" then to be consistent they should have firing power as well. And you say that some frigates and corvettes are able to hold off Battleships and destroyers (as it happens now)?

It could be considered that naval transport units actually have some offensive firepower (you mean this?) when attacking occupied enemy beach hexes in order to force a retreat thus simulating colaboration with bigger ships performing shore bombardments. I don´t know if it would be right allowing naval transports to also be naval offensive units. Anyway, if finally doing this their naval offensive capabilities would be pretty low compared to that of destroyers or battleships.

[Omnius]

I just bought the game yesterday and installed the 2.1 GS update. The game does a great job on mirroring history except for one thing, the surrender of Italy. I just don't understand why history wasn't followed with the Allies needing 4 Italian VP cities instead of only 3. In the manual you include the fact that Italy surrendered on the turn Taranto was captured. Why didn't you include one city on the Italian mainland in addition to Tunis, Palermo and Messina so that Italy doesn't surrender prematurely when Sicily is completely captured? Good thing we can correct this historical oversight in the general.txt file. I'll also up the number to 3 for Finnish surrender after reading about premature Finnish surrenders.
Omnius

PS: Where is this mythical 2.13 update? Is it still under wraps as a beta or is it available publicly?

[Vokt]

Transports:
Ok, if they are treatted like "ad-hoc navy" then to be consistent they should have firing power as well. And you say that some frigates and corvettes are able to hold off Battleships and destroyers (as it happens now)?

It could be considered that naval transport units actually have some offensive firepower (you mean this?) when attacking occupied enemy beach hexes in order to force a retreat thus simulating colaboration with bigger ships performing shore bombardments. I don´t know if it would be right allowing naval transports to also be naval offensive units. Anyway, if finally doing this their naval offensive capabilities would be pretty low compared to that of destroyers or battleships.

Although offensive capabilities of naval transports carrying inf corps, mech corps or armoured units could be referred to these units being transported instead.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Borger,

Air units:
1. Why did you make the rule that cites/occupied by air units switch to enemy when you leave them. So air unit has ground power or not? If you attribute some ground strenght to air units then same rule (city changing ownership when emptied) should be applied e.g. when INF corps leaves a city, shoudn't it?

The reason was to remove the game exploit when Allied players flew UK air units into French port cities or Norwegian cities to prevent Germany from getting those cities when France / Norway surrendered.

That is gamey. Air units have good movement that the ground component doesn't.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I just bought the game yesterday and installed the 2.1 GS update. The game does a great job on mirroring history except for one thing, the surrender of Italy. I just don't understand why history wasn't followed with the Allies needing 4 Italian VP cities instead of only 3. In the manual you include the fact that Italy surrendered on the turn Taranto was captured. Why didn't you include one city on the Italian mainland in addition to Tunis, Palermo and Messina so that Italy doesn't surrender prematurely when Sicily is completely captured? Good thing we can correct this historical oversight in the general.txt file. I'll also up the number to 3 for Finnish surrender after reading about premature Finnish surrenders.
Omnius

PS: Where is this mythical 2.13 update? Is it still under wraps as a beta or is it available publicly?

Italy surrendered 1 week after Messina fell and before Taranto fell. Italy actually started negotiating surrender soon after Operation Husky started. So Italy doesn't surrender prematurely in GS

Read here for details.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 612037.stm

[Kragdob]

Borger,

Air units:
1. Why did you make the rule that cites/occupied by air units switch to enemy when you leave them. So air unit has ground power or not? If you attribute some ground strenght to air units then same rule (city changing ownership when emptied) should be applied e.g. when INF corps leaves a city, shoudn't it?

The reason was to remove the game exploit when Allied players flew UK air units into French port cities or Norwegian cities to prevent Germany from getting those cities when France / Norway surrendered.

That is gamey. Air units have good movement that the ground component doesn't.

From my perspective the rule is more artificial then such movement that you consider gamey.

I can easily imagine that you leave some or all of what you have with your air unit:

Part of the high price you pay for the air units is the garrison power of the air unit's airbase.

This can last only when major forces arrive which of course may take some time.

Is this less logical then UK occupied Norwegian city surrendering to German administration just because UK troops are gone?

[Kragdob]

My preference would be to leave things just as they are, except that air units attacked by ground units would automatically retreat after combat. Including, if possible, when they are in cities or fortresses.

I would propose enhancing this to:
Air units always (even when in town or fortress) retreats when it's looses are above certain treshold (say 1 step) with 80% of time unit returning to the forcepool and 20% of time unit left on the map.

[Cybvep]

I'm not sure about the force pool thingy. It could actually lead to new exploits.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

From my perspective the rule is more artificial then such movement that you consider gamey.

I don't agree with this. Air units can't take control of cities by flying into them. The cities have to be friendly for them to land there. Ground units can capture cities.

A big difference between the ground and air units is the mobility. Air units can quickly land in the country of interest while it takes quite some effort landing ground units there.

The real Allies landed ground units in Norway near Åndalsnes, Namsos and Narvik. Soon after these forces left the Norwegians surrendered. Narvik was actually in Allied hands for awhile until Case Yellow started so the Norwegians were left alone there.

In the game it was standard procedure to fly 2-3 air units to Bergen, Trondheim and Stavanger to deny Germany these cities when Oslo fell and Norway surrendered. Then the air units evacuated and forced the Germans to move by land (very slowly in Norway) to each of these cities to capture them. That is not historical at all.

In France it was also standard procedure to send the RAF strat bomber to Bordeaux and the fighters to Nantes and Brest. So when Paris fell these cities were still Allied controlled.

For the Allies to keep control of these cities after the core owner has surrendered the air unit needs to remain in the city. Once the air units evacuates back home the country controlling the capital retakes control of these cities.

The end result of this change is that nobody use air units anymore in this way. If they want to deny the Allies these cities they send ground units to the cities and then later evacuate them.

The main reason for this gamey exploit is the high mobility of the air units. You could move from a safe location in UK to the target hex in Norway / France in just 1 turn. The trip back again was the same.

If you tried to do the same with ground units then the Germans can actually have subs in the area that could sink the transport that tries to evacuate. So you don't do this with ground troops unless it's really important. Doing it with air units was a no-brainer and everybody did it.

We spent weeks of discussion in the beta forums before we added this functionality and we won't restart those discussions now.