Repair and Update Units must be together

[Edward75]

1 turn - 3 weeks. Game is very short-lived. Therefore, I think Repair and Update units must take place together and simultaneously per 1 turn. At least Repair + 1 update at least.
If it of course possible to make in game.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Updating a unit means that you take the unit out of combat situations to replace equipment etc. That should actually take more than 3 weeks since the unit needs to get training in how to use the new equipment. Weapon upgrades are probably the easiest to understand. If you get more powerful machine guns then you can just use it as before.

If you get brand new tanks then you have to learn how how these tanks before on the battlefield compared to old models. You might have to alter your tactics a bit etc. New artillery guns could introduce a different system for targeting etc. Radar upgrades on ships means you have to learn how to use this to e. g. find subs.

Repair means you replace losses on a unit. Part of the repair mechanism is that the unit is put on rest and recuperation for awhile to fill the depleted units with fresh equipment or troops.

So repair is completely different from update. I don't think it's a bad thing that you have to do both separately.

[sPzAbt653]

How about Leaders ? - Adding them to a unit means the unit can't move or attack for 20 days, seems kind of weird.

[GogTheMild]

That has always puzzled me too. One man replaces another and the whole corps goes on holiday for three weeks? I don't think that that actually happened historically. (I an with Stauffenberg with his rationale for upgrading and replacing.)

[duncanr]

well I think taking control of a general staff is a little more complex than just changing the man at the top

whether its a month is another question, but it is more complex than changing 1 man - think changing the Manager of a major sporting franchise and all that brings to the back office

[sPzAbt653]

But the team doesn't stop playing, so I don't see how that argument applies.

Other than the unit being unusable for a turn, the implementation of leaders is very nice. By comparison, I recently purchased another one of these 'grand strategy' games and in that one leaders are a separate non-combat unit and must be attached to each individual combat unit by a series of clicks and drop downs. That is comically bad compared to CEaW where it is a one click operation. The graphics in CEaW also make it very easy to see what the on-map leader situation is.

[duncanr]

but Armies do stop playing look at Monty, classic stopper till he got the things he wanted

[GogTheMild]

But that was Monty's choice, not anything inherent in the situation.

To stay with just the 8th Army: look at Ritchie's replacement of Cunningham in the middle of Crusader; or Auchinleck's replacement of Ritchie in the midst of the shambolic retreat to Alamein - he spend practically zero time changing Ritchie's strategy to his own.

[MartyWard]

Well the choices are either a 1 turn delay or nothing when adding the commander. Neither are perfect.

[chrisfso]

I concur that attaching leaders should not disable the unit for three weeks. The unit should be able to move and fight. The leadership bonus will be delayed by one turn (three weeks) anyway, which represents the time needed to make personnel and strategy changes in the general staff. So it balances out nicely.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

For the next version you can deploy leaders to units without setting the flag that the unit has moved. That means the unit can move immediately.

[sPzAbt653]

Excellent ! End of that discussion. [I had checked the change log but didn't see this item mentioned].

[pk867]

Hi That is because that is the next play test update that has not been released to the play testers. We are waiting for the 2nd set of games to complete to discussion tweaks

That should be added before we test the latest additions. Once released to the play testers we will update the log.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

There are quite a few updates pending for the next update. One is the introduction of 3 new unit types: Mountain, Cavalry, Motorised (separate from Mechanized). Cavalry and motorised have movement 5 (motorised use 1 oil and cavalry 0 oil). Cavalry get some attack bonuses in clear terrain and mountain some bonuses in rough, forest hills (new terrain), desert hills and mountain. These units are slightly more expensive than corps units.

We also introduce 3 resource types. Fortified city, fortified capita and fortifications. That means we don't need to place fortresses in many places. They could be fortified cities instead. Fortifications is a weaker version of fortresses and used for lines line the Siegfried line, Gustav line, Ostwall and Stalin line (new).

Quite extensive map changes too and some updates to the OOB's for different countries due to the new unit types.

Soon we hope the beta testers to start trying out the latest version. Then we can hope for an AAR showing some of the changed stuff.

[Edward75]

Possible to create Leaders for naval units ?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

You can use current leaders on naval units if you like.

We thought about earlier adding air and naval leaders, but the beta team voted against it. Technically it's not a big deal.

The leaders mainly are used to give a max morale bonus.

[Edward75]

You can use current leaders on naval units if you like.

How this to do ??? Don't worked, GS 3.1

[Peter Stauffenberg]

It's in the code so I have to check if only land units are listed as units where you can add new leaders. That can easily be changed to apply to all unit types.

We have to hear what the beta testers say about making such a minor change.

[duncanr]

minor change and some research for appropriate new leaders

[Edward75]

Add new leaders (or especially for naval units with large radius), because current is not enough.
and Add 1 Leader for each neutral country, if possible.