CEAW 2 wishlist

[rkr1958]

Oh ... and while I'm in this thread (and I've mentioned this in another thread too before) ... a configurable minimum for oil. In a number of games that I've played I've seen German oil levels in 1944 go negative and never get positive again due to automatic intercepts by fighters and enemy attacks against oil consuming units. Once this happens German can only move oil consuming units by rail and use them only to defend. Once an enemy unit moves adjacent they can't move at all. Also, when this happens not even u-boats and ships at sea can move. I believe negative oil and the inability to every get it positive again is a significant contribution to a premature collapse of Germany in mid to late 1944. If we had a configurable minimum oil value (which could be set to -999 by default to keep things as they are now) we could vary that in play testing to allow Germany some small amount of oil in order to conduct limited movement and counterattacks using oil consuming units.

[firepowerjohan]

That is to prevent Germany from keeping a large air force else they would just reinforce air units every turn. If air units can always be used to intercept then that makes air units very useful when being out of oil.

You can prevent the shortages by just let your air units die off not reinforce them. Alternatively railroad them away to a remote place away from the fighting. If this does not help, even put your air unit into a transport making it totally neutralised.

There could be options to set a stance for air units individually whether they want to intercept or not (ON/OFF) but it also causes a lot of micromanagements so all in all we decided not to.

[dooya]

That is to prevent Germany from keeping a large air force else they would just reinforce air units every turn. If air units can always be used to intercept then that makes air units very useful when being out of oil.

You can prevent the shortages by just let your air units die off not reinforce them. Alternatively railroad them away to a remote place away from the fighting. If this does not help, even put your air unit into a transport making it totally neutralised.

There could be options to set a stance for air units individually whether they want to intercept or not (ON/OFF) but it also causes a lot of micromanagements so all in all we decided not to.

It might be helpful if the "Disband unit" option could be back ported from CNaW to CEaW.

[rkr1958]

That is to prevent Germany from keeping a large air force else they would just reinforce air units every turn. If air units can always be used to intercept then that makes air units very useful when being out of oil.

I must be missing your point here. Fighters always intercept regardless of oil level. The oil just goes more negative. Are your saying that the negative oil prevents offensive use of air by the Germans but not defensive and that's the desired effect? If so, it'd be nice to have some limited movement capability under negative oil for tanks to reposition them for defensive purposes.

[joerock22]

It might be helpful if the "Disband unit" option could be back ported from CNaW to CEaW.

I agree; the easiest way to fix this problem is to give players a disband unit option.

[rkr1958]

I'm fairly sure this has been mentioned before in another thread but I thought I'd ask again ...

Automatic intercepts by CVs of enemy air attacks against targets within air range of the CV.

[firepowerjohan]

I'm fairly sure this has been mentioned before in another thread but I thought I'd ask again ...

Automatic intercepts by CVs of enemy air attacks against targets within air range of the CV.

No, CV's do not intercept.

[joerock22]

At first, I was agreeing with rkr that CVs should intercept, but now I'm not so sure. The reason is CEAW basically treats carriers like long-range battleships. Think about it: if a fighter unit intercepts, any damage it suffers will be suffered by the planes themselves. In real life, if carrier planes intercepted, they would probably suffer all the damage too. However, the only way to represent this in CEAW is to have the carrier itself suffer damage. This isn't right.

I would separate carriers and their planes. They would still travel together, and carrier planes couldn't say, move to a land hex, but they would be separate entities. The planes would be used to fight enemy aircraft and bomb land targets only. If the carrier was attacked at sea by another ship or sub, the ship itself would suffer damage. This would put a priority on protecting carriers from enemy naval attacks, which is historical. Carriers would have to return to port to repair themselves and the attached plane unit, but you should be able to repair both of these units together on the same turn.

Ultimately, unless you like carriers enough to invest in them, they aren't going to be a major player in CEAW. Still, carriers were more than just long-range battleships, and I'd like to see them represented as such in the game.

[firepowerjohan]

I find in games that Carreirs are good to use in say Mediterranean and Egypt sice they are flexible. I mean, if enemy has just one tactical bomber you could bring in the carriers to bully it and force them to send more fighers. But, I have also seen games being lost due to building too many carriers since across English channel it is not cost effective to base your forces around carriers instead of fighter support.

they fill a flexible role being good in many areas and useful in some situations.

[rkr1958]

I'm fairly sure this has been mentioned before in another thread but I thought I'd ask again ...

Automatic intercepts by CVs of enemy air attacks against targets within air range of the CV.

No, CV's do not intercept.

This was a request. In games I play the allies usually have 6 or so CVs, which come in very handy for ASW and for Med operations (such as Torch). However; it's frustrating when you have an invasion force and the axis launch air attacks against your transports that are in the coverage of CV air.

[bohun]

In this game is very easy capture UK (and without UK game is almost lost) - experienced player can throw many, many germany troops and UK isnt able defend all coasts. I think germany should have some limits - for ex. at once can travel by sea 6 units. Maybe also UK should be little stronger in navy and air?


In ceaw 2 i also want see paratroopers, little more cities.
Or war in europe and in pacific in one game. I dont see separate game about war in pacific but together...

[rkr1958]

In this game is very easy capture UK (and without UK game is almost lost) - experienced player can throw many, many germany troops and UK isnt able defend all coasts. I think germany should have some limits - for ex. at once can travel by sea 6 units. Maybe also UK should be little stronger in navy and air?

In the mod that Staffenberg, Happycat and I are developing and playtesting we use a set of house rules that constraints amphibious landings into hostile hexes. Basically, there is a limit that each country must abide by and this limit is a function per year (e.g., 3 in 1939/1940, 4 in 1941). When a country lands a unit into a hostile hex is costs them 1 point. So for example, if a country landed 3 corps in 1939 then they would use all their points. At the beginning of each turn the get 1-point back until they reach the limit. We've also implemented winter rules (Nov - Feb) where landing points are cut in half (rounded up).

[joerock22]

In the mod that Staffenberg, Happycat and I are developing and playtesting we use a set of house rules that constraints amphibious landings into hostile hexes. Basically, there is a limit that each country must abide by and this limit is a function per year (e.g., 3 in 1939/1940, 4 in 1941). When a country lands a unit into a hostile hex is costs them 1 point. So for example, if a country landed 3 corps in 1939 then they would use all their points. At the beginning of each turn the get 1-point back until they reach the limit. We've also implemented winter rules (Nov - Feb) where landing points are cut in half (rounded up).

That seems complicated. Another solution would be to force the German player to declare war on Russia within 3 turns of capturing any UK city. I saw this on another post somewhere on the forums, and it makes a lot of sense. But your method would restrict Allied landings as well, right? Both methods have their advantages, I suppose.

[rkr1958]

In the mod that Staffenberg, Happycat and I are developing and playtesting we use a set of house rules that constraints amphibious landings into hostile hexes. Basically, there is a limit that each country must abide by and this limit is a function per year (e.g., 3 in 1939/1940, 4 in 1941). When a country lands a unit into a hostile hex is costs them 1 point. So for example, if a country landed 3 corps in 1939 then they would use all their points. At the beginning of each turn the get 1-point back until they reach the limit. We've also implemented winter rules (Nov - Feb) where landing points are cut in half (rounded up).

That seems complicated. Another solution would be to force the German player to declare war on Russia within 3 turns of capturing any UK city. I saw this on another post somewhere on the forums, and it makes a lot of sense. But your method would restrict Allied landings as well, right? Both methods have their advantages, I suppose.

That was us and in an earlier version of the house rules. However; while I made it sound complicated it's actually quite early to follow. This has (so far) the desired effects that we wanted to achieve. Limit the size of invasions (e.g., Torch or Overlord) to reasonable sizes and times. Also, while Germany may still pull off a successful Sea Lion the limitation of 4-corps landing initially into hostile hexes and then only 1 per turn there after just makes the game play more historically.

[joerock22]

That was us and in an earlier version of the house rules. However; while I made it sound complicated it's actually quite early to follow. This has (so far) the desired effects that we wanted to achieve. Limit the size of invasions (e.g., Torch or Overlord) to reasonable sizes and times. Also, while Germany may still pull off a successful Sea Lion the limitation of 4-corps landing initially into hostile hexes and then only 1 per turn there after just makes the game play more historically.

Sounds like you know what you're talking about. Maybe we'll try your invasion-limitation rules, depending on how our current game goes with your old Russian entry rule. Just curious, are you still using the Russian entry rule along with the invasion rule, or did you drop it?

[rkr1958]

That was us and in an earlier version of the house rules. However; while I made it sound complicated it's actually quite early to follow. This has (so far) the desired effects that we wanted to achieve. Limit the size of invasions (e.g., Torch or Overlord) to reasonable sizes and times. Also, while Germany may still pull off a successful Sea Lion the limitation of 4-corps landing initially into hostile hexes and then only 1 per turn there after just makes the game play more historically.

Sounds like you know what you're talking about. Maybe we'll try your invasion-limitation rules, depending on how our current game goes with your old Russian entry rule. Just curious, are you still using the Russian entry rule along with the invasion rule, or did you drop it?

It's still in the latest version of our house rules but I think that the three of us have agreed in principal to remove it. Below are links to mod, which includes the house rules. These don't include our latest updates which are a second transport loop to the Persian Gulf and to Kuwait (which is useful if you lose Port Said as I have in my current game against Staffenberg) and Allied rail capability in Egypt and east. Staffenberg is amazing in the mods that he can make to CEaW. Staffenberg and Happycat are amazing with their knowledge of History and I feel that the mod we have now is very close to the best Historical simulation of any WWII game (board or computer) out there that's playable.


Mod-Screenshots (Note - 2.6MB PDF)
Mod-Log-of-Changes (244KB PDF)
Mod-Description-of-Changes (213KB PDF)
Mod-House-Rules (80KB PDF)

[dmbgamer]

The mod you all are developing sounds great. When do you think it will be released to the community? Also, do you think it is necessary to give any advantage to the Axis to give them a fighting chance in this mod?

[joerock22]

The mod you all are developing sounds great. When do you think it will be released to the community? Also, do you think it is necessary to give any advantage to the Axis to give them a fighting chance in this mod?

Believe me, the Axis always has a fighting chance. In my experience, the Axis player has the advantage in games between human opponents, even if they don't launch Sealion. These mods sound like they're meant to give the Allies a fighting chance.

[rkr1958]

The mod you all are developing sounds great. When do you think it will be released to the community? Also, do you think it is necessary to give any advantage to the Axis to give them a fighting chance in this mod?

I think we're close to release. We've extensively playtested the mod making minor to major refinements each round. When we reach a point were there are no more refinements to be made then I'll think we'll release it. One issue that we've seen in all the previous rounds is that the game is fairly balanced until 1944 at which time German/Italy run out of oil, which even goes negative never to be positive again. This results mainly from automatic fighter interceptions and the fact that the Axis are defending against attacks on all three fronts. Also, we've seen massive Allied landings stretching across the entire coast of France in Winter of 1943/1944. In our latest iteration we've up the Axis oil situation by adding two synthetic oil plants in German. And we've added the amphibious landing rules that limit the size and time of such landings.

In our current round of playtesting I'm playing the Allies versus Staffenberg and as the Axis versus Happycat. In my game against Staffenberg it's July 1944 and Russia has been held east of the Donets and Don rivers. The Axis controls Moscow and Leningrad and the Russians are pretty much stalemated until the Western Allies can put some heat on the Axis in France. I launched Torch in October 1942 and was making pretty good progress in North Africa and I then I made a blunder that cost me. I move the UK force in Egypt into eastern Libya too early and with not enough firepower. The DAK armor corps supported by massive infantry and air based both in Libya and Crete mauled this force. I was able to save the three fighter units that I had with this army, which lost most of its ground units. The situation in Egypt became so critical that I had to divert land and air reinforcements originally headed to Tunisia to exploit the early gains I made from Torch to Egypt before the Axis captured Port Said and closed the Suez canal. It's only now that I've been able to capture Tobruk and recaptured Port Said. He still controls Alexandria and Suez city, which will take so time for me to get the forces there to retake. Also, I just liberated Crete and have established a strong air presence there and on the surrounding islands. Not to telegraph my intentions, but I think Staffenberg has figured it out, I plan to exploit these gains in the Med and liberate Greece as opposed to a Husky and going directly after Sicily and Italy. Also, I need to get Overlord started soon which will allow the Russians to start up too. Now given that it's July 1944 I know I have no chance to knock German or Italy out by May 1945. So I will lose; however, my objective now is to liberate as much of Europe as I can from the Axis.

In my game as the Axis against Happycat it's April 1943 and he's close to capturing Benghazi and Tobruk. Last turn he captured Tripoli. So I'm on the verge of losing North Africa to the Allies. He also liberated Crete last turn. However; in taking North Africa and Crete I've used my airpower to target his naval (primarily CVs) and air units. While I've lost North Africa and Crete I think I've made it costly for him. How costly, I don't know only time will tell. On the Russian front, it's still winter. I have Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov. All has been quite since winter started which I've taken advantage of to upgrade units, build and bring reinforcements. However; I know that he's also taking advantage of this to build up the Russian offensive forces (i.e., armor and air) to spring on me sometime in the near future. I feel that my situation in Greece and Italy are very strong. However; there's over two years left and that's a long time to survive. However; my oil situation is good and is over 550. My manpower situation is hovering around 51%, which I don't want to fall below 50% at which time my new units would suffer a -1 Quality penalty in addition to the -1 effectiveness for being less than 75%. Will I win? I don't know but I feel that I have a good chance. But we'll see. The Axis' position in the endgame is what we wanted to strength is our next to the latest revisions. It appears that we've accomplished this but you never know until you play it out.

[ftgcritt2]

NUKES!

Make it a tech option and put a heavy water plant in Norway that the Axis must control in order to develop them.