Gameplay changes in 1.20

[billmv44]

What do players think about disable disembarking troops from trains on neutral or hostile city hexes? I know a new mp map requires on transporting in troops via trains, but I'm not so sure disallowing that would upset the balance of the map. I just find it very jarring to bliztkrieg via train.

I think it is okay to keep as is. Seems possible in actuality (if not likely). A very bold move, not unlike dropping gliders on top of a certain Belgian fort...

[Rudankort]

Not necessarily a 1.20 question - But is air defense of ground units affected by suppression? It FEELS like it is not - e.g., I can attack a Pz. IV/J with tactical air and it seems I take the same damage whether it is full 10/10 (total strength/unsupp. strength) or 10/1 (1 unsuppressed strength). Frankly it seems to me ANY suppression on an AFV would neutralize any air defense - they button up under artillery fire and don't really go topside to man the MG. This has always kinda bugged me, but it seems I'm noticing now that suppression doesn't affect air defense. Or I'm getting some really bad rolls while playing Cobra...

Why not use combat log (L hot key after combat) to see what is going on?

[borsook79]

What do players think about disable disembarking troops from trains on neutral or hostile city hexes? I know a new mp map requires on transporting in troops via trains, but I'm not so sure disallowing that would upset the balance of the map. I just find it very jarring to bliztkrieg via train.

I would be for disabling it, especially in case of hostile hexes, neutral is not such a problem. But indeed capturing cities using trains is just too much...

[Kamerer]

Why not use combat log (L hot key after combat) to see what is going on?

I did not know there was an after-combat results log that would show that. I'll check it out.

[Herald611]

Re: Initiative increases
I think Recon units should get 1.0 on the initiative charts - hitting first *is* their purpose

[okiemcguire]

What do players think about disable disembarking troops from trains on neutral or hostile city hexes? I know a new mp map requires on transporting in troops via trains, but I'm not so sure disallowing that would upset the balance of the map. I just find it very jarring to bliztkrieg via train.

I agree with deductor. I believe a train should disembark in friendly terratory and then move to "the sound of battle".

Also, I like the idea of advanced options. The game can continue to be as is for newcomers but allows the long time gamers to replay over and over, changing options to change the flavor of the game.

[ThvN]

I think the train capture rules are fine as they are, after all the flag cannot be captured by the train itself, only the following turn by the disembarking troops. It would be enough to reduce the movement of the train, because now they can move very fast indeed (30 hexes), which makes these sort of blitzes possible.

As for capturing cities, already a unit capable of capturing flags can move into a city using its organic transport (trucks) and capture it immediately, without dismounting. But because these trucks have move 8 it doesn't produce quite the same effect as a train covering ground twice as fast as a fighter plane.

Unless...

[Zhivago]

Moving troops by rail would be more appealing if you could load-move-unload in one turn, and be ready to fight the next turn, instead of a turn being wasted unloading.

[ThvN]

A small question about the new (for beta2) artillery ranged attack penalty... I noticed that it affects every ranged attack, including those made by anti-aircraft units and capital ships. I like it this way, but I wasn't sure if this is intentional, so I 'report' it just to be sure. Oh, and it doesn't actually reduce attack, but increases defense for the unit that is being attacked, but it seems to work as intended either way.

[Kamerer]

I am finding the artillery changes making the last few scenarios with urban content true nightmares - Rhine, Berlin West. I have the feeling the maps were designed w/o the game play changes in mind. Or with the smaller AC corps in mind - they seem more East front scale.

These changes need to be vetted against PC campaigns as I don't know if they are going to mesh well when retroactively applied.

[Herald611]

Re: Artillery
IMHO, its been nerfed too much. I think the range penalty needs to go, and/or make the units stronger.

[deducter]

There's really quite a difference between MP and SP. I've been testing some MP, and while I have noticed artillery being somewhat weaker, it hasn't really changed my play style too much, or even upset the balance much at all. Humans have always been good at dealing with

I can agree that offensive artillery probably doesn't need as severe of a range penalty. I think the main problem, at least in SP, is defensive artillery. In MP, humans have ways of dealing with defensive artillery, especially with the new reinforcement suppression rule. Defensive artillery does not in any way confer invincibility on your units. However, since the AI is incapable of dealing with defensive artillery, it is by far the most important unit class in the game for minimizing loss in SP, especially in urban warfare.

It does seem like the artillery changes make the game much harder. This is why I am a proponent of such changes being tied to difficulty: on high difficulty, more stringent artillery rules apply. If urban warfare is much bloodier on higher difficulties compared with lower ones, isn't that like having having a scenario play out substantially differently?

Another way the rule can be changed so that it's not as bad as it is currently is that every entrenchment level over the terrain's base entrenchment gives +2 GD as opposed to +1. This means that very high entrenchment will be much more difficult to suppress than lower entrenchment levels, especially if a unit has been dug into that terrain for several turns.

[Mariancdr]

A suggestion, it shouldn’t be visible for me/for the enemy the fact that an unit has finished the ammo. Yes, it’s a very happy situation if you are trying to destroy a Tiger in Tunis map and you see that is out of ammo; but I think this should be discover during the fight and not visible to everyone.

[Kamerer]

A suggestion, it shouldn’t be visible for me/for the enemy the fact that an unit has finished the ammo. Yes, it’s a very happy situation if you are trying to destroy a Tiger in Tunis map and you see that is out of ammo; but I think this should be discover during the fight and not visible to everyone.

I agree with this, and in fact have brought it up before. May not be something germane for this change, but something I hope get's some thought. I don't think I should now the ammo state of the opponent, nor should they no mine, until they find out through combat.

[Rudankort]

I agree with this, and in fact have brought it up before. May not be something germane for this change, but something I hope get's some thought. I don't think I should now the ammo state of the opponent, nor should they no mine, until they find out through combat.

Yes, it has been brought up before, and I have already answered to this. To quote myself:

My main concern is that this feature would dramatically increase micromanagement work, both for the player and the AI. In many cases the player knows enough to deduce ammo count of each enemy unit. After all, units spend ammo only when fighting, and by definition the player sees all battles which take place. Ammo count can be lost only if a unit retreats to darkness and there it does not take replacements (which can be detected and gives a known ammo boost), but does resupply. This is very unlikely behavior, especially for the AI which, afair, does not retreat to resupply. So, in most cases the player will know ammo count anyway. But he would need to remember or put down a lot of information for every enemy unit to keep track of its ammo. He will never see accurate combat predictions which take "no ammo" condition into account. He will need to know the formulas and calculate manually how much ammo is reduced after carpet bombing with a strategic bomber. Why place all this burden on the player?

The AI would need to do the same. It could take unit ammo from game data but this would be cheating, because in some cases he cannot know the exact amount. So it would need to do all the same "record keeping work" too. A huge complication of the AI with no real gain for gameplay (essentially it will play as it does now).

The bottom line is, within the existing ruleset such a feature would not improve gameplay, but would hurt it. Under a different rule set (unit ammo randomized in the beginning of a scenairo etc.) it might work, but it would be a different game. To be quite frank, I don't think that more randomness is what we need in this game. We have enough of it in combat.

[Herald611]

3 minor bugs/quibbles
1: Bought an infantry unit and gave it a Bren carrier - when I put the unit on the map, the Bren was gone - this has happened several times
2: The animation and sound for the Scorpion should be different - especially when attacking a minefield
3: South African troops seem disproportionally tough compared to British troops

[Herald611]

Minefields should not get experience - I just saw a minefield get a medal!

[ThvN]

That would be an interesting award ceremony...

But anyway, some odds and ends I noticed:

The 'backfire' trait for the portee AT units works fine, but it has a strange visual effect when a portee unit fires at a unit in a hex directly above or below it, ie. North or South:
the portee unit switches back and forth very rapidly (in the blink of an eye, almost) before the attacks animations start. And if the attacked unit retreats, the portee switches back and forth again, somewhat slower this time. It's almost like it does a little victory dance. If it can't be fixed, please just leave the trait in as it is, as I can use it for some modded units...

I've been trying out some GC scenarios with the new rules, not much to report, the range penalty for artillery does not appear to be crippling, I notice it mostly when it seems the Strategic Bombers are starting to get relatively more effective in suppressing units. It might be difficult for inexperienced people, though, as they must rely more on brute force, but that requires some more input from others I guess.

What I did notice was in small scenarios with only a few cheap artillery units, is that it is very difficult to wear down entrenchment if only a single artillery piece is available. Units with high entrenchment take almost no damage and get barely suppressed, that is OK by me. But the entrenchment gets lowered by one, than increases again, and the next turn it's the same result. This is a bit too much like WW1 for me.

So either I make a very risky attack to help reduce entrenchment, or I need to reinforce the attack somehow. This can also be noticed in 'Fort Capuzzo', take a single 25-pdr and an infantry and attempt to wear some Italian unit with 8 entrenchment down...

Couple of ideas:
1. As already mentioned, have artillery knock down 2 entrenchment with a succesful attack. Simple, predictable.
2. Have a random bonus when attacking, like the initiative dice roll, so that an attack has a chance to remove an extra point of entrenchment.
3. Have extra entrenchment removed in relation to the attack result: if the attack results in any kills an extra point is knocked of, so heavier guns have a better chance of reducing entrenchment.

[Ballacraine]

I feel in general that the artillery has been nerfed a little too much.

Balla

[Kerensky]

Not being able to disband aux units during a scenario is annoying.