Slitherine

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:34 am**

BuddyGrant wrote:Here are some suggestions for CEAW Grand Strategy:

1. Re-organize units: Combining two depleted units into 1 stronger unit. Example: Two '4' strength corps units into one '8' strength corps unit.
Several war games have this functionality, including Advanced Tactics. For CEAW-GS the units would need to start the turn beside each other, and re-organizing would count as the turn move for each unit. I would imagine there would be a large effectiveness hit after this was done. Combining two garrisons into a single corps unit might be worth looking into as well.
Complexity: This is likely a very difficult change, possibly beyond the capabilities of the GS programmers, but worthy of a suggestion I think.

2. Changes to the map tile graphics based on current weather. This would greatly add to the immersion factor in the game, as one glance at the map would show you current conditions. It would also make following the AAR reports more interesting for the community (and people on the fence about buying the game).
Complexity: Currently CEAW uses one single map image, not individual terrain tiles as some games do, so this would likely be a very complex change. That being said, what if we created a number of 'master' map images, with all possible weather combinations displayed. Could the game reload a different map image in between turns to change the map display based on the games weather changes?

3. Unit stats. I think it would be fun to see how many actions/attacks a unit has been involved in. Maybe how many steps of damage it has taken and dished out during the war. I guess medals would be too much like Panzer General, but basic unit stats are pretty common in war games, and again, this would IMO increase the immersion factor for the user.
Complexity: Obviously pretty complex, as there is very little unit info stored in the game now - just numeric unit type (1=garrison, 2= corps, 3 = mech, 4 = armor, 6 = fighter, etc.), country, and name.

4. User notification when a new lab is available.
If this is in the game now I can't see it, but it sure would be useful. As it is now it is my understanding that you have to check the tech screen every turn to see if you can purchase a new lab.
Complexity: Probably a lot less complex than the other suggestions here:).

5. Politics! Based on the scen files it appears like this was originally going to be built into the game, with numbers representing how close each country was to joining the Allied or Axis side. It would be fun if the user could attempt to influence these numbers in rising or dropping, and allow some additional minor countries to join the fray and mix things up a bit. Perhaps political options could even make current satellite countries join up sooner.
Complexity: This would be an extremely difficult change, likely beyond the capabilities of the GS programmers.

6. Options for retaining more unit quality when adding replacements.
This has been discussed frequently under 'elite units' and other descriptions on these forums, just including it here as it is an interesting thing to look at and I hope there is more discussion about the idea. Currently any CEAW-GS unit's elite status is as fleeting as a single bad dice roll turn, but at the same time there should be an effectiveness/quality hit when taking on replacements.

Adding to this list...

7. Impact of multiple leaders: Change game leader logic so that a unit is only effected by the highest rated leader (in cases where 2 leaders are within range of 1 unit). Perhaps there should also be a Y/N flag in the GENERAL.TXT file for this kind of a change, in case some users wanted this game leader logic to stay the same.
Complexity: No clue, might be tough, but hopefully it is not too difficult.

8. Espionage. Add the ability to see some key info about the enemy for a price. The info's accuracy might be off by +/-10% or so, but it would give you an idea of the enemy's situation. Some key info you'd want to know would be:
- Oil reserves.
- Manpower reserves.
- Location of a hidden unit (thinking of a hidden sub here but perhaps this would also work wth a land unit that the player cannot see currently).
Additionally, espionage might be used to increase the percentage of technology research attained in a specific area. EG: Add 10 or 20% to AIR--> DOG FIGHT.
Complexity: Seriously difficult, requires some core game design additions ala the Politics suggestion.

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:25 am**

The Atlantic Wall, as form of fortress (1942-1944): Any chance to have that implemented???

Sorry for my patetic english...

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:08 pm**

tetsuo wrote:The Atlantic Wall, as form of fortress (1942-1944): Any chance to have that implemented???

It would be nice to be able for players to be able build Fortifications that are not as good as Fortresses but that do allow units additional protection and entrenchment. If this was possible (at the right cost) then players could set up fortified zones at strategic points or attempt to build Fortress Europa. Fortifications should probably also consume a certain amount of manpower in addition to PP's.

An example of real-life fortifications constructed were those at Kursk by the russians and the Finnish V-K-T line (whose successful defense actually forced the russians to agree to peace terms with the Finns in 1944....)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala

Would add another interesting variable to the game.

Also, I'm wondering whether some of the russian cities (eg Moscow, Stalingrad) should actually be two hexes (each hex having half of the current PPs) to simulate the size of the cities and their greater difficulty to capture (Europa-Fire in the East/Scorched Earth is one game that uses this concept to allow some simulation of urban warfare in large cities). Currently, with Stalingrad for example, all you need to do is launch a 3 hex attack on it supported with air and once it falls, thats it, all nearby units are in clear terrain and are comparatively easier to clear away. This is less of an issue if Fortifications can be added to hexes of course....

Posted: **Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:21 pm**

One of the games I play has hot keys that cycle through all the land and sea units which allows one to identify units which have moved or not. Is it possible to add similar keys? Sometimes I forget to move a unit, and it isn't always easy to see the flashing icons of units that haven't moved.

Regards.

Posted: **Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:25 pm**

"Page up" and "Page down" already do this.

Posted: **Wed Mar 24, 2010 6:26 pm**

Well...check that one off of the list.

Thank you.

Posted: **Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:30 am**

Stauffenberg wrote:
Could you say yes or no to my suggestions in the message above about changing the spotting ranges? If I get enough yes votes I might update it for the next patch.
....
Garrison: L2, S2
Corps: L2, S2
Mech: L3, S2
Armor: L3, S2
Fighter: L3, S4 (L -1, S -2)
Tac bomber: L3, S5 (L -1, S -1)
Strategic bomber: L4, S6
Sub: L1, S4 (S -2)
DD: L2, S5 ( S -1)
BB: L2, S5 (S -1)
CV: L3, S6 (S -1)

Methinks that these proposed changes are a significant improvement over the extant ones, although I would have personally preferred to have the DD at S4.

Kind regards.

Stephen

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:14 pm**

Possible differents sounds when units upgrades?....Not same sound Pz III and Tiger,or Bf 109 and Me 262....Sorry for my english

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2010 6:02 pm**

Would it be possible to be able to select a commander and press a key and have the hexes over which he provides a command bonus show up as a shade of some color? This would make it helpful to determine command radius, and in the case of two or more commanders, where their radiuses may overlap or a gap exists. If this already exists in the game, how does one enable it?

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2010 1:46 pm**

My suggestion is that convoys originating from the US should be purchased like the other units, and that the US PPs be increased somewhat so that overall production for the US mirrors current output in the game as is. This way the US can have a little more control over how much to invest in convoys and for which country. And the US would then have to balance decisions to invest in convoys against decisions to invest in more labs and/or purchasing more war material.

This way the US can boost convoys if wolf packs are very effective, reduce them to Russia if Russia doesn't need them as much and the UK does, or reduce them altogether and invest in more research or guns. I think this would allow for more choices which makes the game more interesting.

Perhaps the chance to purchase convoys occurs every fourth turn to reflect the current appearance of convoys and there be a maximum cap on the size of any one convoy. I would not recommend altering the game balance to allow more convoys or larger convoys than currently available.

And, I'd suggest that convoys be controllable once they set sail, just as they were during the war. Did the merchant skippers act independently of the Royal and US navies during the war, or did they coordinate their courses of sail? Having convoys on auto pilot seems odd to me, especially if wolf packs are extremely active.

My two cents.

Regards.

Posted: **Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:18 pm**

Sicily. It seems to be too easy a conquest for the Allies, since the Axis have to pay the 8 pps to ship defenders to this part of Italy. A small fix could be to make it possible for Italy to place units newly built in Sicily. They would still have to sail other units there, but with this fix at least it is possible for an Italy that plans ahead to slowly build up some defence.

Posted: **Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:11 pm**

trulster wrote:Sicily. It seems to be too easy a conquest for the Allies, since the Axis have to pay the 8 pps to ship defenders to this part of Italy. A small fix could be to make it possible for Italy to place units newly built in Sicily. They would still have to sail other units there, but with this fix at least it is possible for an Italy that plans ahead to slowly build up some defence.

May be Sicily is an easy conquest for the allies but the time frame in which Sicily can be surrendered is fairly historical. The allied invasion of Sicily, codenamed Operation Husky, lasted from 9 july till 17 august (39 days). This means in CEAW only 2 turns. Let´s imagine now a Sicily island full of italian infantry units: it will cost many turns to the allies to "clear" the island and the time frame in which Sicily could be conquered would be 2-3 months or more (5-6 turns).

Posted: **Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:09 pm**

Some random ideas:

1) I like the idea of a multiplicity of units, but at a corps level game I struggle to think what value paratroopers would really add. What would they do? They would have to be at least half strength for realism purposes and then could be easily crushed.

2) Instead of paratroopers, why not mountain INF? Simple trade-off: lower attack value (to represent far less heavy equipment and artillery) but better movement in rough and mountain terrain. Say, 3 instead of 2 in rough and 2 instead of one in mountain. Also lower (or no) attack penalties in mountain and rough terrain. And lower movement penalties in bad weather. These should cost more than INF but less than MECH. Say, 40 or 45. Also slightly lower manpower cost than INF to represent their smaller size. Mountain troops could be very useful and open up a lot of possibilities on the map. In certain areas walking INF through one hex at a time is just brutally dull and tiresome. Mountain troops would be a good buy for a lot of players, I think.

3) I like the idea of AMPH being able to take contested hexes as it seems more realistic. But given the combat engine, I am not sure how to make it work. There is really no way that one INF corps could destroy a full strength land corps, even after two TAC attacks and a naval bombardment. Chances that they would knock the unit back one hex are also low given INF's relatively low shock value and the proposed (and necessary, I think) combat penalty of landing. So if implemented with the same combat system, it seems that 99% of all contested landings would fail. That would not be historical. I don't know the solution to this.

4) When FTRs are upgraded to the jet icon, the sound effect should be a “WHOOSH!” rather than a propeller.

5) This may be impossible, but. Currently, when you move, if you don’t click to attack IMMEDIATELY after that move, then you have lost your chance. Why shouldn’t the unit have the option to attack until the end of the turn? It would still be able to attack only once. Similarly, when you knock an enemy unit back, you have to move in to the vacated hex immediately or lose your chance forever. Why shouldn’t that option remain open until the end of the turn?

6) Separate air units for CVs. (I know, I know--impossible.)

7) I saw the debate about upgrading on the front lines. How about a compromise: allow upgrades when facing enemy units but only in cities and fortresses. This seems more realistic. The idea that a unit can’t upgrade in clear terrain when facing an enemy makes sense. But under the protection of a fortress or city, with high supply levels, they ought to be able to do so. In terms of gameplay, it means that you don’t have to sacrifice 4, 5 or 8 turns of valuable entrenchment to upgrade those units.

Posted: **Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:03 pm**

Actually, I want to amend the above re: mountain troops. I think they need to be more expensive. The fact that the US had only one such division in WW2 is telling. I think the real limitation was quality of soldier and training. Not sure how to abstract the former. But it does seem that manpower costs should be at least equal in INF. This would represent a real bite out of your manpower to build what is in normal terrain a less capable unit. You are taking elite soldiers who could be doing well in other units. Training should imply higher PP cost than INF. The result should be that you see very few of these units on the map. Each one should be a hard choice for the player. He should buy only to execute a plan that REALLY needs them (e.g., invading Italy through the Alps or taking the Baku oilfields).

I don't know what the "right" values are, but the concept is:
-Manpower cost equal to INF
-PP cost higher than INF (higher than MECH?)
-Attack and shock values lower than INF
-Very low anti-tank value?
-Movement in rough and mountain (and forest?) terrain bettern than INF
-Attack penalties in rough terrain and bad weather significantly lower (non-existent?) than INF
-Higher entrenchment levels than INF in rough and mountain?

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:26 pm**

I would like to see the number of days per turn changed. Whyw was the 20 day turn concept implemented in the first place?
I mod the game so that the days per turn is 7 days(one week)! This in my mind is much more historical in that it allows you
to defeat Poland in three weeks (historical) as opposed to mid October. Lets you take Denmark and Norway in April (historical)
declare war on Low Countries and France on exactly May 10 (again historical). Get my point yet?

Of course I tweak the production times, production costs and winter duration accordingly (Three times).

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:01 pm**

Modding the game to have three times as many turns is certainly favouring the Axis a lot, enough to be unbalancing I bet. They have the biggest army at the start of the war and Russia should suffer a lot!

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:29 pm**

trulster wrote:

Modding the game to have three times as many turns is certainly favouring the Axis a lot, enough to be unbalancing I bet. They have the biggest army at the start of the war and Russia should suffer a lot!

That is why I increase the production time by three and the production cost times three.

As far as I know the Data/general.txt and unit.txt are used by both Player and AI. If this assumption is not correct can a developer explain to me why?

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:22 am**

OberGeneral wrote:trulster wrote:

Modding the game to have three times as many turns is certainly favouring the Axis a lot, enough to be unbalancing I bet. They have the biggest army at the start of the war and Russia should suffer a lot!
That is why I increase the production time by three and the production cost times three.

I know, but that wont stop the Axis from moving and attacking three times as much with their superior forces in the first years of the war = significant change of balance.

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:20 pm**

I find it odd that assigning a commander gives the unit a "penalty" in the way it can not be moved that turn. I find that both unrealistic and annoying. The consequence is a rather limited use of commanders. I am not sure what a commander actually contribute to, but since they are around they should make a differnce.

I am sorry if this has been mentioned before but I can't find any search possibility on this forum.

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:34 pm**

Any upgrade or reinforcement costs you a turn. Adding a commander is the same thing.

They are hugely helpful, they bring up the effectiveness of all same-nation units within 8 hexes by a factor of 2x the commander's leadership value.

Slitherine

New Ideas for CEaW Grand Strategy

Unit cycle buttons

Commander command radius

Convoys

A change that I have implemented.

Assigning Commander should not inactivate unit