Slitherine

Below are the items that I've collected so far. I've collected them, "as is" along with any comments. I do think we need to start whittling things down a bit. I plan to keep a history of all proposed enhancements that make the list, even ones that are rejected. Again, it is the design team that will determine based on a number of factors which items get implemented and how. However; reasoned opinions by you can and will have an effect on this determination.

If you have new and relevant opinions about any of these items now is the time to post them. I will collect them and add them to the list.

12-29-2009. CEaW Grand Strategy Expansion – Candidate Future Enhancements List

Note: List is in no particular order.

1. Recommend that the supply length of 20 hexes be changed to 22 hexes. Due to the weird game play it causes around Rostov for the German player, as well as it being very ahistorical. A supply length of 22 hexes allows regular German supply east to Stavropal-Tambov-Gorky, but, not to Stalingrad-Penza-Kotlas.
a. In the expansion we moved Moscow closer to Berlin (5 hexes). We moved Gorky 6 hexes closer than the standard game. So that does not mean we should extend the supply distance just to reach Gorky and the other cities that were not present in the standard game.
b. The Germans did not have the capacity to provide full supply out to that distance (which 1800 miles from Berlin) . Yes this is a simulation, but not to the extent of ruining the system. Because of map constraints the left edge of the map is closer than it should be.
2. Change Chott El Djerib to swamp hexes.
3. Tie in "land" hexes to either manpower (agriculture production) or Industrial output (Raw materials), depending on the hex type. This could add a new dynamic, as players controlling the Axis will actively attempt to capture "Lebensraum", instead of just the scattered cities within the Soviet Union. This could add new military strategies, as "not one step tactics might gain more importance. Furthermore, the entire region of the Ukraine will now be vital, instead of just the few "mine" hexes meant to represent the agriculture/industry of the area in CEAW. This could actively create new objectives instead of just the common "Straight advance to Moscow" strategy.
4. Amphibious units that can attack occupied beaches (i.e., opposed landings).
5. Paratroops.
6. Change the map northwards so we get maybe 10-12 more hex rows. This way we can fully implement Northern Norway and Russia (i.e. have Murmansk and Archangel as Russian ports). This means changing both the editor and several game class files.
7. Variable repair points for units. Instead of all or nothing, let the player have the option to decide how many repair points to add. The number of steps repaired would be selectable between 1 and the supply level of the unit.
8. Add force pool limits; i.e., limit the number of product type depending upon country, technology level and / or year.
a. I don't favor hard limits on particular countries. Changes to naval builds (such as your hull idea) might instead take into account current naval tech and industry tech (like the system does for amphibious operations). This way, countries that historically neglected their navies like Germany could still be a threat. I realize that some of these decisions (laying down hulls) would realistically have had to have been made before the game begins in 1939, but I prefer it if the game is flexible enough to allow for a stronger German or Italian navy.
b. In terms of force pool limits or even ship limits I understand these from a technical point of view. However; from a game play, or replay, point of view I tend to favor no limits on either. One thing I like about CEaW is that we don't have to manage the non-military aspects of a country; especially, the industrial part. All of this is abstracted fairly well I believe. When a country purchases a BB fleet for 70 PPs, or a CV fleets for 110 PPs, that's ready in 8 turns, or 160 days, I don't view that as that fleet being built from scratch. I view that as an abstraction of what it takes to transform some group of resources into a battle ready group of ships in the Atlantic. For example, it could represent the transfer of ships from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Or it could represent high priority being placed on existing ship building efforts to turn out the fleet. PPs naturally constrain these efforts. For example, German can theoretically build an unlimited number of BB and / or CV fleets, which many may consider unrealistic or unhistorical. However, the reality is that Germany has more pressing needs for their PPs (e.g., research, infantry, armor, air) that naturally constrain these builds. If an axis player decides on Sea Lion and a naval heavy strategy then the assumption, or abstraction, is that Germany's shipbuilding and other industries would be in lockstep with that strategy.
9. Long term ship building, some would be immediate because the keels were already laid down. If not started then a longer build time. This would have to take into account of certain countries because of their unused capability could shorten the time (i.e.; USA). This will be needed if there is a Pacific expansion. Or number 1 could suffice. We could e. g. let the countries have different hull time production, but same unit time production. So e. g. USA could produce a hull in 2 turn, Britain in 4 turns, Germany in 6 turns and Russia and Italy in 8 turns. This also means they can produce destroyers faster than anyone else if we link destroyers to hulls.
10. Monroe doctrine. The USA mobilizes on any axis invasion of North America including Greenland.
11. Add Canada to Northern European weather zone.
12. Change Tangiers into a capital meaning that Spain won't surrender if Madrid falls.
a. I think Spain should surrender when Madrid falls. After years of civil war, I just don't think any kind of organized resistance besides partisans would have continued. This is particularly true if Hitler and Mussolini stabbed their fascist friend in the back.
b. One good thing about Spain falling after Madrid falls is that then the Axis has a chance to actually succeed with the invasion. If they need to take Tangiers as well then you have to destroy every Spanish unit and march the hard way down to Gibraltar. It will take forever and you can't do it before Barbarossa. Currently you can blitz to Madrid and then rail some forces to Seville and Cordoba to quickly take Gibraltar. Then you have a chance to be back in the east before June 1941. All depends upon how fast you can get past the rough terrain north of Madrid.
13. British convoys are rerouted to Halifax if London falls. Reroute these convoys to Washington if Halifax falls. That means the UK convoys will be sent to a US port instead.
14. Let UK convoys go to USA (Washington) and be added to the US production if Britain surrenders. The point is that the Commonwealth (India, Australia, South Africa etc.) would send the resources to the remaining ally (USA) if the British were knocked out of the war. It doesn't seem logical that the Axis would get control of all the Commonwealth just because the Axis would occupy Canada
15. Immediately activate USA if the Axis player controls a hex in Canada.
16. Belgium activates on a German DOW against Holland.
a. Activating Belgium in case of Holland war... hmm this will make early blitzkrieg less viable, probably needs a lot of testing as could have significant impact on the game.
b. This could be implemented for a 1939 DOW only. Or should it also include 1940?
17. French and UK forces in France do NOT suffer a morale loss for a DOW against Belgium in 1939. The morale loss only applies for a 1940 DOW. Belgium forces still do suffer the loss for a DOW in 1939.
18. Create a separate Commonwealth force if UK surrenders. All British forces outside of the Mediterranean would disappear but not the British and Commonwealth forces in North Africa and Iraq. This way the Iraqi oilfields wouldn´t be so easy targets for axis forces if the UK surrenders.
19. The advanced weather in CNaW such as storms would be a nice addition. Where you have storm/clouds over hexes air attacks of any kind would not be allowed.
20. Plus to add more fog of war into the mix only the side who occupies the hexes can see what is there. The other side cannot.
a. For example: If on a turn each side can see Cherbourg, but France is currently occupied by the Axis player. The Allied player is ready to invade France and can see that Cherbourg has a German garrison and Paris is occupied by a German infantry corps. On the next turn a storm/cloud cover rolls in and hexes are now under the fog of war for the Allied player. The Axis player can see the hexes and rails in reinforcements to Cherbourg and Paris.
b. Now the very next turn the storm/cloud cover has passed and the Allied player sees the reinforcements. Now the Allied player needs to make a decision. Possible attack with airpower for a few turns before the invasion hoping that another storm doesn't roll in any time too soon.
c. I like the idea for advanced weather, although when dealing with turns that encompass twenty days at a time, the loss of intelligence due to weather could have some unexpectedly harsh results. Still, if we look at this as an abstraction of a real-world situation, I think it could work surprisingly well. As with so many of the other great additions to CEAW-GS, the only way to be sure if something will work is to implement it and play-test it to death.
21. A less variable random-research option.
22. Probabilistic Russian and USA entry.

I had suggested a less variable random-research option, but I don't see it on the list. I am guessing the mod developers don't like this option?

ncali wrote:I had suggested a less variable random-research option, but I don't see it on the list. I am guessing the mod developers don't like this option?

The list maker, which is me, just overlooked it. Now added as item 21 along with item 22.

rkr1958 wrote: 16. Belgium activates on a German DOW against Holland.
a. Activating Belgium in case of Holland war... hmm this will make early blitzkrieg less viable, probably needs a lot of testing as could have significant impact on the game.
b. This could be implemented for a 1939 DOW only. Or should it also include 1940?
17. French and UK forces in France do NOT suffer a morale loss for a DOW against Belgium in 1939. The morale loss only applies for a 1940 DOW. Belgium forces still do suffer the loss for a DOW in 1939.

I think this is important to consider. We are seeing AAR´s and games that are creating the idea of a "normal" fall of France by march (or even february) or april 1940. And I think this shouldn´t be so. The french campaign seems to be considered as a routine campaign without any real chance for France and the allies to do another thing that delay the conquer of Paris. This shouldn´t be so and the first thing to do would be to take off the blitzkrieg penalty for the french and british forces in both 1939 and 1940 so the axis would have to work a little more for the Western Europe campaign. In respect with Belgium and Holland I think it would have to take off the blitzkrieg penalty in 1939 and to keep up in 1940. In case of a only Holland axis declaration of war, Belgium should join the allies in all cases to prevent the axis the "comfortable campaign" in the West.

2. Change Chott El Djerib to swamp hexes.

As per our email discussion, this should be "Change Chott El Djerib to Quattara Depression hexes"

Also, could some of the new items being considered be offered as "options" along with oil, random research, etc?

Neil

I have 2 other suggestions

a) A change in convoy movement.
1) the route taken is more random in movement (not a straight line). The time is usually 5 to 6 games turns so there is room for more movement
without taking more turns.
2) that sub do not impede convoy movement. Regular naval ship movement can be stopped. In the case of convoys the convoys take damage while it moves,
depending on the distance from Uboats like Fighter interception. The Convoys could keep the same movement or it reduces the total distance by some amount of hexes.
Or if convoy is stopped by a sub the next turn the convoy gets to move a number of hexes before it could be stopped again.
This might be useful in a Pacific type setting.

b) FoW for naval taskforces. Maybe in the game logic we can produce random sightings of naval forces. Right now you see everything all the time.
So on the Axis turn he may not see a nearby Allied taskforce. On the Allied turn the German taskforce may or may not be sighted if sighted the allies could move to intercept or launch Air attacks from a carrier. If the carrier launches an attack it is automatically visible for that turn and the very next.
This will definitely be needed for a Pacific simulation. Where the CEAW is the test bed.

On the Belgium/France issues =

(1) How about if the Allies don't suffer the effectiveness-morale penalty if the Germans attack in bad weather (mud or snow)? I see the point of the penalty as the shock of the initial blitzkrieg.

Otherwise, I don't favor any changes just yet. The current stats are showing France usually falls in a somewhat historical timeframe, which makes sense - particularly because most players don't favor much help from the British. Since there don't seem to be major problems, why make any significant modifications? That said, I previously indicated that I did favor DOW on Holland also bringing Belgium into the war. I still think this makes sense - but it will help the Allies a bit.

Should we add the possibility to upgrade units even if they're adjacent to enemy units?

One thing that annoys me is to withdraw land units from the front line so they can be upgraded and then place another unit in it's place to maintain the front line. This seems strange since we can repair units at the front line.

You can rail units to the front line, but not from the front line. Should we change these rules or keep them as is?

Can you add these as suggestions for future updates, Ronnie.

Stauffenberg wrote:Should we add the possibility to upgrade units even if they're adjacent to enemy units?

One thing that annoys me is to withdraw land units from the front line so they can be upgraded and then place another unit in it's place to maintain the front line. This seems strange since we can repair units at the front line.

You can rail units to the front line, but not from the front line. Should we change these rules or keep them as is?

Can you add these as suggestions for future updates, Ronnie.

I think it should be allowed the upgrades in the front line because a unit that is fighting in the front line may receive a new technology (e.g. let´s think in the german tanks) without having to leave the front line. One armoured german unit can receive tigers instead of the current PZ IV without any move from the front line.

In respect with the rail moves I also agree with freedom from moving the units from the front line and not only to the front line. We have rail move restrictions and cannot be afraid of any abuse on this

FYI and for comments. Note, if you oppose those items that have been rejected please voice your opposition now. Note that 98%+ comments are NOT mine even though many are captured in the "first person". That is, "I" doesn't mean me!

rkr1958 wrote:FYI and for comments. Note, if you oppose those items that have been rejected please voice your opposition now. Note that 98%+ comments are NOT mine even though many are captured in the "first person". That is, "I" doesn't mean me!

12-30-2009. Enhancement List

But does mine mean yours?

My thoughts:

REJECT: 1, 2, 8 (seems too difficult to implement), 16, 17 (France had many issues, and so should always suffer a morale drop), and 21.

20 and 22 I simply don't understand, so someone needs to clarify.

ACCEPT: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 (I really like the idea of hulls), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, (13 and 14 are same effect essentially, are they not?), 15, 18 and 19.

Happycat wrote:

rkr1958 wrote:FYI and for comments. Note, if you oppose those items that have been rejected please voice your opposition now. Note that 98%+ comments are NOT mine even though many are captured in the "first person". That is, "I" doesn't mean me!

12-30-2009. Enhancement List

But does mine mean yours?

My head hurts.

My only comment would be that I dont like the upgrade of units in the front line. In fact I am not a huge fan of repairing while in the front line.

Maybe it would be better to disallow repairs to units facing opposition (ie they need to be withdrawn to be repaired or upgraded). This would be a little more historical in my opnion as it is very difficult to provide new equipment (mainly for training purposes, mechanics, support staff and proficient use of the equipment).

So my proposal is to either leave it as is - on the basis that its easier to integrate new troops then it is new equipment. Or alternativly to refit and reorganise a corps they need to leave the line.

Rolls Royce (aero) are still using 25 year old mainframe computers to simulate crashes - one of the big reasons that they have kept this old equipment going is the cost, effort and energy of trying to train up how to use new equipement - although this cannot be a direct comparison it does show that you cant just drop tigers at the front line while in combat and expect the drivers, mechanics etc to suddenly be able to get this running and working while still having to fight the enemy.

It is far easier to provide existing equipment if they are at th front line. Part of the problem is that as we are dealing with Corps its all or nothing - maybe something to show a gradual increase in equipment levels (but I am worries that this may overcomplicate things)

afk_nero wrote:My only comment would be that I dont like the upgrade of units in the front line. In fact I am not a huge fan of repairing while in the front line.

Maybe it would be better to disallow repairs to units facing opposition (ie they need to be withdrawn to be repaired or upgraded). This would be a little more historical in my opnion as it is very difficult to provide new equipment (mainly for training purposes, mechanics, support staff and proficient use of the equipment).

So my proposal is to either leave it as is - on the basis that its easier to integrate new troops then it is new equipment. Or alternativly to refit and reorganise a corps they need to leave the line.

Rolls Royce (aero) are still using 25 year old mainframe computers to simulate crashes - one of the big reasons that they have kept this old equipment going is the cost, effort and energy of trying to train up how to use new equipement - although this cannot be a direct comparison it does show that you cant just drop tigers at the front line while in combat and expect the drivers, mechanics etc to suddenly be able to get this running and working while still having to fight the enemy.

It is far easier to provide existing equipment if they are at th front line. Part of the problem is that as we are dealing with Corps its all or nothing - maybe something to show a gradual increase in equipment levels (but I am worries that this may overcomplicate things)

Personally, I feel that repairing units on the front lines is must. Otherwise; it would be too easy to capture front line cities and / or forts. I personally agree with NOT allowing upgrades of front line units. Personally I feel it's more historical to have to pull a unit from the front line in order to upgrade it versus sending replacement in to reinforce (i.e., repair) it. So my vote is to keep it as is.

Agree with afknero, you should not be able to upgrade on the front line. Makes for need to rotate some forces. Reinforcements though I think should be kept as is, changing that would have wide implications, mainly favouring the attacker a lot...meaning more extreme range of game results as Axis have bigger success longer before the tide turns violently. France, Copenhagen, Leningrad, Gibraltar etc much easier to capture.

I also think units should be withdrawn from the front line for upgrades. This means it will put the unit out of commission for two turns, i.e. 40 days, which is about right. Repairs can continue to be a front line function, for the reasons pointed out by the previous posters (rkr, trulster, nero)

See you all next year

Agree with Happycat....

12-31-2009. CEaW Grand Strategy Enhancements Wish List.

All, I reinstated all rejected items as I'm getting conflicting recommendations on what to keep and what to toss. Below is what I have collected so far. We do need to prune the list and hopefully I've noted all objections.

Note: List is in no particular order.

1. Recommend that the supply length of 20 hexes be changed to 22 hexes. Due to the weird game play it causes around Rostov for the German player, as well as it being very ahistorical. A supply length of 22 hexes allows regular German supply east to Stavropal-Tambov-Gorky, but, not to Stalingrad-Penza-Kotlas.
a. In the expansion we moved Moscow closer to Berlin (5 hexes). We moved Gorky 6 hexes closer than the standard game. So that does not mean we should extend the supply distance just to reach Gorky and the other cities that were not present in the standard game.
b. The Germans did not have the capacity to provide full supply out to that distance (which 1800 miles from Berlin) . Yes this is a simulation, but not to the extent of ruining the system. Because of map constraints the left edge of the map is closer than it should be.
2. Change Chott El Djerib to swamp hexes.
a. I guess change the color to look similar to the Quatara depression hexes. I like the marsh green myself. We explained the area in the manual.
3. Tie in "land" hexes to either manpower (agriculture production) or Industrial output (Raw materials), depending on the hex type. This could add a new dynamic, as players controlling the Axis will actively attempt to capture "Lebensraum", instead of just the scattered cities within the Soviet Union. This could add new military strategies, as "not one step tactics might gain more importance. Furthermore, the entire region of the Ukraine will now be vital, instead of just the few "mine" hexes meant to represent the agriculture/industry of the area in CEAW. This could actively create new objectives instead of just the common "Straight advance to Moscow" strategy.
a. For now I would remove, Maybe a better explanation of how this could work for me to consider, I do not see the benefit. If another game / system has that kind of game play, that is what makes that game unique. Our game attracts players that like this system.
4. Amphibious units that can attack occupied beaches (i.e., opposed landings).
a. The method that was discussed a long time ago in a previous thread may work, or if an invasion against an occupied hex (Clear or Forest only). A message with a check box Asks do you want to proceed ? (you can show an appropriate cost similar to overcost of invasion capacity) It could cost 50 PP's or what we deem fitting. So it could get expensive if there was an invasion limit overcost and an occupied invasion cost. If the hex is not cleared and the landing does not take place the unit should suffer damage. Also we could have only INF could make an opposed landing.
5. Paratroops.
a. I think this can work, but the caveat is the implementation. To limit the number per country we have special leaders for Paratroops. So when the leader is purchased (high PP's) and assigned to either a INF or Garrison the unit now has the ability to fly to a hex and land the unit. So this would be like subs in the air. Of course the range needs to be reduced. We could have fighter intercept or AA fire against the unit. The other point is if we can allow an occupied hex attack. Where the procedure would be TAC attacks, land combat and if occupied the Para attacks. If the hex is not cleared then the Leader is injured and the unit is destroyed. Or we only allow unoccupied landings. The Para unit would have +1 on the attack and defense, higher Quality, Survivability, and full supply for 1 turn after landing, medium supply the next turn, no supply. (if no source available). We could then limit the number of Paratroops by the number of Leaders 1 for Germany, 1 For Russia, 1 For Britain, and either 1 or 2 for the US. We could just have Garrisons be the only unit for Paratroops. The Paratroop leader could have a low leadership rating so as to not be used for 2 purposes. (ie replace Patton).
6. Change the map northwards so we get maybe 10-12 more hex rows. This way we can fully implement Northern Norway and Russia (i.e. have Murmansk and Archangel as Russian ports). This means changing both the editor and several game class files.
a. As for being able to expand the map is fine for a test, but the addition of that northern theater is way below the strategic threshold for the game. a) it will add 1 to 2 more turns for the convoys to reach the destination, which means less PP's for Russia. b) add more units to cover the extra territory. The place where the combat took place is 1940 was one battle with about 2000 men and then basically stagnant the rest of the war. So contribution is minimal. The weather made combat and territorial gains nil. I believe this would create even more weird tactics being tried, which would not have happened.
b. Now if the map can be expanded that would be good, which maybe needed for a Pacific game it needed to go more South than North. That also depends upon the Development team and what are the victory conditions. If we go for a new map that keeps going eastward toward Hawaii.
7. Variable repair points for units. Instead of all or nothing, let the player have the option to decide how many repair points to add. The number of steps repaired would be selectable between 1 and the supply level of the unit.
a. I would vote to keep if doable.
8. Add force pool limits; i.e., limit the number of product type depending upon country, technology level and / or year.
a. I don't favor hard limits on particular countries. Changes to naval builds (such as your hull idea) might instead take into account current naval tech and industry tech (like the system does for amphibious operations). This way, countries that historically neglected their navies like Germany could still be a threat. I realize that some of these decisions (laying down hulls) would realistically have had to have been made before the game begins in 1939, but I prefer it if the game is flexible enough to allow for a stronger German or Italian navy.
b. In terms of force pool limits or even ship limits I understand these from a technical point of view. However; from a game play, or replay, point of view I tend to favor no limits on either. One thing I like about CEaW is that we don't have to manage the non-military aspects of a country; especially, the industrial part. All of this is abstracted fairly well I believe. When a country purchases a BB fleet for 70 PPs, or a CV fleets for 110 PPs, that's ready in 8 turns, or 160 days, I don't view that as that fleet being built from scratch. I view that as an abstraction of what it takes to transform some group of resources into a battle ready group of ships in the Atlantic. For example, it could represent the transfer of ships from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Or it could represent high priority being placed on existing ship building efforts to turn out the fleet. PPs naturally constrain these efforts. For example, German can theoretically build an unlimited number of BB and / or CV fleets, which many may consider unrealistic or unhistorical. However, the reality is that Germany has more pressing needs for their PPs (e.g., research, infantry, armor, air) that naturally constrain these builds. If an axis player decides on Sea Lion and a naval heavy strategy then the assumption, or abstraction, is that Germany's shipbuilding and other industries would be in lockstep with that strategy.
c. Not now, but maybe needed for the Pacific theater. If in the Pacific, it needs to be in the Europe game if a combined game is done.
9. Long term ship building, some would be immediate because the keels were already laid down. If not started then a longer build time. This would have to take into account of certain countries because of their unused capability could shorten the time (i.e.; USA). This will be needed if there is a Pacific expansion. Or number 1 could suffice. We could e. g. let the countries have different hull time production, but same unit time production. So e. g. USA could produce a hull in 2 turn, Britain in 4 turns, Germany in 6 turns and Russia and Italy in 8 turns. This also means they can produce destroyers faster than anyone else if we link destroyers to hulls.
a. Yes. Team needs to add a GUI system for the player to know when they have a hull point or used a hull point. Maybe enlarge the lower third of the war panel (50 - 60 pixels) to add extra buttons and/or display additional information needed for added capabilities. Of course this reduces the map area to be viewed.
10. Monroe doctrine. The USA mobilizes on any axis invasion of North America including Greenland.
a. Yes, Greenland does not need to be included since there are no hexes that can be invaded.
11. Add Canada to Northern European weather zone.
a. Not now. Impact low.
12. Change Tangiers into a capital meaning that Spain won't surrender if Madrid falls.
a. I think Spain should surrender when Madrid falls. After years of civil war, I just don't think any kind of organized resistance besides partisans would have continued. This is particularly true if Hitler and Mussolini stabbed their fascist friend in the back.
b. One good thing about Spain falling after Madrid falls is that then the Axis has a chance to actually succeed with the invasion. If they need to take Tangiers as well then you have to destroy every Spanish unit and march the hard way down to Gibraltar. It will take forever and you can't do it before Barbarossa. Currently you can blitz to Madrid and then rail some forces to Seville and Cordoba to quickly take Gibraltar. Then you have a chance to be back in the east before June 1941. All depends upon how fast you can get past the rough terrain north of Madrid.
c. What about beefing up the Spanish forces instead? Maybe some more Garrisons in the Mountain hexes along the French border? Or a Mech unit? Spain was aware of Blitzkrieg tactics. Maybe no DoW efficiency loss. I feel Spain, Sweden, and Turkey should not experience any efficiency loss. They kept a very close watch on Hitler and since their leaders had very good control over their respective countries would be ready. I think Jim and Ronnie would be able to help a lot here since they experienced it first hand. The items I listed would delay the surrender of Spain 1 or 2 turns? Maybe that would suffice. Or that UK sends more forces from Australia and New Zealand and India? What about Naval assets?
13. British convoys are rerouted to Halifax if London falls. Reroute these convoys to Washington if Halifax falls. That means the UK convoys will be sent to a US port instead.
a. Yes. To fix the cause and effect of situations that could happen and the result.
14. Let UK convoys go to USA (Washington) and be added to the US production if Brit ain surrenders. The point is that the Commonwealth (India, Australia, South Africa etc.) would send the resources to the remaining ally (USA) if the British were knocked out of the war. It doesn't seem logical that the Axis would get control of all the Commonwealth just because the Axis would occupy Canada.
a. Yes. To fix the cause and effect of situations that could happen and the result.
15. Immediately activate USA if the Axis player controls a hex in Canada.
a. Same thing as 10 (Monroe Doctrine).
b. Yes, Greenland does not need to be included since there are no hexes that can be invaded.
16. Belgium activates on a German DOW against Holland.
a. Activating Belgium in case of Holland war... hmm this will make early blitzkrieg less viable, probably needs a lot of testing as could have significant impact on the game.
b. This could be implemented for a 1939 DOW only. Or should it also include 1940?
17. French and UK forces in France do NOT suffer a morale loss for a DOW against Belgium in 1939. The morale loss only applies for a 1940 DOW. Belgium forces still do suffer the loss for a DOW in 1939.
a. How about if the Allies don't suffer the effectiveness-morale penalty if the Germans attack in bad weather (mud or snow)? I see the point of the penalty as the shock of the initial blitzkrieg.
b. Otherwise, I don't favor any changes just yet. The current stats are showing France usually falls in a somewhat historical timeframe, which makes sense - particularly because most players don't favor much help from the British. Since there don't seem to be major problems, why make any significant modifications? That said, I previously indicated that I did favor DOW on Holland also bringing Belgium into the war. I still think this makes sense - but it will help the Allies a bit.
18. Create a separate Commonwealth force if UK surrenders. All British forces outside of the Mediterranean would disappear but not the British and Commonwealth forces in North Africa and Iraq. This way the Iraqi oilfields wouldn´t be so easy targets for axis forces if the UK surrenders.
a. Yes, same as 13 &14 to tighten up loop holes to political and DoW's and attacks on countries.
19. The advanced weather in CNaW such as storms would be a nice addition. Where you have storm/clouds over hexes air attacks of any kind would not be allowed.
a. Not now.
20. Plus to add more fog of war into the mix only the side who occupies the hexes can see what is there. The other side cannot.
a. For example: If on a turn each side can see Cherbourg, but France is currently occupied by the Axis player. The Allied player is ready to invade France and can see that Cherbourg has a German garrison and Paris is occupied by a German infantry corps. On the next turn a storm/cloud cover rolls in and hexes are now under the fog of war for the Allied player. The Axis player can see the hexes and rails in reinforcements to Cherbourg and Paris.
b. Now the very next turn the storm/cloud cover has passed and the Allied player sees the reinforcements. Now the Allied player needs to make a decision. Possible attack with airpower for a few turns before the invasion hoping that another storm doesn't roll in any time too soon.
c. I like the idea for advanced weather, although when dealing with turns that encompass twenty days at a time, the loss of intelligence due to weather could have some unexpectedly harsh results. Still, if we look at this as an abstraction of a real-world situation, I think it could work surprisingly well. As with so many of the other great additions to CEAW-GS, the only way to be sure if something will work is to implement it and play-test it to death.
d. Not now.
21. A less variable random-research option.
22. Probabilistic Russian and USA entry.
a. This means that Russia and USA entry is more random than it is now. They could separately be tied to certain events and / or have a probability distribution that’s tied to certain events and year.
23. A change in convoy movement.
a. The route taken is more random in movement (not a straight line). The time is usually 5 to 6 games turns so there is room for more movement without taking more turns.
b. Subs do not impede convoy movement. Regular naval ship movement can be stopped. In the case of convoys the convoys take damage while it moves, depending on the distance from Uboats like Fighter interception. The Convoys could keep the same movement or it reduces the total distance by some amount of hexes. Or if convoy is stopped by a sub the next turn the convoy gets to move a number of hexes before it could be stopped again. This might be useful in a Pacific type setting.
24. FoW for naval taskforces. Maybe in the game logic we can produce random sightings of naval forces. Right now you see everything all the time. So on the Axis turn he may not see a nearby Allied taskforce. On the Allied turn the German taskforce may or may not be sighted if sighted the allies could move to intercept or launch Air attacks from a carrier. If the carrier launches an attack it is automatically visible for that turn and the very next. This will definitely be needed for a Pacific simulation. Where the CEAW is the test bed.
25. The Allies don't suffer the effectiveness-morale penalty if the Germans attack Holland or Belgium in bad weather (mud or snow)? I see the point of the penalty as the shock of the initial blitzkrieg.
26. Upgrade units even if they're adjacent to enemy units.
a. I think it should be allowed the upgrades in the front line because a unit that is fighting in the front line may receive a new technology (e.g. let´s think in the german tanks) without having to leave the front line. One armoured german unit can receive tigers instead of the current PZ IV without any move from the front line.
b. My only comment would be that I dont like the upgrade of units in the front line. In fact I am not a huge fan of repairing while in the front line.
c. Personally, I feel that repairing units on the front lines is must. Otherwise; it would be too easy to capture front line cities and / or forts. I personally agree with NOT allowing upgrades of front line units. Personally I feel it's more historical to have to pull a unit from the front line in order to upgrade it versus sending replacement in to reinforce (i.e., repair) it. So my vote is to keep it as is.
27. Rail units that are adjacent to enemy units.
a. In respect with the rail moves I also agree with freedom from moving the units from the front line and not only to the front line. We have rail move restrictions and cannot be afraid of any abuse on this.

Just one point from someone who hasn't even played the game...

No 5 Paratroops - In reality, Airborne operations in WW2 had strictly limited objectives and in many cases even eventually successful operations such as the Battle of Crete and Operation Varsity saw relatively heavy casualties for the attacking forces. In many simulations Airborne Units can take and hold entire enemy cities in a single turn, making a mockery of the historical accuracy of such sims. Airborne divisions should only be used for small scale operations such as attacking fortresses or establishing bridgeheads on the flanks or slightly behind enemy lines, not as 'H -Bombs' that can capture heavily populated cities and cripple the supply lines of entire fronts.

Their designation as 'elite' forces also causes ridiculous situations like single Airborne Divisions being able to defeat large Armoured formations whereas in real life they had little anti tank capability and only off-screen artlllery or airborne tankbusting support should allow them to hold out for long in such a situation.