Slitherine

The report regarding to the reform of the product quantity limited of the specify units which need engine & fuel


Recently , there is a great disagreement regarding to the production limited to the specify units( German’s armor & USSR’s mech). The way which be issued in the patch 2.01.05 is to punish the over limit unit’s additional fuel cost & PP ., sothat to control the scale of the blob. But this method is really lack of evidence in history ,physics ,& military logistics . It will break the player’s understanding of history & realize . It is not fit for the aim of the Ceaw GS .

So ,we provide a big reform suggestion to this topic as follows ;

We want to introduce a new concept into the game which named Engine Exponential (EE), & use this to solve the Bloc problem .

EE is represent for a country’s industry power to manufacture & keep in good repair the engine & relative machine used by all auto, plane, ships & warships.

EE is an independent concept from the PP . To build any unit should cost this EE points except INF, GAR & General .

EE data is similar with rail transport point, is related to the special industrial cities such as Ruhr ,Kharkiv, stalingrad & many US cites like New york & Boston. But the cities like Brest ,Copenhagen should have no EE or less EE.

EE is similar to PP & Fuel . it could be accumulate .

Axis & Allies get EE each turn , they have three method to increase the EE

1 conquer the city which have EE ability , so that to increase the total output of EE.

Ip : if axis conquer London, GB will lose the EE from London ,& Axis get it step by step from 0


2 The EE will grow up with war efficience

3 To develop the industry in the tac reserch of general war . it will provide a fix number of EE whenever the industry upgrade .


We use EE in three field :

1 bulid new tac unit . eg : Mech need 5 point ,Armor need 8 point , fighter need 10 point,

tac need 11 point , DD need 6 point ,BB need 8 point ,sub need 6 point ,CV need 10 point ..etc




2 maintain the tac unit’s move & fight .

whenever the unit move or attack , it should cost 1-2 point of EE for the replacement of the damage engine . It will cost one more point when it is happened in Russia & Africa .

3 when supply it would cost the same percentage of EE as the percentage of supply

ip : if a full supply 5 steps armor ,it will cost 50%* 8 =4 EE after supply to 10 steps



When the player run out of the EE , we have 2 choices :

1 similar to the landing & sea transportation rules ,it will be punished by PP .

2 same as the fuel , player could not build any new tac unit , can not supply any tac unit .

To supply the minor country’s tac unit also cost EE .


Finally , we believe the introdution of EE concept ,will play a better role to simulate the tac troop’s manufacture & operation in WW2 .It will also sucessfully solve the problems cause by the Armor & Mech blob .


China GS Group

I don't like this solution at all, if you ask me. It have nothing to do with player building only tanks - he will suffer no penalty, because he save this points when not building any other unit, whicn need this points.
This system don't encourage player to build realistic-organised balanced army at all.
ALL powers in real war built balanced army, not a "blob". And they have very strong reason for it. Same should be in game, since wargame is first of all simulation of history.

Idea of GS team about type unit limits is not unlogical. You can produce X planes and Y tanks in given time because you have X aircraft plants and Y tank plants, and you can't build tanks on aircraft plant.

Thats my point of wiev.

I assume this is a largely theoretical discussion, given that to make this type of change would require substantial alterations to the coding of the game. However, whilst I take the points made by Plaid, I do think that there is considerable merit in the concept of having mechanical maintenance in a game.

Clearly one of the issues facing Commanders in any conflict is the fact that their total mechanical strength is never available to them because of breakdowns, lack of spares etc. A significant proportion of a warring country's industrial output is involved in maintenance and it would seem to be a positive step to recognize this issue as a game factor. Can't see this being done in CEAW though.

Bern

Bern wrote:... I do think that there is considerable merit in the concept of having mechanical maintenance in a game.

Clearly one of the issues facing Commanders in any conflict is the fact that their total mechanical strength is never available to them because of breakdowns, lack of spares etc. A significant proportion of a warring country's industrial output is involved in maintenance and it would seem to be a positive step to recognize this issue as a game factor. Can't see this being done in CEAW though.

Bern

Reliability and maninteance are already represented in the game by effectiveness, which is the precentage of your force ready to fight. When your unit is on the move or in constant combat it's effectiveness drops. If; however, your unit is in place for some turns before you use it your effectiveness is at a maximum. So if you're effectiveness is at 70; then 70% of the remaining strength of that unit is ready to fight. The other 30%, if an armor or mech unit for example, can be thought of as in mainteance or unavailable for combat due to breakdowns.

IN my opinion EE is redundant to PP. It is the basically the same, and you could be doing something to the same effect just ny making higher the cost of mechanical units, and as Palid posted, it would not solve the problem of unbalanced armies.

rkr1958 wrote:

Bern wrote:... I do think that there is considerable merit in the concept of having mechanical maintenance in a game.

Clearly one of the issues facing Commanders in any conflict is the fact that their total mechanical strength is never available to them because of breakdowns, lack of spares etc. A significant proportion of a warring country's industrial output is involved in maintenance and it would seem to be a positive step to recognize this issue as a game factor. Can't see this being done in CEAW though.

Bern

Reliability and maninteance are already represented in the game by effectiveness, which is the precentage of your force ready to fight. When your unit is on the move or in constant combat it's effectiveness drops. If; however, your unit is in place for some turns before you use it your effectiveness is at a maximum. So if you're effectiveness is at 70; then 70% of the remaining strength of that unit is ready to fight. The other 30%, if an armor or mech unit for example, can be thought of as in mainteance or unavailable for combat due to breakdowns.

I take your point but would suggest there is a further consideration here. That is national industrial output to support the war effort. In the game these are represented by PPs. Certainly in the UK, a significant proportion of manufacturing output went on not producing new 'units' but on the production of spare parts etc to keep existing 'units' going. I take it that the original poster was proposing a means of simulating this. Again, in terms of CEAW, this would seem to be purely theoretical.

Bern

Bern wrote:I take your point but would suggest there is a further consideration here. That is national industrial output to support the war effort. In the game these are represented by PPs. Certainly in the UK, a significant proportion of manufacturing output went on not producing new 'units' but on the production of spare parts etc to keep existing 'units' going. I take it that the original poster was proposing a means of simulating this. Again, in terms of CEAW, this would seem to be purely theoretical.

Bern

Well you have that in GS in the forms of research (e.g., general -> organization), upgrades and repairs. An air unit from 1939 that's never been upgraded won't last too long against one at maximum tech in 1945. One can argue that the upgrades made a unit along the way represents the cost to keep a unit going (i.e., maintained) and equipped with new technology.

rkr1958 wrote:

Bern wrote:I take your point but would suggest there is a further consideration here. That is national industrial output to support the war effort. In the game these are represented by PPs. Certainly in the UK, a significant proportion of manufacturing output went on not producing new 'units' but on the production of spare parts etc to keep existing 'units' going. I take it that the original poster was proposing a means of simulating this. Again, in terms of CEAW, this would seem to be purely theoretical.

Bern

Well you have that in GS in the forms of research (e.g., general -> organization), upgrades and repairs. An air unit from 1939 that's never been upgraded won't last too long against one at maximum tech in 1945. One can argue that the upgrades made a unit along the way represents the cost to keep a unit going (i.e., maintained) and equipped with new technology.

Actually I believe that this is quite an interesting area. One of the larger issues facing each nation in war is what proportion of their productive capacity is devoted to new units and what is devoted to spares, repairs etc.

I suppose it could be argued that the choice of spending PPs on research as you say rather than on producing new units goes some way to simulating such decision. OK, I'll shut up now.

Bern

Bern wrote:Actually I believe that this is quite an interesting area. One of the larger issues facing each nation in war is what proportion of their productive capacity is devoted to new units and what is devoted to spares, repairs etc.

I suppose it could be argued that the choice of spending PPs on research as you say rather than on producing new units goes some way to simulating such decision. OK, I'll shut up now.

Bern

No need for that.

All comments of this nature are welcomed. We encouraged spirited and respectable debate, which all this was.